Chatbot Arena

We often teach a colleague by showing the work and explaining the decisions as we go. How can we check what an agent understood from the same lesson? We introduce ShowTellArena, a benchmark protocol and public dataset for comprehension after narrated business demonstrations. The v1.0 release contains 50 business workflow tasks, with recordings, screenshots, narration, fixture seeds, and 502 questions. Tasks span finance, hiring, procurement, customer decisions, inventory, and logistics. The protocol holds the business scenario and quiz fixed while allowing each product to capture the lesson through its own teaching interface. Questions test operational rules, boundaries, exceptions, and errors in proposed automations. We analyze 218 selected pilot attempts across 39 workflow cases, including 28 cases attempted by all three evaluated systems. These exploratory results expose both answer errors and failures to complete the teaching experience. We describe the release's verification gaps and the pilot's uneven coverage, exclusions, and grading provenance. The contribution is an inspectable dataset and assessment workflow that others can extend; the selected pilot is not a controlled product ranking.

Evaluating the quality of explanations produced by explainable AI (XAI) methods remains challenging because existing approaches often rely on subjective human judgment, limiting reproducibility, scalability, and comparability between studies. We examine whether LLMs can serve as a reproducible and scalable mechanism to make comparative assessments of the quality of XAI explanations. We introduce XAI-Arena, an LLM-as-a-judge framework for scalable, reproducible, multidimensional, and stakeholder-sensitive evaluation of XAI explanation quality. XAI-Arena then allows us to compare XAI explanations along various dimensions, namely, perceived simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability. We then benchmark XAI explanation methods across various datasets, machine learning models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive association between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho=.693, p<.001). Together, LLM-based evaluations can capture systematic differences in XAI explanation quality and provide a scalable and reproducible framework for comparative assessment of XAI explanations.

Automated red-team attacks and blue-team defenses for large language models (LLMs) are advancing quickly. However, attackers and defenders are built and tested in isolation, and the resulting scores are hard to trust. To tackle this, we present ACEA (Adversarial Co-Evolution Arena), a platform that connects a pluggable red-team adapter and a pluggable blue-team adapter to a shared target LLM and scores their attack and defense rates with an LLM judge. ACEA contributes four components. First, a pluggable, model-agnostic arena. Any red or blue project connects over a minimal HTTP protocol, which we call the ACEA Standard Adapter Protocol (ASAP). It can be written in any language, and a project that exposes nothing but the protocol is a full participant. Second, an evaluation methodology built for adversarial rounds. Seeding the target with canonical secrets gives verifiable ground truth that separates real leakage from hallucination. We also send each attack to the target even when the defense blocks it, which measures the attack's raw potency independently of whether it was stopped. Together these yield a per-round decomposition of attack strength and defense effectiveness. Third, a real-time, game-style visualization with a detailed end-of-battle report that localizes each failure. The evaluation thus becomes an actionable signal for improving a red or blue project. Fourth, an optional in-context improvement loop that turns each round's outcome into advisory hints for the next. An adapter can then adapt across rounds without keeping state, provided it reads the hints. We describe the design of ACEA and the metrics through which red and blue teams are scored head to head.

Analytic dashboards combine coordinated views and interactions for data exploration and decision-making. Recent models can generate them from data and natural-language goals, but evaluating their usefulness remains difficult. Dashboard generation is open-ended, and neither static appearance nor successful execution alone captures analytical support and interaction quality. We introduce DashArena, to our knowledge the first benchmark for open-ended, task-grounded generation of interactive analytic dashboards. Its key innovation is to require each system to generate both a dashboard and a replayable interaction trajectory. A browser executor replays the trajectory and turns the system's intended analytical workflow into reproducible visual and execution evidence. A VLM judge compares candidates using this evidence, and Bradley--Terry aggregation produces the leaderboard. We further distill the judge into the open-weight DashJudge-8B. Human evaluations show that DashJudge-8B effectively reproduces human judgments and ablations show that interaction evidence improves judge agreement. Experiments with frontier models reveal persistent rendering, analytical, and interaction failures. Together, these results show that realistic dashboard generation remains challenging and that interaction-aware evaluation captures failures missed by static or execution-only checks.

