Search research

As AI-generated and AI-assisted content floods online spaces, source labels attached to such content can distort human reasoning judgments, with downstream consequences for moderation, evaluation, and decision-making. Whether LLMs share this vulnerability, or offer more source-agnostic evaluation, remains an open question with direct implications for human-AI collaboration. We examine this issue using logical fallacies as a controlled setting to isolate source-label effects on reasoning quality, independent of domain knowledge. We conduct an online study (N=505) where participants are assigned to a source condition (human, AI, human with AI assistance, AI with human assistance, or no disclosure) and evaluate comments containing logical fallacies, comparing their judgments with those of LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5), who were evaluated across the same source conditions. Human evaluators were significantly more susceptible to fallacies labeled as written by human or human with AI assistance and assigned higher trust and evaluation ratings in these conditions. LLM evaluations remained comparatively stable across source labels, though performance varied across models. Confidence levels were similarly high across conditions for both humans and LLMs, regardless of fallacy presence. Our findings indicate that source-label bias in reasoning evaluation is primarily a human vulnerability and highlight the potential of human-LLM collaboration in increasingly AI-mediated environments.

Self-evolving agents improve over time by reflecting on past failures, but existing evaluation is limited in two ways: it measures only task scores, leaving reflection quality unknown, and it relies on agents' own episode runs, offering no mechanism to target specific failure patterns. We present \textbf{BenchTrace}, a benchmark for evaluating self-evolution ability in LLM agents. BenchTrace is built on a snapshot-reflection dataset of 1,821 annotated episodes spanning six diverse tasks, and comprises a \textbf{Reflection Evaluation} that probes failure identification through targeted QA tasks, and an \textbf{Evolution Evaluation} that tests whether past failure experience translates into avoidance behavior in a controlled self-evolution simulation. Building on BenchTrace, we propose \textbf{failure avoidance rate (FAR)}, a new evaluation metric measuring the fraction of test cases in which the agent successfully avoids the target failure instance. Experiments with Qwen3-32B and GPT-4.1 reveal that both models fall below a 30% end-to-end pass rate on reflection evaluation, with diagnosis as the primary bottleneck. Evolution evaluation shows that self-evolution methods generally improve FAR over the non-evolving baseline, but agents forget early lessons as noise episodes accumulate, and agents fail to generalize their reflections beyond the specific context, causing negative transfer across task contexts. Our correlation analysis further reveals that only a fully correct reflection is strongly associated with higher FAR. BenchTrace exposes concrete limits of current self-evolution approaches and provides a controlled, model-agnostic framework for targeted evaluation.

LLMs have shown impressive success in program synthesis, discovering programs that surpass prior solutions. However, these approaches rely on simple numeric scores to signal program quality, such as the value of the solution or the number of passed tests. Because a score offers no guidance on why a program failed, the system must generate and evaluate many candidates hoping some succeed, increasing LLM inference and evaluation costs. We study a different approach: property-guided LLM program synthesis. Instead of scoring programs after evaluation, we check whether a candidate satisfies a formally defined property. When the property is violated, we stop the evaluation early and provide the LLM with a concrete counterexample showing exactly how the program failed. This feedback drastically reduces both the number of program generations and the evaluation cost, and can guide the LLM to generate stronger programs. We evaluate this approach on PDDL planning domains, asking the LLM to synthesize direct heuristic functions: every state reachable by strictly improving transitions has a strictly improving successor. A heuristic with this property leads hill-climbing algorithm directly to a goal state. A counterexample-guided repair loop generates one candidate program, checks the property over a training set, and returns the first case that violates the property. We evaluate our approach on ten planning domains with an out-of-distribution test set. The synthesized heuristics are effectively direct on virtually all test tasks, and compared to the best prior generation method our approach generates seven times fewer programs per domain on average, solves more tasks without using search, and requires several orders of magnitude less computation to evaluate candidates. Whenever a problem admits a verifiable property, property-guided LLM synthesis can reduce cost and improve program quality.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design. In this work, we investigate whether smaller models can serve as efficient evaluators by leveraging internal representations instead of surface generation. We uncover a consistent empirical pattern: small LMs, despite with weak generative ability, encode rich evaluative signals in their hidden states. This motivates us to propose the Semantic Capacity Asymmetry Hypothesis: evaluation requires significantly less semantic capacity than generation and can be grounded in intermediate representations, suggesting that evaluation does not necessarily need to rely on large-scale generative models but can instead leverage latent features from smaller ones. Our findings motivate a paradigm shift from LLM-as-a-Judge to Representation-as-a-Judge, a decoding-free evaluation strategy that probes internal model structure rather than relying on prompted output. We instantiate this paradigm through INSPECTOR, a probing-based framework that predicts aspect-level evaluation scores from small model representations. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH, GPQA) show that INSPECTOR substantially outperforms prompting-based small LMs and closely approximates full LLM judges, while offering a more efficient, reliable, and interpretable alternative for scalable evaluation. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/zhuochunli/Representation-as-a-judge

