Search research

Current LLM evaluation relies on two complementary but often disconnected signals: static benchmarks with objective correctness labels and arena-style preference data that better reflect open-ended user interactions. We introduce DualEval, a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space, jointly estimating model ability together with item difficulty and sharpness. We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries. Our evaluation uses 18 frontier LLMs, static benchmark labels, and reward-model scores validated against held-out human preferences for open-ended model responses. Empirically, our framework produces reliable and balanced model rankings, and its learned item-level profiles support downstream applications such as benchmark compression for sample-efficient evaluation and anomaly detection for contamination or outlier analysis. Overall, DualEval unifies static and arena-style evaluation through joint model-item calibration, producing model rankings and item-level diagnostics that support more sample-efficient, interpretable, and auditable evaluation pipelines.

Explaining and understanding the decision-making process of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly those implemented by neural networks, falls within the field of explainable AI (XAI). Analogous to the human attention mechanism, neural networks are assumed to possess their own attention mechanisms that selectively process information during decision-making. This work proposes to study one XAI topic: analysing and visualising the attention mechanisms of neural networks. Our experiments are performed on speaker recognition neural networks that are trained to identify speaker identity from a given utterance. Previous studies have widely used class activation map (CAM)-based methods to analyse and visualise the attention mechanisms of neural networks. Each of these methods produces an attention map for each network input, highlighting which input regions are selectively processed when the speaker recognition network makes decisions. However, the evaluation of attention maps produced by these methods remains largely underexplored. This work systematically reviews an existing attention map evaluation algorithm, establishing key concepts and identifying its shortcomings. On the basis of this existing evaluation algorithm, a new version is then proposed to address the identified shortcomings, called the Modified Randomised Input Sampling for Explanation - Evaluation algorithm (Modified RISE-eval). Using Modified RISE-eval, we evaluate the attention maps produced by two representative CAM-based methods, GradCAM and LayerCAM, applied to a certain speaker recognition network. The evaluation results demonstrate that GradCAM and LayerCAM each exhibit distinct advantages when applied under different experimental conditions in the speaker recognition task.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in fine-grained translation quality evaluation (QE), yet existing MQM-based approaches typically rely on fixed rubric configurations shared across all translation samples. However, translation instances often differ substantially in error complexity, ambiguity, and required evaluation granularity, making static rubric allocation suboptimal for span-level error detection. We find that larger MQM subtype spaces improve error coverage but also introduce more false positives, while different translation instances prefer different rubric granularities, suggesting that evaluation spaces should be allocated dynamically for each case. Motivated by these observations, we propose a case-specific dynamic rubric framework that adaptively constructs MQM evaluation spaces for individual translation instances. Unlike fully free-form rubric generation methods, our framework remains grounded in the predefined MQM taxonomy while dynamically selecting suitable subtype spaces and evaluation granularity for different cases. Experiments on WMT span-level QE benchmarks across multiple model scales demonstrate that the proposed framework consistently improves MCC and produces cleaner span-level error localization compared with static rubric settings. Our results suggest that combining structured MQM rubrics with case-specific adaptive allocation is an effective strategy for fine-grained LLM-based translation evaluation.