LLM cognitive scores are increasingly summarized as per-ability profiles whose dimensions should converge across tasks, respond selectively to matched interventions, and generalize beyond the models used to define them. We introduce CogArena, a procedurally generated 13-paradigm benchmark built around a multimethod framework for determining when cognitive-task scores warrant dimensional labels across five theory-motivated groupings. Across 55 open-weight models, nearly all paradigm correlations are positive and a common axis explains about half the variance. The within-grouping advantage is small, scoring-sensitive, and uncertain across model families. In a separately frozen, fully crossed study across 12 models from six families, targeted scaffolds show a small matched-grouping advantage, but no scaffold-specific contrast survives multiplicity correction and selectivity does not improve held-out-family prediction. The frozen confirmation criterion fails. A post-hoc alternate-wording replication produces a smaller positive estimate and again fails. Together, these results support a boundary conclusion. Theory-aligned prompting produces a small in-battery diagonal tendency, but the present evidence does not establish stable five-dimensional profiles. CogArena provides a workflow joining behavioral signatures, covariance, matched interventions, and out-of-family prediction before cognitive labels are attached to model scores.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support decisions about uncertain future events, yet evaluating their ability to forecast real-world outcomes remains difficult. In particular, existing benchmarks are typically static and retrospective, and therefore cannot test how information is synthesized by LLMs to predict future events under uncertainty. We introduce LLM-SoccerArena (https://llm-soccerarena.com), a prospective live benchmark that evaluates how well LLMs forecast real-world sports events before the outcomes are known. LLM-SoccerArena provides (1) a prospective live benchmark protocol, (2) a public open-source platform, and (3) a factorial benchmark design together with tournament-related questions (e.g., which team will win). LLM-SoccerArena automatically records timestamped, schema-validated forecasts of unresolved events, together with prompts, model versions, tool traces, and costs. The factorial design varies along four dimensions: (1) model version (e.g., GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8); (2) information access; (3) prompting strategy, and (4) forecast horizon. We demonstrate LLM-SoccerArena through a large-scale evaluation of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, in which seven LLMs generated forecasts for all 104 matches and 15 tournament-related questions. We provide a detailed analysis of model performance across information access, prompting strategy, and forecast horizon. As a result, LLM-SoccerArena provides new evidence about the forecasting performance of state-of-the-art LLMs. For example, LLMs with web access outperform those without, but only by a small margin (i.e., a 0.023 improvement in Brier score). Overall, LLM-SoccerArena provides a flexible, open-source platform for prospective benchmarking of unresolved events. LLM-SoccerArena will be continuously updated, and can be directly applied to future national and international tournaments and league competitions.