Banking assistants must use account-specific information to answer requests and, in many cases, take actions through tools. Evaluating only the final response misses important errors. An assistant may ask for information it already has, rely on stale context, select the wrong account, or write an invalid value after stating the correct one. We introduce IndicBankBench, a 799-case benchmark for Indian retail banking spanning five operational domains, a capability/refusal domain, and twenty primary axes. Cases are evaluated at four stages: safety, action and tool use, response adequacy, and advisory quality. Tool use and most safety checks are deterministic. A narrow resolver handles only ambiguous confirmation-before-write cases, while a separate LLM judge evaluates semantic response adequacy. We run every case three times and report strict pass^3, which requires success on all trials. Across the eleven evaluated models, strict reliability ranges from 43.7% to 58.2%, whereas at-least-once success ranges from 60% to 74%. This gap shows that at-least-once success can overstate dependable banking behavior. The case-level diagnostics also distinguish systems that ask unnecessary questions from those that act but fail to reconcile customer context or fully resolve the request. We release the cases, mock environment, and evaluation harness.

Coding agents can modify and test code across large software projects. Game development is a domain where agents must implement gameplay rules. A game can end in a valid state even after violating its rules during the run. Current game-development benchmarks replay fixed examples, score videos, or ask another model to judge the result. However, no existing benchmark checks game rules throughout execution across varied evaluator-selected scenarios while ensuring exactly reproducible verdicts. We introduce GameLogicBench, a benchmark of 72 gameplay-logic tasks in Godot projects. An automated evaluator checks each game's rules at every simulation tick. Across 403 hand-designed scenarios, seeded parameter variations produce 1,451 test cases. To ensure that the evaluator measures behavior rather than implementation choice, it must accept different correct implementations for each task while rejecting mutants, implementations with one required capability removed. The tasks span isolated mechanics, multi-system interactions, and repository-scale features. Across 20 combinations of language models and scaffolds, the best observed run solves 52.78% of tasks. Under Claude Code, all twelve models solve fewer tasks as task scope expands from isolated mechanics, through interacting systems, to repository-scale features. Agents inspect code more often and make more tool calls on repository-scale tasks than on isolated-mechanic tasks. Most unsuccessful submissions are runnable, but implement some required game behavior incorrectly. We compared versions of our benchmark evaluator built with and without validation using mutants. Without this validation, incorrect agent submissions passed. A separate analysis finds agents copying code from public repositories when network access is open. Reliable evaluation thus depends both on what the tests reject and on what external code agents can access.

Zero-shot waypoint navigation requires vision-language models to select, from the current first-person observation, a sequence of spatial actions that is feasible for the agent and reaches the goal, placing joint demands on the integrated spatial intelligence of today's foundation VLMs. Existing spatial-intelligence benchmarks primarily evaluate isolated judgments of relations, directions, or targets and therefore do not directly measure the integrated navigation ability required to combine target recognition, action-consequence assessment, distance estimation, and path planning. To fill this evaluation gap, we introduce EgoPathBench, a dataset and five-task benchmark for first-person waypoint decision-making. Each question presents an egocentric RGB image, a natural-language goal, and numbered visible waypoints; a model returns traversable candidates or an ordered route. Predictions are evaluated for candidate feasibility, adjacent-edge legality, and goal arrival under point-agent or embodied geometry. EgoPathBench contains 31,852 training, 1,345 validation, and 1,111 benchmark questions and retains at least one geometrically verified reference route for every route question. Across nine VLMs, the highest EgoPath Score is only 28.3. The top-ranked model reaches 35.9% success on Point Path, but only 2.9% and 4.0% on Embodied Path and Intent Path, respectively, showing that current models remain limited in forming complete, goal-consistent routes under embodiment constraints. Beyond the evaluation data, we release the corresponding training resource. Fine-tuning Qwen 3.5 4B on the released training split raises its EgoPath Score from 3.9 to 38.9 and improves all four reported evaluations across three external spatial benchmarks, with gains of 1.4--9.6 points.