AI evaluations are shifting toward harder tasks that benefit from longer trajectories involving tool use and iterative problem solving. As a result, performance is increasingly sensitive to the amount and allocation of compute available at test time ("inference compute"). Yet many evaluations still report performance at a single restrictive budget, meaning that low scores may reflect the evaluation setup rather than the model's underlying capability. To test this, we evaluate up to 12 frontier language models on seven challenging benchmarks spanning software engineering, mathematics, medicine, and cybersecurity. We use a controlled setup combining three simple inference-scaling interventions: larger token budgets, context compaction, and repeated submission attempts, guided either by the model itself or by minimal correctness feedback. We find three main results. First, larger token budgets substantially improve performance on benchmarks across multiple domains, including cybersecurity, FrontierMath, Humanity's Last Exam, and TerminalBench. Second, fixed-budget evaluations can increasingly understate frontier capability as models advance. Newer models reach higher performance at large budgets, where they unlock harder tasks and solve them more reliably. Third, benchmarks differ in which inference-scaling methods help most: repeated submission broadly improves performance, but the value of larger token budgets, external feedback, and parallel attempts varies by benchmark. Overall, our results show that benchmark scores are protocol-dependent. We therefore argue that evaluations should report capability as a function of inference-time compute, specify protocol choices explicitly, and compare model generations over a large shared compute range at matched budgets, especially in safety- or policy-relevant settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evolving from simple text-based interaction systems into LLM agents that can maintain memory, use tools, access external environments, and execute tasks. As their capabilities and autonomy expand, the safety risks they face also become more diverse. Existing evaluations often rely on manually written scenarios, static prompts, or final-output judgments, making it difficult to capture the diverse risks that agents may face during task execution. We introduce ForesightSafety-SAGE, a fully automated scenario generation and safety evaluation framework for LLM agents. Based on five risk dimensions,we instantiae abstract and diverse safety risks in real-world task execution into 1,072 measurable evaluation scenarios. Using the automated evaluation pipeline, 12 LLM agents are evaluated under two authority contexts. The results show that current agents still face substantial behavioral safety risks during task execution, with an average ASR of 47.1% and several models exceeding 70%. These findings demonstrate the importance of executable, process-level evaluation for understanding and improving LLM agent safety.

Large Language Model (LLM) safety has often been evaluated at the behavior level, which provides limited evidence of internal robustness, as these evaluations target outputs rather than representation-level vulnerability under intervention. We formalize this discrepancy as the audit gap: the difference between behavioral safety and robustness under intervention. To study this gap, we construct dissociated models that preserve safe outward behavior while remaining vulnerable in the latent space. We introduce an intervention-based evaluation framework to test model robustness through soft interventions in parameter and latent spaces, including harmful fine-tuning and layer-wise latent perturbations. To formalize the evaluation, we propose the Latent Vulnerability Score (LVS) to measure how easily harmful behavior can be elicited by bounded latent perturbations. Using this evaluation framework, we show that behavioral safety metrics are insufficient measures of representation-level robustness across multiple safely and unsafely aligned state-of-the-art models. Notably, dissociated models show substantially elevated LVSs despite comparable refusal behavior under harmful intervention, with intermediate representations being the most sensitive to intervention. Our results suggest that behavioral safety evaluation alone provides an incomplete picture of model robustness, motivating representation-aware audits of latent vulnerability and observable behavior.

Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text. However, the reliability and reproducibility of these evaluations depend on transparent and well-documented protocols -- details that are frequently missing in current practice. In this work, we conduct a large-scale analysis of human evaluation protocols for evaluating long-form generation tasks in *CL conference publications from 2023--2025, including a full manual review of 284 papers and LLM-assisted analysis for another 1.8k+ papers. We define a set of 20 reportable criteria related to reproducibility of human evaluation studies, and apply these criteria to systematically examine reporting norms and practices within the community. We find widespread under-reporting of important aspects of human evaluation study design, leading to ambiguity about what was measured and how, who contributed judgments, and how judgments should be interpreted. Based on these findings, we outline actionable recommendations to support more transparent and reproducible reporting in future research. Our analysis code and annotated dataset can be found at: https://github.com/larchlab/Illusions-of-the-Gold-Standard

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies operate in a closed loop in real-world robot tasks: a robot observes the scene, executes an action chunk, and conditions its next decision on the resulting observation. However, most existing world models for robot action evaluation are limited to open-loop prediction along pre-collected action trajectories. This prevents them from supporting closed-loop VLA evaluation, where each action chunk must be conditioned on the observation generated by the previous execution. To address this gap, we propose PiL-World, a chunk-wise world model designed for policy-in-the-loop VLA evaluation. Given the current observation and the action trajectory rolled out by a VLA policy, PiL-World generates multi-view future observations that are consistent with the VLA rollout and match the image inputs required by the policy. By alternating between VLA inference and world-model prediction, PiL-World enables closed-loop evaluation without real robot execution at every step. To improve rollout fidelity, PiL-World conditions video generation on action-derived visual control from head-view robot motion and latent histories that encode task execution context, while jointly predicting complementary multi-view observations. Beyond successful teleoperated demonstrations, it also learns from failed execution trajectories, helping the imagined rollouts better match the distribution of real policy executions. We evaluate PiL-World on three real dual-arm manipulation tasks. PiL-World generates imagined rollouts that are highly consistent with real robot executions. More importantly, compared with the baseline, it reduces the error between VLA success rates measured in real-world rollouts and those estimated through closed-loop world-model evaluation from 63.2% to 12.0%.