Evaluating LLM agents requires dynamic environments that go beyond static reasoning and zero-sum games. Real-world economic interaction is often open-ended and mixed-motive: agents must negotiate, create positive-sum surplus, compete for scarce assets, and plan under delayed returns. We introduce SidConArena, a new benchmark framework for evaluating LLM agents in open-ended, positive-sum bargaining. SidConArena formalizes a multi-player economy as a finite-horizon partially observable stochastic game with three coupled phases: natural-language negotiation with binding trades, deterministic converter-based production, and sealed-bid auctions for long-term assets. The framework combines structured observations, phase-aware agent dispatching, a neural-symbolic action interface, and asynchronous execution, enabling free-form interaction while preserving rule-grounded evaluation. Across homogeneous and heterogeneous tournaments, stronger frontier models achieve higher economic outcomes, yet agents still misvalue resources, bargain passively, and remain limited in long-horizon investment planning.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care. Here, we propose AIPatient Arena, an EHRs-grounded evaluation framework for assessing the clinical utility of LLMs across eight dimensions of clinical competence. The framework integrates EHR data into patient-specific knowledge graphs, enabling multi-turn physician-patient interactions. We applied AIPatient Arena on a primary cohort of 437 patients and two out-of-distribution validation cohorts of 119 and 67 patients. We observe that LLMs performed well in medical interview questioning skills (QS; mean scores, 4.43-4.99/5), ethical and professional conduct (ET; 4.38-4.93/5), and clarity and transparency of clinical explanations (EX; 3.80-4.72/5). Performance was moderate in information integration (II; 3.19-4.21/5) and medication safety and justification (MS; 3.13-3.78/5), but persistent weaknesses were observed in handling of ambiguous patient responses (HR; 2.57-3.32/5), information coverage (IC; 2.08-3.02/5), and diagnostic accuracy and reasoning (Dx; 2.63-3.55/5). Process-based evaluation revealed recurrent interaction failures, including repetitive questioning, omission of past medical history, and inadequate handling of uncertainty. Richer conversational context improved diagnostic reasoning but yielded limited gains in treatment planning. These findings indicate that final-answer accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating clinical readiness and highlight the importance of assessing how models gather, interpret, and communicate information throughout a consultation. AIPatient Arena provides an EHR-grounded framework for workflow-oriented pre-deployment evaluation of medical LLMs.

Small-model agentic post-training is bottlenecked less by the algorithm than by the trajectory substrate it consumes. Leading recipes (RLVR, group-relative RL, rejection-sampled re-SFT) all need multi-turn traces carrying per-trajectory supervision, and the two existing sources fall short: frontier-synthesised data inherits the synthesizer's biases and collapses the long tail, while unfiltered production logs are unjudged and contaminated by shortcut behaviour. We argue that an incentive-aligned agent arena can be engineered to manufacture such trajectories, and demonstrate this on ORO Subnet 15 (SN15), a Bittensor deployment of the ShoppingBench agentic-commerce benchmark. SN15's race mechanism, LLM reasoning judge, and rotating leak-cluster-guarded problem suite yield a corpus with three properties: incentive-aligned diversity, per-trajectory judging, and anti-memorised held-out evaluation. We introduce a structural-quality filter that converts the raw firehose into a trainable corpus by keeping agentic trajectories (the model itself emits the tool calls) and rejecting sub-task trajectories (the model only classifies or narrates over a deterministic search loop), then post-train Qwen3-4B with a recipe matched to the published ShoppingBench SFT-then-GRPO pipeline. On a leak-cluster-guarded held-out partition scored production-strict, the model lifts from the published Qwen3-4B base of 18.0% ASR to 42.7%, within single-problem noise of the synthetic-data SFT-only baseline (43.6%), while training on a fraction of a single day of subnet output. The supervised stack leaves a large pass@8 to pass@1 gap (53.3% vs 34.8%); a per-step teacher-grounded Dr. GRPO reward converts that headroom into process improvement, and we identify the sub-task firehose as the primary lever for closing the gap to the 48.7% SFT+GRPO bar. We release the filter, the corpus splits, and the arena mechanics.

The rapid proliferation of Agent Development Kits (ADKs), SDK-level frameworks for building LLM-powered autonomous agents, has outpaced any empirical understanding of how framework choice affects agent performance. We propose \textbf{LLM-as-a-Developer}, a methodology that replaces human developers with an LLM coding agent that learns each framework's API from documentation, writes agent code, and iteratively repairs it through a validate-and-feedback loop until tests pass. By holding the developer constant and varying only the framework, generation effort becomes a quantitative proxy for API usability and the resulting agents provide a controlled measure of framework effectiveness. We implement this in \textbf{ADK Arena}, a fully automated pipeline with per-framework Docker isolation, a three-level validation pipeline, and benchmark adapters for SWE-bench, $τ^2$-bench, Terminal-Bench, and MCP-Atlas. Evaluating all 51 popular Python ADK frameworks (204 agent--benchmark pairs), we find that: (1)~generation succeeds for 57% of runs, and its cost varies 5.6$\times$ across frameworks ($0.6 to $3.4 per agent), a quantitative proxy for API complexity, though cost alone does not predict success; (2)~no single framework dominates: the best single-benchmark ADK agents resolve up to 80% of tasks and can even \emph{beat} general-purpose frontier coding agents at a fraction of the cost, yet the median framework resolves only 32%; (3)~across information-source ablations, genuine framework usage stays within a narrow 28--40% band (highest with raw source access and still 33% with no reference material at all), indicating that documentation, source code, and parametric knowledge are largely substitutable rather than any one being a hard bottleneck.