Human evaluation provides a direct measure of the quality of LLM-generated web applications. However, fitting human judgments through automated evaluation remains challenging. Static benchmarks can credit functionality that exists in source code but is unreachable at runtime. Interactive benchmarks exercise the application, yet incomplete exploration can cause them to miss implemented functionality and confound application defects with agent execution failures. To address these limitations, we propose IWC-Bench, an interactive benchmark for evaluating web application generation from a software testing perspective. IWC-Bench instruments each generated application and uses code coverage to guide an agent in exploring its functionality through user-simulated interactions. It then abstracts the interaction trace into a state-transition graph and evaluates the application along three dimensions: visual aesthetics, usability, and requirement alignment. By separating exploration from scoring, IWC-Bench collects runtime evidence without constraining exploration to predefined acceptance criteria. IWC-Bench comprises 369 real-world user requirements and 5,088 acceptance criteria. Evaluation of 17 frontier LLMs reveals distinct strengths across the three dimensions, with no model leading on every dimension. On 197 validated sessions sampled from an internal arena, IWC-Bench achieves 85.3% agreement with human preferences, with agreement generally increasing as the score difference between paired applications grows. Further experiments show that coverage guidance improves exploration coverage and the model rankings remain stable when the judge model is replaced.

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate and improve AI-generated outputs, yet their reliability for complex professional work remains unclear. We study this problem through Vibe Patenting, an end-to-end patent-drafting testbed for AI-agent evaluation. A separately-invoked LLM judge evaluates generated patent drafts and provides structured feedback for iterative revision. Across multiple inventions and drafting-agent configurations, judge-guided revision consistently improves judge-assessed quality, while unguided revision tends to saturate. Notably, iterative judge feedback enables a low-reasoning agent to approach the performance of a substantially more expensive high-reasoning agent. Stronger models and increased reasoning generally improve judge-assessed drafting quality, while domain-specific agentic workflows provide further gains. We validate the judge against independent evaluation by a professional patent attorney and find meaningful but strongly metric-dependent agreement and systematic calibration differences. These results highlight both the utility and limitations of LLM judges as evaluators and optimization signals for complex professional workflows.

As Vision-Language Models (VLMs) advance toward physical deployment, the focus has remained on action-oriented Embodied AI evaluated on subject-centric consumer video. This overlooks a pervasive class of Physical AI: Infrastructure AI, which relies on fixed cameras for open-loop insights like safety monitoring and operational logging. We introduce VANTAGE-Bench, a benchmark measuring this "Infrastructure AI Gap." It spans three operational domains (Logistics, Transportation, and Smart Spaces), unifies image and video evaluation across semantic, spatial, temporal, and spatio-temporal capabilities, and moves beyond multiple-choice to eight task formulations including dense captioning and spatio-temporal grounding. It adds a single-pass trajectory protocol for Single Object Tracking and, to our knowledge, the first such evaluation on fixed-camera infrastructure video, scored against specialist trackers. Annotation spans three regimes over 3,346 media assets: 3,342 video-task annotations, 4,281 image-grounding annotations, and 27,404 detection boxes. Evaluating 17 models zero-shot, we find the shortfall relative to consumer-centric benchmarks is concentrated, not general. Event verification, referring expressions, and temporal localization fall roughly 9 to 24 points at every model scale, while video question answering stays within 5.3 points of VideoMME and 2D spatial pointing shows no shortfall against BLINK. The temporal pillar is weakest in absolute terms: no system exceeds 55.7 mIoU on temporal localization or 37.3 SODA_c on dense video captioning. On tracking, frontier models come within roughly 5 points of specialist trackers over short horizons but separate as the horizon extends. Open-weight models lead 2D object localization outright, so neither scale nor proprietary access explains the pattern. Data, evaluation harness, and leaderboard: https://vantage-bench.org/