Evaluating large language model (LLM) agents in multi-turn interactive environments is expensive and risky, as it requires online environment interaction. We propose ADWM (Autoregressive Diffusion World Model), an evaluation framework that estimates the performance of a new LLM agent policy purely from pre-collected trajectories. The core idea is to learn a latent diffusion world model that simulates how the environment responds to the evaluation policy, without ever executing it in the real environment. Existing diffusion-based OPE methods guide full trajectories in a single pass by jointly diffusing states and actions, an assumption that breaks down for LLM agents whose actions are discrete text that must be sampled from the policy after observing the environment. Unlike autoregressive world models that suffer from compounding errors, ADWM models each transition as an independent denoising process, enabling reliable step-by-step rollouts where the world model and agent alternate in causal order. Crucially, the LLM agent under evaluation directly guides the diffusion generation at each step via a policy-conditioned score function, ensuring that simulated trajectories accurately reflect its decision-making patterns. Empirically, ADWM achieves accurate value estimates and evaluation reliability across diverse multi-turn agent tasks, demonstrating its promise as a practical framework for offline LLM agent evaluation.

Sign Language Translation (SLT) is typically evaluated with surface-form metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE, which reward lexical overlap but do not directly measure whether a translation preserves the meaning of the source sign sequence. This is in contrast with the final objective of integrating SLT in assistive technology. In this work, we shift the focus from Sign Language Translation (SLT) to Sign Language Understanding (SLU), with particular emphasis on semantic understanding. Specifically, we evaluate systems based on their ability to correctly recover, from the input video, key semantic aspects of the original sentence, such as actions taking place and facts about people and objects. To enable this evaluation systematically, we propose SLU-2K, a dataset of 2,350 closed-ended video question-answer pairs based on the popular PHOENIX-2014T and CSL-Daily datasets. To obtain SLU-2K, we propose and extensively evaluate an automated data generation pipeline which produces questions across 7 categories, namely actions, locations, numbers, objects, people, time, and weather conditions. We show the potential of SLU-2K by evaluating popular Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and two representative state-of-the-art systems, MMSTL and SpaMo. Our results show that MLLMs reach near-random performance, highlighting the need for a more systematic integration of SLU in current AI systems. Furthermore, state-of-the-art translation systems carefully fine-tuned on in-domain data still exhibit a substantial semantic gap, with results ranging from 56.7% to 75.2%. These findings suggest that current SLT evaluation protocols overestimate true understanding and that future progress should be measured not only by fluency and n-gram overlap, but also by semantic correctness. Code, prompts, and benchmark files are available at https://github.com/ZenoTsT/SLU-2K

Enterprise AI systems that translate natural language into SQL queries and orchestrate multi-step agentic reasoning pipelines require evaluation approaches fundamentally different from academic benchmarks. Spider and BIRD established execution-accuracy protocols; G-Eval and RAGAS advanced LLM-based assessment; and recent work such as Spider 2.0, BEAVER, and BIRD-Interact has begun to address enterprise and agentic dimensions. No single framework unifies text-to-SQL assessment with agentic behavior evaluation into a production-grade pipeline calibrated against human expert judgment. We present BADGER, developed at Merkle, a unified evaluation framework integrating text-to-SQL assessment with agentic behavior evaluation. BADGER offers three contributions. First, LLM-assisted SQL component extraction extending Spider methodology to handle CTE-heavy, dialect-specific SQL. Second, a hybrid execution accuracy metric (Hybrid-EX) resolving column-aliasing and numeric-tolerance brittleness by using an LLM to infer structural alignments before deterministic cell-level scoring. Validated on 150 human-annotated industry queries, Hybrid-EX achieves Cohen's kappa=0.717 [95% CI: 0.600-0.822] (Substantial agreement) and 87.3% balanced accuracy, outperforming all six competing frameworks (Delta-kappa: 0.322-0.502, all p<=0.001). Third, an enterprise agentic evaluation suite assembling RAGAS, G-Eval, and agent benchmark metrics into a unified pipeline; Excess Tool Usage is the sole novel element. BADGER runs entirely within the client's governed data environment, supports configurable LLM judge backends, and enables rapid prototyping of client-specific judges and metrics, serving as a continuous evaluation backbone rather than a one-time quality gate.