Fighting games such as Street Fighter II present unique challenges to reinforcement learning (RL) agents due to their fast-paced, real-time nature. In most RL frameworks, agents are hard-coded to make decisions at a fixed interval, typically every frame or every N frames. Although this design ensures timely responses, it restricts the agent's ability to adjust its reaction timing. Acting every frame grants frame-perfect reflexes, which are unrealistic compared to human players, whereas longer fixed intervals reduce computational cost but hinder responsiveness. We consider an alternative decision-making framework in which the agent learns not only what action to take but also for how long to execute it. By jointly predicting both action and duration, the agent can dynamically adapt its responsiveness to different situations in the game. We implement this method using the open-source FightLadder environment with agents trained against scripted built-in bots, systematically testing different frame skip configurations to analyze their influence on performance, responsiveness, and learned behavior. Experiments show that learned timing can match the performance of well-chosen fixed frame skips and encourages repeatable action patterns, but does not ensure robustness on its own. In most cases, we see agents performing best with consistently high frame skip values (i.e., low responsiveness). This strategy makes it easier to learn exploitative strategies where the same action is repeated over and over, which the scripted bots appear to be susceptible to.

GPU kernel optimization is increasingly critical for efficient deep learning systems, but writing high-performance kernels still requires substantial low-level expertise. Recent AI coding agents can iteratively read code, invoke compilers and profilers, and refine implementations, yet existing kernel benchmarks evaluate single LLM calls rather than full agent workflows, and none include both kernel-to-kernel optimization and unseen-configuration generalization testing. We present AgentKernelArena, an open-source benchmark for measuring AI coding agents on GPU kernel optimization. The benchmark contains 196 tasks spanning HIP-to-HIP optimization, Triton-to-Triton optimization, and PyTorch-to-HIP translation, and evaluates complete agent workflows in isolated workspaces using gated compilation, correctness, and performance checks, centralized scoring and an unseen-configuration generalization protocol that tests whether optimizations transfer to input configurations the agent never observed. Across production agents including Cursor Agent, Claude Code, and Codex Agent, we find near-perfect compilation and high correctness rates on most task categories, with the strongest configurations achieving mean speedups of up to 6.89x on PyTorch-to-HIP, 6.69x on HIP-to-HIP, and 2.13x on Triton-to-Triton tasks. Our unseen-configuration evaluation shows that HIP-to-HIP and Triton-to-Triton optimizations largely transfer to unseen input shapes, while PyTorch-to-HIP exhibits substantial correctness drops, indicating that agents generating kernels from scratch frequently hardcode shape-specific assumptions. AgentKernelArena is designed as a modular, extensible framework for rigorous evaluation of agentic GPU kernel optimization across agents, tasks, and hardware targets.

Shapley value and its priority-aware extensions are widely used for valuation in machine learning, but existing methods require pairwise priority to be binary and acyclic, a restriction spectacularly violated in real-data examples such as aggregated human preferences and multi-criterion comparisons. We introduce the generalized priority-aware Shapley value (GPASV), a random order value defined on arbitrary directed weighted priority graphs, in which pairwise edges penalize rather than forbid order violations. GPASV covers a range of classical models as boundary cases. We establish GPASV through an axiomatic characterization, develop the associated computational methods, and introduce a priority sweeping diagnostic extending PASV's. We apply GPASV to LLM ensemble valuation on the cyclic Chatbot Arena preference graph, illustrating that priority-aware valuation is not a one-button operation: different balances of pairwise graph priority versus individual soft priority produce substantively different valuations of the same data.