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed for enterprise workflows, yet existing evaluations rarely test whether business-decision conclusions transfer across competitive market ecologies. We introduce ERPBench, an execution-instrumented benchmark for enterprise decision agents in a six-round Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) simulation with coupled pricing, production, procurement, inventory, finance, and shared-market competition. ERPBench evaluates the same 100 fixed problems in two matched competitive market ecologies: Solo, where each evaluated LLM agent competes against fixed rule-based opponents, and Arena, where six evaluated LLM agents compete in a shared market. Across six model families, this yields 1,200 model-level trajectories spanning 7,200 decision rounds. Under the observed service configuration, the leading model differs between ecologies: DeepSeek leads in Solo (252.29M mean valuation; mean rank 1.67), whereas Gemini leads in Arena (263.95M; 1.76). The two ecologies identify the same task-level winner on only 21 of 100 problems, and Gemini's bottom-rank rate falls from 22 % to 0 % in Arena. ERPBench supports paired evaluation of whether enterprise-agent rankings transfer across competitive market ecologies, supplemented by aggregate execution-intervention analysis. Code and benchmark resources are available in our https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/erp-bench.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on standard content moderation benchmarks. However, these benchmarks often aggregate multiple moderation criteria into a single label, making it unclear whether models can disentangle them and reliably apply each criterion when making decisions. To study whether LLMs exhibit criterion-conditioned behaviour, we introduce Diagnostic Evaluation of COntent (DECO), a criterion-independent factorisation of content that enables controlled, criterion-level evaluation. We also introduce pairwise evaluation to compare model outputs across different criteria for the same input. Across four moderation datasets and four LLMs, we find that strong benchmark performance can hide substantial failures at the criterion level. Models struggle most when correct decisions depend not on overall harmfulness, but on the specific aspect of the content that the criterion requires them to assess. Our results highlight a key limitation of current content moderation benchmarks: strong performance on aggregated labels does not provide sufficient evidence that LLMs can reliably evaluate content with respect to individual moderation criteria. These findings call for the development of evaluation methods that explicitly measure criterion-conditioned behaviour.

Fragmented safety evaluation undermines the governance of dangerous AI capabilities. We present a modular framework that evaluates each model through three orthogonal pipelines---Knowledge ($K$), Defense ($D$), and Harm ($H$)---under a unified protocol, aggregating results into a standardized dangerous-capability profile $φ$. Pluggable modules supply scenario seeds, knowledge banks, hazard queries, and judge rubrics, while the core evaluation engine remains unchanged across domains; the CB evaluation is complemented by a cyber pilot demonstrating protocol transfer. Instantiating the framework with a chemical-biological (CB) module, we evaluate 12 commercial LLMs from four families. Our first contribution is a horizontal comparison of dangerous capability across models and model families: the three dimensions expose sharply divergent profiles---models with comparable knowledge differ in refusal resilience, and strong defenders do not generate less harmful content when they do comply---while family-level patterns further separate Claude, DeepSeek, and GPT models. The second is a temporal analysis of capability evolution: tracking $K$, $D$, and $H$ against model release dates reveals that dangerous capability has not monotonically declined; newer models deepen knowledge while only partially improving defense, showing that scaling and alignment progress do not uniformly translate into safety. Reliability is established via cross-judge consistency (bootstrap $ρ> 0.79$, 4 of 5 judges) and pipeline orthogonality ($K$--$D$--$H$ inter-correlations $ρ\in [0.32, 0.52]$).

Evaluating creativity in large language model (LLM) outputs remains challenging because creativity is multidimensional and human-centered. We examine how reliably LLMs evaluate short literary text in Persian, a low-resource language, across multiple evaluation strategies and prompt formulations. We find that LLM-human agreement varies substantially across dimensions: alignment is stronger for structured TTCT-derived properties such as Originality, Fluency, and Elaboration, but considerably weaker for more subjective dimensions, particularly Emotion and Attractiveness. Judgments are also sensitive to prompt formulation, while few-shot prompting, ensembling, and multi-agent debate provide no consistent improvement. Motivated by this dimension-dependent behavior, we investigate whether structured creativity dimensions can instead be approximated using simple, interpretable proxy metrics. We introduce CLIN, which evaluates three TTCT-derived dimensions separately using topic-aware novelty for Originality, contextual lexical clustering for Fluency, and lexical diversity for Elaboration. These proxies achieve human alignment comparable to or better than the strongest zero-shot LLM judge in our setting while requiring substantially lower evaluation cost.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied for emotional companionship, evaluating their behavior and capabilities in intimate relationships has become a pressing issue. However, existing assessments primarily characterize general personality traits, providing limited insight into model behavior within intimate and emotionally sensitive contexts. Therefore, we introduce adult attachment theory into LLM evaluation and use the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) scale to characterize attachment anxiety and avoidance. To evaluate emotional companionship capabilities of LLMs in realistic interaction scenarios, we present an emotional companionship benchmark, ECBench, spanning four scenarios including emotional support, collaborative tasks, conflict resolution, and social guidance, across friendship and romantic relationships. ECBench is utilized to assess model behavior using 11 dialogue-quality metrics and three evaluation methods. We evaluate the attachment tendencies of 32 LLMs and select representative models to investigate how these tendencies manifest in contextualized multi-turn interactions and whether they can be shaped through prompting. Our study provides a theoretical lens from psychology, along with practical tools to understand and select LLMs for emotional companionship.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as AI tutors, but a correct answer is not always a pedagogically appropriate one. In classroom learning, effective help depends not only on correctness, but also on whether a response matches the learner's current foundation, the course sequence, and the timing of concept introduction. Existing evaluations focus mainly on answer quality, leaving this instructional fit under-measured. We present the Pedagogical Suitability Index (PSI), a composite metric of six theory-informed sub-scores that evaluates how well LLM-generated tutoring responses align with learner readiness and curricular progression, and we further use PSI as a structured feedback signal for response improvement. We evaluate four LLM tutors (ChatGPT, Gemini, Gemma4, and Qwen3) across 240 scenario-based evaluations using paired standard and defective prompts, then apply a PSI-guided regeneration protocol to 62 weak-performing cases. Baseline differences across the four tested models were modest overall (PSI range: 0.557 to 0.638), and open-weight and closed models did not exhibit a clear separation in pedagogical fit. Under the tested prompt perturbations, overall PSI remained largely stable (Delta = -0.002), though sub-score trade-offs emerged. More importantly, PSI-guided feedback substantially improved weak-performing cases: 51 of 62 cases improved (82.3%). Focused manual evaluation of the 62 PSI-selected weak cases provides initial evidence that the identified weaknesses are instructionally meaningful and that many PSI-guided regenerations correspond to human-judged improvement. These results suggest that learner- and curriculum-aware alignment may matter more for effective tutoring than model category alone, and that such alignment is both measurable and improvable.