Studies of human reasoning have shown that people are typically stronger at evaluating reasoning than producing it from scratch. In contrast, large reasoning models (LRMs) are trained to excel at producing long chains of reasoning to solve complex problems. How then do LRMs perform at evaluating reasons? We investigate this with the Valid-Answer-Invalid-Reasoning (VAIR) dataset: math problems and solutions with trivial reasoning flaws but valid answers, designed to isolate reasoning evaluation from the confound of reasoning production. Unlike humans, who we find are only 6% worse at grading than solving such problems, we find a substantial production-evaluation gap in LRMs: frontier models score as low as 48% when evaluating VAIR solutions, despite near-perfect solution production. Why this enigma? Through chain-of-thought (CoT) analysis, we find evidence of an answer confirmation bias: LRMs often produce then check for the correct answer instead of carefully verifying each step, fabricating rationalizations even when noticing anomalous reasoning. Linear probes corroborate this, showing that while LRM activations encode some representation of valid reasoning, they fail to robustly represent VAIR solutions as invalid. Causal patching of the final answer's representations causes LRM verdicts and activations to flip, demonstrating that answer validity is responsible for models' confirmation biases. These findings indicate an outstanding limitation in dominant approaches to reasoning training, which incentivize LRMs to produce and confirm reasoning towards correct answers, but not to robustly evaluate the underlying reasons.

GP-GOMEA is a state-of-the-art evolutionary algorithm for symbolic regression, known for discovering small and interpretable models. However, its computational cost remains substantial, limiting its applicability to larger datasets and more complex target expressions. In contrast, the rise of modern subsymbolic approaches, particularly deep learning, has been driven largely by the massive parallelism offered by GPUs. In this work, we take the first major step toward a fully GPU-accelerated GP-GOMEA by introducing a GPU-based fitness evaluation scheme. We design a GPU-friendly representation of GP-GOMEA's template-based individuals and a corresponding evaluation strategy that exploits the inherent parallelism of population-based search. This substantially increases evaluation throughput, enabling orders of magnitude more evaluations within the same time budget. Across four standard symbolic regression benchmarks, this increased evaluation capacity yields performance improvements, particularly for larger datasets and larger population sizes. Moreover, the ability to efficiently evaluate much larger datasets and more complex templates enables analyses that were previously infeasible, allowing us to systematically analyze what makes expressions increasingly difficult for GP-GOMEA, providing new insights into how expression structure affects search difficulty. Finally, for the first time, this expanded capability allows a problem-agnostic evolutionary algorithm to reliably regress one of the largest Feynman equations within four hours.

Honeypots are decoy systems mimicking real system components designed to defend against cyber attacks. Recently, LLMs increasingly serve as simulation backbones for honeypots. They enable defenders to construct high-interaction honeypots with low system security risks. However, LLM-powered honeypot development lacks a unified evaluation framework. Most evaluations consist of measuring response similarity on fixed commands, manual testing, or real-world deployment. These methods are often not scalable for development, reproducible across evaluations, representative of practical attacks, or adaptable to various attacker and honeypot configurations. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose Honeyval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for LLM-powered HTTP honeypots. We address the limitations of prior evaluations by grounding the honeypots in 16 backend applications, using AI hacking agents as attackers, employing two control tasks to monitor agent and honeypot capabilities across customizations, and defining clear and verifiable exploit goals for the attacker. Using Honeyval, we conduct an extensive evaluation of recent cost-efficient LLMs as HTTP honeypots. Our experiments highlight the promise of LLM-powered honeypots; they lead to substantially longer interactions with the attacker than rule-based baseline honeypots and are far less frequently detected even by frontier models, all while, on average, preserving a running cost advantage against agentic attackers. Further, we experiment with different counter-offensive honeypots configurations, and observe unique trade-offs, such as longer interactions at the cost of increased detection.