LLM leaderboards are widely used to compare models and guide deployment decisions. However, leaderboard rankings are shaped by evaluation priorities set by benchmark designers, rather than by the diverse goals and constraints of actual users and organizations. A single aggregate score often obscures how models behave across different prompt types and compositions. In this work, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the dataset used in the LMArena (formerly Chatbot Arena) benchmark and investigate this evaluation challenge by designing an interactive visualization interface as a design probe. Our analysis reveals that the dataset is heavily skewed toward certain topics, that model rankings vary across prompt slices, and that preference-based judgments are used in ways that blur their intended scope. Building on this analysis, we introduce a visualization interface that allows users to define their own evaluation priorities by selecting and weighting prompt slices and to explore how rankings change accordingly. A qualitative study suggests that this interactive approach improves transparency and supports more context-specific model evaluation, pointing toward alternative ways to design and use LLM leaderboards.

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only $ρ= 0.04$ (57% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation ($ρ= 0.43$). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

Existing benchmarks for large multimodal models (LMMs) often fail to capture their performance in real-time, adversarial environments. We introduce LM Fight Arena (Large Model Fight Arena), a novel framework that evaluates LMMs by pitting them against each other in the classic fighting game Mortal Kombat II, a task requiring rapid visual understanding and tactical, sequential decision-making. In a controlled tournament, we test six leading open- and closed-source models, where each agent operates controlling the same character to ensure a fair comparison. The models are prompted to interpret game frames and state data to select their next actions. Unlike static evaluations, LM Fight Arena provides a fully automated, reproducible, and objective assessment of an LMM's strategic reasoning capabilities in a dynamic setting. This work introduces a challenging and engaging benchmark that bridges the gap between AI evaluation and interactive entertainment.

As LLMs rapidly saturate existing benchmarks, automated benchmark creation using LLMs (LLM as a benchmark) where a model generates test inputs (LLM as a testset) and evaluates outputs (LLM as an evaluator) has gained traction as a cheap alternative to human curation. We show that this paradigm has a fundamental problem: LLM-generated benchmarks systematically favor the model that created them. Using machine translation as our primary testbed, we find that self bias arises from two compounding sources, LLM as a testset and LLM as an evaluator, and their combination amplifies the effect. Crucially, even when test data is generated with explicit diversity controls, each modelś implicit stylistic tendencies produce homogeneous, model-specific outputs that inflate its own scores. Increasing source text diversity, using our proposed diversity metric, partially mitigates this bias. Self bias is strong enough to cause each model to rank itself first, overriding the peer consensus ordering. We confirm that the phenomenon extends to open-ended generation on the Chatbot Arena task.

We propose a method for evaluating the robustness of widely used LLM ranking systems -- variants of a Bradley--Terry model -- to dropping a worst-case very small fraction of preference data. Our approach is computationally fast and easy to adopt. When we apply our method to matchups from popular LLM ranking platforms, including Chatbot Arena and derivatives, we find that the rankings of top-performing models can be remarkably sensitive to the removal of a small fraction of preferences; for instance, dropping just 0.003% of human preferences can change the top-ranked model on Chatbot Arena. Our robustness check identifies the specific preferences most responsible for such ranking flips, allowing for inspection of these influential preferences. We observe that the rankings derived from MT-bench preferences are notably more robust than those from Chatbot Arena, likely due to MT-bench's use of expert annotators and carefully constructed prompts. Finally, we find that neither rankings based on crowdsourced human evaluations nor those based on LLM-as-a-judge preferences are systematically more sensitive than the other.