Benchmarking video-language models has largely focused on short clips and single-sentence metrics, leaving open whether current systems can generate accurate long-form, paragraph-level descriptions. We introduce CLIP-CC-Bench, an evaluation suite for long-form video description built from 5 hours of movie content segmented into 90-second clips, each paired with an expert-written paragraph-style reference. The evaluation suite employs an ensemble of five state-of-the-art LLM-based embedding models to increase reliability and mitigate single-model bias, and applies two complementary methodologies: (i) coarse-grained semantic matching and (ii) fine-grained semantic matching to compare model-generated descriptions against CLIP-CC-Bench references. Using this framework, we evaluate 17 state-of-the-art video-language models and report both their Borda-aggregated rankings and their average scores on CLIP-CC-Bench. We further quantify the protocol's internal reliability through inter-judge agreement and bootstrap ranking stability. We release standardized evaluation scripts, model outputs, and aggregation tools at https://github.com/Multimodal-Intelligence-Lab/CLIP-CC-Bench to support reproducibility. CLIP-CC-Bench provides a practical evaluation framework for long-form video description, filling a gap left by existing short-clip and QA-only benchmarks.

This white paper presents ADMITBench, a reference framework for evaluating industrial LLM advisories at the level of the proposed action. The framework implements a versioned, safety-governed evaluation contract that checks whether a recommendation is supported by the available evidence, permitted under the stated authority and procedure, and acceptable under the plant-specific consequence checks encoded in the selected evaluation profile. In this report, \emph{safety-governed} means that eligibility is determined through explicit, non-compensatory checks derived from a versioned plant profile; it does not mean that the evaluator, model, or plant has been safety-certified. Release 0.1.0 is a public reference implementation for technical and research evaluation, not an authorisation for physical execution.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of planning, using tools, and interacting with external environments. They are typically supported by harnesses, which manage state and coordinate multi-step execution. Graph analysis provides a promising setting for evaluating their agentic capabilities, because it requires agents to access data and execute operations in a graph environment. However, existing graph benchmarks for LLMs provide limited coverage of graph tasks and graph types, making it difficult to comprehensively evaluate LLM agents. Moreover, they typically formulate graph analysis as text-based question answering, where graph information is directly provided in the prompt, limiting the evaluation of end-to-end agentic capabilities. To address these limitations, we introduce GABench, a comprehensive benchmark for agentic graph analysis. GABench spans three graph types and covers four graph analysis task categories: graph retrieval, graph theory, graph machine learning, and graph open-ended question answering. GABench also provides 84 executable tools for accessing graph data and performing diverse graph operations. Building on these tools, we develop an agentic graph analysis task generation pipeline and construct 10,400 tasks with verifiable ground truth.Using GABench, we evaluate a range of frontier LLMs and agent harnesses. Our experiments reveal three key findings: (1) Existing LLM agents still struggle with complex graph analysis tasks. (2) Harness choice significantly affects performance, yet existing harnesses remain limited on complex graph tasks. (3) Graph analysis depends more on tool-call quality than quantity. Our findings provide practical insights into the development and evaluation of LLM agents for graph analysis.