With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important. However, human-likeness is a form of tacit knowledge that humans perceive intuitively, yet the underlying criteria resist explicit formulation. Human judgments vary widely, with strong agreement on some cases and legitimate disagreement on others. Meanwhile, the criteria behind human judgments remain implicit, leaving no clear basis for constructing cases. Further, what counts as human-likeness is not static, but evolving with model capability and human expectations. Despite progress in evaluation methods such as expert-authored benchmarks, Reward Models, and self-evolving benchmarks, none addresses all three challenges simultaneously. Therefore, we propose GrowLoop, a self-evolving conversation evaluation system that continuously adapts as models advance and scenarios shift. Starting from minimal human seed annotations, LLM agents iteratively extract and refine evaluation rubrics through Heuristic Learning. Human-AI agreement is required where annotators converge, while only plausibility is expected where they diverge. Moreover, the Rubric-Case co-evolution mechanism enables continuous evolution. When the evaluation target shifts, new human seeds expand the system's coverage accordingly. When applied to human-likeness evaluation in open-ended conversation, the AI judge guided by these rubrics not only substantially outperforms existing methods in alignment with human judgments, but also uncovers issues that annotators overlook. The resulting benchmark effectively discriminates models across capability tiers and reveals where they fall short, while generalizing to new scenarios and adapting as models advance. Our work shifts the benchmarking paradigm from manual updates or difficulty scaling to comprehensive, continuous self-evolution.

Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation has changed dramatically since 1990, and will continue to evolve in the future. In 1990, when NLG had close ties to linguistics, there was very little formal experimental evaluation in the modern sense. In 2026, when NLG is closely linked to machine learning, experimental evaluation is expected and indeed fundamental to research. Many evaluation techniques were developed over this period, including most recently LLM-as-Judge. I expect NLG evaluation will continue to evolve in the future. In particular, impact, qualitative, and safety evaluation will become more important as large numbers of people routinely use NLG technology.

Despite the growing use of world models as decision-making agents, their adversarial robustness remains underexplored due to the lack of dedicated automated evaluation methods. A key obstacle is that attack evaluation must be both accurate and efficient: weak manually tuned attacks can overestimate robustness, while exhaustive hyperparameter search is prohibitively expensive because each candidate requires closed-loop rollouts through learned latent dynamics. We introduce WMAttack, an automated attack-search framework for adversarial evaluation of world-model agents. WMAttack formulates robustness evaluation as a finite-budget search over attack configurations, including attack families, perturbation budgets, optimization steps, restarts, and allocation rules. To improve search accuracy, Self-Correcting Attack Search (SCAS) refines the attack proposal distribution using feedback from reward degradation, action instability, runtime cost, and rollout variability. To improve search efficiency, Representation-Guided Attack Retrieval (RGAR) retrieves effective historical configurations from representation-similar tasks, providing a warm start for unseen environments. We provide a theoretical explanation showing that proposal refinement improves finite-budget search when it shifts probability mass toward high-utility attacks. Across Atari and DeepMind Control tasks, WMAttack consistently discovers stronger attacks than the evaluated baselines, improving normalized reward drop from 0.497 to 1.034 on DreamerV3 Atari and from 0.319 to 0.682 on DMC. Ablations further show that RGAR improves initial candidate quality and SCAS improves final attack utility under fixed evaluation budgets.

Today, tool-calling agents are commonly evaluated or tested on static datasets of execution traces, including input commands, agent responses, and associated tool calls. However, internal production datasets are often insufficient or unusable for testing; for example, they may contain sensitive or proprietary data, or they may be too sparse to support comprehensive testing (especially pre-deployment). In these settings, practitioners are increasingly replacing or augmenting real datasets with synthetic ones for evaluation purposes. A key challenge is quantifying the relation between these synthetic datasets and the real data. We introduce SynAE, an evaluation framework for assessing how well synthetic benchmarks for multi-turn, tool-calling agents replicate and augment the characteristics of real data trajectories. SynAE assesses the validity, fidelity, and diversity of synthetic data across four metric categories: (i) task instructions and intermediate responses, (ii) tool calls, (iii) final outputs, and (iv) downstream evaluation. We evaluate SynAE using recent agent benchmarks and test common synthetic data failure modes via realistic and controlled generation schemes. SynAE detects fine-grained variations in data validity, fidelity and diversity, and shows that no single metric is sufficient to fully characterize synthetic data quality, motivating a multi-axis evaluation of synthetic data for agent testing. A demo of SynAE is available at https://synae-2026-synae-demo.static.hf.space/index.html, with code at https://github.com/wsqwsq/SynAE.

Benchmark-based evaluation remains important for tracking frontier AI progress. But it can both overstate and understate deployed capability because it privileges tasks that can be precisely specified, automatically graded, easy to optimize for, and run with low budgets and short time horizons. We advocate for a complementary class of evaluations, which we term open-world evaluations: long-horizon, messy, real-world tasks assessed through small-sample qualitative analysis rather than benchmark-scale automation. In this paper we survey recent open-world evaluations, identify their strengths and limitations, and introduce CRUX (Collaborative Research for Updating AI eXpectations), a project for conducting such evaluations regularly. As a first instance, we task an AI agent with developing and publishing a simple iOS application to the Apple App Store. The agent completed the task with only a single avoidable manual intervention, suggesting that open-world evaluations can provide early warning of capabilities that may soon become widespread. We conclude with recommendations for designing and reporting open-world evals.

Video generation is rapidly evolving from single-shot synthesis to complex multi-shot audio-video (MSAV) narratives to meet real-world demands. However, evaluating such frontier models remains a fundamental challenge. Existing benchmarks are limited in scope and data diversity, and rely on rigid evaluation pipelines, preventing systematic and reliable assessment of modern MSAV models. To bridge these gaps, we introduce MSAVBench, the first comprehensive benchmark and adaptive hybrid evaluation framework for multi-shot audio-video generation. Our benchmark spans four key dimensions, video, audio, shot, and reference, covering diverse task settings, varying shot counts of up to 15, and challenging non-realistic scenarios. Our evaluation framework improves robustness through an adaptive self-correction mechanism for shot segmentation, instance-wise rubrics for subjective metrics, and tool-grounded evidence extraction for complex judgments. Furthermore, MSAVBench achieves high alignment with human judgments, reaching a Spearman rank correlation of 91.5%. Our systematic evaluation of 19 state-of-the-art closed- and open-source models shows that current systems still struggle with director-level control and fine-grained audio-visual synchronization, while modular or agentic generation pipelines offer a promising path toward narrowing the gap between open- and closed-source models. The benchmark data and evaluation code are publicly available at https://github.com/ali-vilab/MSAVBench.

This article investigates the performance of automatic evaluation metrics (AEMs) and LLM-as-a-judge evaluation on literary translation across multiple languages, genres, and translation modalities. The aim is to assess how well these tools align with professionals when evaluating translation, creativity (creative shifts & errors), and see if they can substitute laborious manual annotations. A dataset of literary translations across three modalities (human translation, machine translation, and post-editing), three genres and three language pairs was created and annotated in detail for creativity by experienced professional literary translators. The results show that both AEMs and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations correlate poorly with professional evaluations on creativity, with LLM-as-a-judge showing a systematic bias in favour of machine-translated texts and penalising creative and culturally appropriate solutions. Moreover, performance is consistently worse for more literary genres such as poetry. This highlights fundamental limitations of current automatic evaluation tools for literary translation and the need to create new tools that do not frequently consider out of routine translations as errors.