Open-vocabulary Earth observation (EO) aims to localize geospatial concepts specified in natural language rather than a fixed label set. Existing benchmarks, however, usually cover narrow category vocabularies or limited query forms. To fill this gap, we introduce OVEarth-Bench, which extends existing evaluation in two directions: category breadth, through broad hierarchical category coverage with positive and negative expressions, and query diversity, through vocabulary, referring, and reasoning queries. The benchmark supports mask and box localization under a unified zero-shot protocol. We evaluate a broad set of general and EO-specific methods. The evaluation reveals that: (1) the performance of current methods remains limited, while broader category coverage yields more stable model rankings; (2) MLLM-based methods achieve the strongest overall performance; and (3) EO-specific methods generally underperform general models and rarely match the strongest methods. These findings provide guidance for future open-vocabulary EO method design and highlight the importance of developing more realistic, diverse, high-quality, and large-scale benchmarks for reliable evaluation. Our data and evaluation package are released at https://earth-insights.github.io/OVEarth-bench.

Clinical diagnostic evaluation should not only assess whether models can provide correct diagnoses, but also reflect the realities of clinical practice, including progressive disclosure of multimodal information, dynamic updating of diagnostic hypotheses, and continuous refinement of clinical reasoning. However, existing evaluations of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) typically rely on single-turn or isolated tasks, making it difficult to fully capture the complexity of real-world clinical diagnosis. To bridge this gap, we developed ClinMM-Bench, the largest multi-turn multimodal clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmark to date. ClinMM-Bench contains 1,089 challenging real-world clinical cases and 3,760 medical images across eight specialties. We systematically evaluated 15 representative MLLMs using a two-level evaluation framework that assessed both diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic reasoning quality. Results showed that proprietary models achieved the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, but the proportion of completely correct diagnoses remained limited across all models. In terms of diagnostic reasoning quality, current models can identify plausible diagnostic directions but still have considerable limitations in generating reliable diagnostic reasoning. Error analysis further identified five representative failure modes: information synthesis failure, knowledge mapping error, perception error, premature closure, and visual hallucination.

Complex tasks often decompose into parallelizable yet interdependent subtasks, making orchestration critical to the performance of multi-agent systems (MAS). Existing evaluations typically rely on end-to-end execution, which conflates orchestration-plan quality with worker capabilities, tool reliability, and environmental noise. Moreover, the time and token costs of real execution grow rapidly with workflow scale, making systematic evaluation expensive. We present OrchBench, a simulation-based benchmark for evaluating multi-agent orchestration plans in isolation. Starting from real-world tasks, OrchBench constructs directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that encode task dependencies, with controlled sizes and degrees of parallelism. Given a DAG, a per-agent context limit, and an agent budget, the evaluated planner assigns subtasks to agents and specifies cross-agent information transfers and their retention ratios. A deterministic simulator evaluates the resulting plan without invoking worker agents and returns interpretable measures of result quality, makespan, and token cost. The simulated scores produced by OrchBench correlate strongly with quality scores from Claude Code executions, achieving a Pearson correlation of $r=0.816$, while requiring only $1.3\%$ of the tokens and $10.3\%$ of the wall-clock time. Across diverse planners and workflow scales, we find that preserving task-critical information is more important than simply increasing the number of agents, and the benefits of parallelism diminish as coordination failures accumulate. These results establish OrchBench as an efficient and interpretable benchmark for comparing and diagnosing multi-agent orchestration plans.

Existing evaluations of large language models cover knowledge, reasoning, coding, and tool use, but they rarely treat a verifiable deliverable produced within a constrained workflow as the unit of evaluation. We introduce SQBench, a benchmark for evaluating production-oriented task delivery by language-model agents. SQBench v1.0 contains 220 standardized tasks organized into L1 atomic capabilities, L2 composite skills, and L3 business scenarios. Each task requires an agent to process input assets, use available tools, and produce an explicitly specified deliverable. The evaluation first computes functional Completion and then derives Risk Penalty and Performance from independently evidenced triggers in a 10D Risk Matrix. A Strict Pass requires Completion = 1 and Risk Penalty = 0. We evaluate 27 model configurations under a common protocol, with one run per configuration-task pair. The highest prespecified Weighted Pass@1 is 60.5%. Mean Strict Pass@1 on L3 is 18.5%, and every configuration performs worse on L3 than on both L1 and L2, indicating that delivery under domain constraints is a shared weakness within the current task set. Of 2,348 results with Completion = 1, 113 (4.8%) fail the Strict Pass criterion because of risks such as unverifiable citations, inappropriate resource use, or format violations. These results show that functional completion alone does not fully characterize delivery quality and that risk determinations should be reported separately.

The value alignment of large language models (LLMs) is crucial for ensuring responses align with human intention and value preferences. However, most evaluations of value alignment focus on Western or universal values, while assessments grounded in the value systems of specific countries remain scarce. In this paper, we introduce Pancasila-Dilemmas, an evaluation dataset of 1,834 questions derived from Indonesian news, classified by 5 values of Pancasila: Religion, Humanity, Unity, Democracy, and Social Justice. This dataset reflects daily life in Indonesia, making it suitable for measuring the value alignment of LLMs deployed for Indonesia. To ensure a more rigorous evaluation, we choose scenarios containing dilemmas. The dataset is proofread by native speakers and answered by 5 diverse Indonesian citizens. We evaluate 50 closed- and open-source LLMs on our dataset. Results reveal that all evaluated LLMs achieves less than 0.5 Probability Match Score (PMS) and 0.72 Max-Vote Agreement Score (MVAS). Compared by each values, LLMs mostly struggle in Religion and Unity dilemma cases. This highlights a significant gap in capturing Indonesian values. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/tjunlp-lab/Pancasila-Dilemmas.

Long-term memory is becoming a core component of LLM agents, but most memory benchmarks evaluate conversations or compact summaries, while research agents need to restore evidence from full scientific papers. We introduce two full-text scientific-memory benchmarks, Public AI Memory (PAIM; 81 papers, 66 questions) and Public Transformers (PTr; 252 papers, 98 questions). We evaluate eight memory/retrieval systems, including our own proposed Theoria, plus a no-retrieval baseline. Our results show that memory leaderboards are not interpretable without the full protocol: ingestion granularity, raw-text preservation, retrieval budget, retrieval modality, rubric audit, and judge choice all affect the outcome. For example, on PAIM Graphiti wins convincingly but uses 2.6M characters of retrieved context per query, and after controlling for retrieval budget the lead disappears. On PTr, for the systems where BM25 retrieval can be added cleanly, the sparse-dense hybrid is the single most significant intervention: hybrid variants of Simple RAG, Mem0, and Theoria tie for the lead within 0.03 points. Multi-judge and human side-by-side calibration show that LLM-as-a-judge rankings are consistent across frontier judges and agree with human evaluation, with an effective resolution of roughly one point on a ten-point scale. We argue that scientific memory should be evaluated as budgeted, modality-aware context restoration rather than as an unconstrained architecture leaderboard, and we release the datasets, harness, raw outputs, judgments, and scripts to reproduce our results and serve as tools for such evaluation. Our code is available at http://gitlab.com/quantellence/research/scientific-recall-bench , and the datasets are available at http://huggingface.co/datasets/quantellence/srb-data .

Current voice AI benchmarks typically evaluate isolated capabilities such as speech intelligibility, word error rate, or text-based dialogue quality, but they rarely test whether systems harness the acoustic information that distinguishes spoken language from its textual representation. To this end, we introduce the Real World Voice EQ Bench, a multidimensional benchmark for evaluating voice AI across text-to-speech (TTS), speech-to-speech (STS), speech understanding (SU), and automatic speech recognition (ASR). Our evaluations indicate that performance is highly dimension-specific. For TTS, naturalness, expressiveness, identity stability, and reliability are largely independent evaluation dimensions. For STS, access to audio does not guarantee use of vocal affect, and some agents remain largely transcript-driven. For SU, models perform unevenly across paralinguistic tasks. For ASR, real world accent, emotion, noise, and conversational conditions expose failures that are not captured by established clean-speech benchmarks. Together, these results show that voice AI should be evaluated as a profile of acoustic, expressive, interactional, and robustness capabilities rather than by a single aggregate score.