Robotic manipulation is typically evaluated by task success, but successful completion does not guarantee safe execution. Many safety failures are temporal: a robot may touch a clean surface after contamination or release an object before it is fully inside an enclosure. We introduce SafeManip, a property-driven benchmark to explicitly evaluate temporal safety properties in robotic manipulation, moving beyond prior evaluations that largely focus on task completion or per-state constraint violations. SafeManip defines reusable safety templates over finite executions using Linear Temporal Logic over finite traces (LTLf). It maps observed rollouts to symbolic predicate traces and evaluates them with LTLf-based monitors. Its property suite covers eight manipulation safety categories: collision and contact safety, grasp stability, release stability, cross-contamination, action onset, mechanism recovery, object containment, and enclosure access. Templates can be instantiated with task-specific objects, fixtures, regions, or skills, allowing the same safety specifications to generalize across tasks and environments. We evaluate SafeManip on six vision-language-action policies, including $π_0$, $π_{0.5}$, GR00T, and their training variants, across 50 RoboCasa365 household tasks. Results show that even strong models often behave unsafely. Task-success gains do not reliably translate into safer execution: many successful rollouts remain unsafe, while longer-horizon or more complex tasks expose more violations. SafeManip provides a reusable evaluation layer for diagnosing temporal safety failures and measuring safe success beyond task completion.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) today rests on fixed benchmarks that apply the same set of items to any model, producing ceiling and floor effects that mask capability gaps. We argue that the most informative evaluation signal lies at the boundary, where the per-prompt pass probability is near $0.5$ under random-sampling decoding, and propose Dynamic Boundary Evaluation (DBE), which actively locates each model's boundary and places it on a globally comparable difficulty scale. DBE delivers three artifacts: (i) a calibrated item bank covering safety, capability, and truthfulness, with per-item difficulty labels validated across $9$ reference LLMs; (ii) Skill-Guided Boundary Search (SGBS), a search algorithm that finds boundary items for a given target LLM using only API-level query access; and (iii) an evaluation protocol that places a new LLM on a unified ability scale and grows the evaluation set adaptively when the target falls outside the bank's coverage. We instantiate DBE on four categories spanning safety (harmful request refusal and over-refusal), capability (constrained instruction following), and truthfulness (multi-turn sycophancy resistance). The resulting evaluation covers a broader model spectrum without saturation while remaining compatible with existing datasets.

Alignment evaluation in machine learning has largely become evaluation of models. Influential benchmarks score model outputs under fixed inputs, such as truthfulness, instruction following, or pairwise preference, and these scores are often used to support claims about deployed alignment. This paper argues that deployment-relevant alignment cannot be inferred from model-level evaluation alone. Alignment claims should instead be indexed to the level at which evidence is collected: model-level, response-level, interaction-level, or deployment-level. Two studies support this position. First, a structured audit of eleven alignment benchmarks, extended to a sixteen-benchmark corpus, dual-coded against an eight-dimension rubric with Cohen's kappa = 0.87, finds that user-facing verification support is absent across every benchmark examined, while process steerability is nearly absent. The few interactional benchmarks identified, including tau-bench, CURATe, Rifts, and Common Ground, remain fragmented in coverage, and benchmark construction rather than data source determines what is measured. Second, a blinded cross-model stress test using 180 transcripts across three frontier models and four scaffolds finds that the same verification scaffold raises one model's verification support to ceiling while leaving another categorically unchanged. This shows that scaffold efficacy is model-dependent and that the gap identified by the audit cannot be closed at the model level alone. We propose a system-level evaluation agenda: alignment profiles instead of single scores, fixed-scaffolding protocols for comparable interactional evaluation, and reporting templates that make the inferential distance between evaluation evidence and deployment claims explicit.

Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in {yes, partial, no}, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes.

Procedural Content Generation (PCG) enables game content to be created algorithmically without direct manual level-design effort, but it introduces a serious evaluation problem: generated content may become unbalanced, blocked, repetitive, or technically unsolvable. This paper presents Momentum, an endless-runner game that integrates runtime terrain generation, environment object spawning, and autonomous agent-based evaluation into a single gameplay loop. Ground tiles and environmental objects are generated dynamically as the player advances, object placement follows a constraint-driven mechanism inspired by Wave Function Collapse (WFC), and the runtime navigation surface is rebuilt asynchronously to remain consistent with the streamed environment. Two autonomous evaluation agents move ahead of the player and inspect the generated path: an aerial scanner that examines the corridor geometrically, and a ground-traversal agent that validates the same region from a navigational perspective. The evaluation pipeline combines ray casting, volumetric physics sweeps, obstacle-layer filtering, and structured crash reporting to identify problematic generated scenarios before they reach the player. The work demonstrates how generation and validation can be unified within the same runtime loop, rather than treating evaluation as a separate offline pass. Around this implementation, the paper formulates a measurable evaluation framework along the canonical PCG axes of playability, diversity, controllability, and runtime performance, derives a structural saturation bound on the spawner from its own placement constraints, and quantifies the per-segment scanning cost of the agents from first principles.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly capable mathematical collaborators, but static benchmarks are no longer sufficient for evaluating progress: they are often narrow in scope, quickly saturated, and rarely updated. This makes it hard to compare models reliably and track progress over time. Instead, we need evaluation platforms: continuously maintained systems that run, aggregate, and analyze evaluations across many benchmarks to give a comprehensive picture of model performance within a broad domain. In this work, we build on the original MathArena benchmark by substantially broadening its scope from final-answer olympiad problems to a continuously maintained evaluation platform for mathematical reasoning with LLMs. MathArena now covers a much wider range of tasks, including proof-based competitions, research-level arXiv problems, and formal proof generation in Lean. Additionally, we maintain a clear evaluation protocol for all models and regularly design new benchmarks as model capabilities improve to ensure that MathArena remains challenging. Notably, the strongest model, GPT-5.5, now reaches 98% on the 2026 USA Math Olympiad and 74% on research-level questions, showing that frontier models can now comfortably solve extremely challenging mathematical problems. This highlights the importance of continuously maintained evaluation platforms like MathArena to track the rapid progress of LLMs in mathematical reasoning.

The need to evaluate instructional materials for K-12 science education has become increasingly important, as more educators use generative AI to create instructional materials. However, the review of instructional materials is time-consuming, expertise-intensive, and difficult to scale, motivating interest in automated evaluation approaches. While large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on general evaluation tasks, their performance and reliability on instructional materials remain unclear. To address this gap, we formulate Automatic Instructional Materials Evaluation (AIME) as a generative AI task that predicts scores and evidence using the rubric designed by the educator. We create a benchmark dataset and develop baseline models for AIME. First, we curate the first AIME dataset, SciEval, consisting of instructional materials annotated with pedagogy-aligned evaluation scores and evidence-based rationales. Expert annotations achieve high inter-rater reliability, resulting in a dataset of 273 lesson-level instructional materials evaluated across 13 criteria (N=3549) using the EQuIP rubric. Second, we test mainstream LLMs (GPT, Gemini, Llama, and Qwen) on SciEval and find that none achieve strong performance. Then we fine-tune Qwen3 on SciEval. Results on a held-out test set show that domain-aligned fine-tuning can achieve up to 11 percent performance gains, highlighting the importance of domain-specific fine-tuning for AIME and facilitating the use of LLMs in other educational tasks.

Evaluating layout-guided text-to-image generative models requires assessing both semantic alignment with textual prompts and spatial fidelity to prescribed layouts. Assessing layout alignment requires collecting fine-grained annotations, which is costly and labor-intensive. Consequently, current benchmarks rarely provide comprehensive layout evaluation and often remain limited in scale or coverage, making model comparison, ranking, and interpretation difficult. In this work, we introduce a closed-set benchmark (C-Bench) designed to isolate key generative capabilities while providing varying levels of complexity in both prompt structure and layout. To complement this controlled setting, we propose an open-set benchmark (O-Bench) that evaluates models using real-world prompts and layouts, offering a measure of semantic and spatial alignment in the wild. We further develop a unified evaluation protocol that combines semantic and spatial accuracy into a single score, ensuring consistent model ranking. Using our benchmarks, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of six state-of-the-art layout-guided diffusion models, totaling 319,086 generated and evaluated images. We establish a model ranking based on their overall performance and provide detailed breakdowns for text and layout alignment to enhance interpretability. Fine-grained analyses across scenarios and prompt complexities highlight the strengths and limitations of current models. Code is available at https://github.com/lparolari/cobench.

Evaluating long document summaries remains the primary bottleneck in summarization research. Existing metrics correlate weakly with human judgments and produce aggregate scores without explaining deficiencies or guiding improvement, preventing effective refinement in applications requiring verifiable accuracy. We introduce LongSumEval, a unified framework bridging evaluation and generation through structured question-answering feedback. The framework operationalizes summary quality as answerability and factual alignment of question-answer pairs, generating interpretable scores and actionable feedback that identifies coverage gaps and factual inconsistencies. This resolves the misalignment where evaluation operates independently of generation objectives. Meta-evaluation of our QA-based evaluation module across seven benchmarks demonstrates substantially stronger agreement with human judgments compared to established metrics. Structured feedback enables significant quality improvements through self-refinement without retraining. By demonstrating that evaluation feedback can serve as executable instructions for generation, this work establishes a generalizable paradigm for aligning assessment with improvement, with direct implications for controllable text generation requiring verifiable accuracy and transparent quality control. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub for reproducibility.