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are increasingly constructed through automated extraction pipelines; however, such systems often introduce spurious or incomplete triples, which degrade downstream performance. Existing evaluation practices rely heavily on task-specific metrics or small-scale manual verification, offering limited insight into the structural and semantic fidelity of extracted graphs. We propose a novel, interpretable metric for intrinsic KG quality assessment that measures how closely an automatically extracted graph approximates an "ideal" graph capturing the key noun phrases, predicate relations, and basic linguistic phenomena such as negation expressed in the source text. Our framework integrates two complementary components: (1) an entity-level assessment that evaluates completeness, resolution quality, and connectivity, and (2) a relation-level assessment that judges predicate preservation and multiplicity using lexical similarity, dependency-parse alignment, and light-weight negation handling to ensure semantic faithfulness. We evaluate our metric across multiple state-of-the-art triple extraction systems and datasets, including WebNLG, TinyButMighty, and BenchIE, demonstrating that it reliably identifies omissions, redundancy, and structural deviations that existing metrics overlook. Our work offers a scalable, model-agnostic, and interpretable framework for comparing automated KG construction methods and provides a foundation for standardised evaluation. We further validate the metric through an ablation study isolating noun and verb components, and a downstream evaluation showing that KGCQual scores correlate significantly with link prediction performance on the same extracted KGs. The code repository is available at https://github.com/kracr/kg-quality-metric.

Personal agents are becoming persistent user-owned intermediaries: they remember preferences, filter platform-mediated information, use tools, and negotiate with services. Existing benchmarks evaluate tool use, web navigation, desktop control, personalization, recommendation, and evolving context, but rarely ask whether an agent preserves user sovereignty: advancing the user's current interests while respecting privacy, consent, evidence, user burden, and resistance to manipulative incentives. We introduce SovereignPA-Bench, an executable benchmark for evaluating user-owned personal agents under evolving intent, platform mediation, privacy boundaries, consent constraints, evidence requirements, and burden tradeoffs. The benchmark separates agent-visible ObservableState from evaluator-only HiddenLabels, reports component metrics for task success, alignment, privacy, consent, evidence, manipulation, burden, and auditability, and preserves paired scenario ordering for model and policy comparisons. We evaluate 120 sovereignty stress scenarios across 4 model families and 8 policy baselines, yielding 3,840 frozen-prompt trajectories with raw prompts, outputs, provider-form responses, parsed actions, recomputable metrics, hard-set analyses, qualitative cases, and a blinded 3-annotator audit over 240 items. Full-sovereign scaffolding improves sovereignty score over direct, memory-only, consent-only, evidence-only, ReAct/tool-use, safety-prompt, and judge-guard baselines while reducing privacy leakage, consent violation, over-concession, and manipulation capture. Human audit shows high agreement on privacy and consent and lower agreement on manipulation, identifying the subjective frontier of platform-persuasion judgments. These results show that personal-agent evaluation must move beyond task completion toward representative, consent-aware, evidence-grounded action.

Game engines provide real-time simulation, rendering, physics, interaction, networking, and asset pipelines, making them valuable not only for games but also for 3D applications in healthcare, robotics, architecture, manufacturing, and related domains. Because game development is where these systems are most mature and publicly available, it offers a practical testbed for evaluating coding agents that must modify C++ code within stateful, interactive, real-time systems. We present GameEngineBench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on scoped C++ implementation tasks inside Unreal Engine 5 projects, built from nine real-world game repositories. The evaluation set consists of 110 tasks spanning gameplay mechanics, multiplayer behavior, AI and world orchestration, animation and movement, UI and session code, loading behavior, online-service integration, persistence, data serialization, XR behavior, and rendering-oriented plugins. These tasks require models to make native C++ changes that compile and satisfy behavioral tests within executable Unreal Engine projects. Across twelve evaluated configurations, the strongest model reaches 55.5% pass@1, while 31 tasks remain unsolved by every configuration. Our results demonstrate that frontier coding agents continue to struggle with deeply integrated C++ development for real-time interactive software, highlighting game-engine benchmarks as a valuable complement to existing software engineering evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of tasks, but ensuring their reliability in highly technical domains remains a significant challenge. In nuclear engineering, problem solving often requires not only factual knowledge but also quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding. To address the need for systematic evaluation in this domain, we introduce NuclearQAv2, a benchmark for assessing LLMs on nuclear engineering knowledge. The benchmark comprises approximately 1,240 question-answer pairs spanning three categories: boolean, numeric, and verbal. NuclearQAv2 is constructed using a hybrid pipeline that combines expert-authored questions, existing datasets, and LLM-assisted generation from domain-specific technical corpora. By leveraging structured prompting for both automated question generation and response evaluation, the proposed framework enables scalable benchmark construction and evaluation. We evaluate a diverse set of LLMs using NuclearQAv2 and observe substantial performance differences across task types. While the models generally perform well on factual questions, quantitative reasoning and conceptual understanding remain considerably more challenging. These results highlight the importance of multi-faceted evaluation frameworks and establish NuclearQAv2 as a scalable benchmark for assessing LLM capabilities in technical domains.