Code Evaluation

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in safety-critical, physics-governed environments requires more than accuracy-based metrics, because predictions that are numerically close to the ground truth can still violate operational constraints, combine fields in physically inconsistent ways, or fail to produce usable structured outputs. Existing evaluation protocols do not measure these failure modes reliably. We propose FLY-EVAL++, an evidence-driven evaluation protocol that combines deterministic verification of protocol compliance, physical feasibility, and safety constraints with fixed rubric-guided aggregation into interpretable multi-dimensional scores. We instantiate FLY-EVAL++ for Flight Trajectory and Attitude Prediction (FTAP) by extending the PilotBench setting with history-conditioned and multi-step prediction tasks. Across 66 LLMs, safety compliance is the most discriminative dimension of model behavior: models with comparable predictive performance differ by more than 28 points in safety score, and we observe recurrent failures including safety violations under physically plausible predictions and instability in multi-step rollouts. These results show that evaluation in safety-critical domains should measure constraint satisfaction and structured validity explicitly rather than rely on accuracy-centric reporting alone.

When a hint turns a failing generated program into a passing one, does it provide missing information or merely steer the model toward a solution it could already produce? We test these hypotheses on HumanEval+ and MBPP+ using executable evaluation. For Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct, adaptive relevant hints rescue 36 of 79 selected failures; an unrelated hint rescues 19, while eight unhinted samples solve 46 and recover 31 of the 36 relevant-hint rescues. Phi-3.5-mini shows the same pattern: relevant hints rescue 42 of 101 failures, an unrelated hint rescues 17, and unhinted sampling solves 57, including 36 of the 42 relevant-hint rescues. Because the hint conditions use different attempt budgets, these comparisons do not isolate a purely semantic effect. Mechanistic tests on Qwen identify a stable activation direction shared by relevant and unrelated hints. Persistently adding this direction yields 14 rescues and 18 regressions, with no detectable net accuracy gain; learned low-rank interventions have a positive but imprecise estimated effect. Full textual specifications solve 22 of 24 context-defined problems, versus 5-11 for tested virtual-KV prefixes. Post-generation hidden-state probes transfer across benchmarks, with pooled AUROC 0.806 and 0.780, but their top-one selection advantage over token confidence is statistically unresolved. Overall, relevant hints can rescue failures, but most rescued solutions are already reachable through ordinary sampling, and the internal interventions tested here do not establish task-general capability transfer.

AI video generation has advanced rapidly and entered widespread commercial use. As a result, quality differences among videos produced by state-of-the-art AI video generation models~(AIVGMs) have become increasingly difficult to discern using conventional evaluation criteria, such as visual fidelity and semantic instruction following. Meanwhile, human evaluation now requires more expertise and sustained attention, substantially increasing annotation costs. This calls for automated evaluation that can reliably distinguish fine-grained differences among advanced AIVGMs with minimal human intervention. To address this challenge, we present RAVEN-Eval, a rubric-guided automated evaluation framework for AIVGMs, built primarily on the LMM-as-a-judge paradigm. Through an automatic task curation and quality-filtering pipeline, RAVEN-Eval curates 150 text-to-video~(T2V) tasks and 100 image-to-video~(I2V) tasks, and systematically collects more than 4,500 AIGVs. At its core, RAVEN-Eval adopts rubric-guided automated LMM preference judgement, in which LMM judges conduct pairwise comparisons according to task-specific rubrics. It further introduces an anchor-based model insertion approach to reduce the evaluation cost of incorporating new models. Finally, we evaluate 20 high-performance AIVGMs, as well as the judging capabilities of 13 LMM judges, and establish the RAVEN-Eval Leaderboards. Overall, RAVEN-Eval paves a scalable path for automatic and trustworthy evaluation of rapidly evolving AIVGMs.

Evaluating multi-turn medical consultation agents requires judging the diagnostic support provided by the histories they elicit through interaction. Yet coupled evaluation lets each policy both elicit the history and generate the terminal diagnosis, so a diagnosis score confounds the elicited history with the policy's own terminal diagnosis generator. We introduce MedDDC-Eval, a diagnosis-decoupled evaluation testbed over held-out cases derived from medical records and online consultations. It applies the same frozen shared diagnostic reader to every policy-elicited history, holding terminal diagnosis generation fixed across policies and enabling comparison under the shared diagnostic reader. It reports diagnostic support, information-acquisition coverage, and efficiency. LLM-assisted semantic matching followed by deterministic one-to-one assignment makes the diagnosis-trajectory-efficiency (D/T/E) scores auditable. In a fixed-history audit across eight policies, replacing each policy's own generator with the shared diagnostic reader shifts diagnosis F1 by 2.2-19.0 points and reverses 18% and 36% of pairwise orderings on the Record and Dialogue splits. To examine downstream utility, we use standard Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a separate training-time reward that targets the same diagnosis and trajectory dimensions. Relative to its Qwen3-32B initialization, the trained policy gains 9.6 and 4.6 aggregate-score points on the held-out Record and Dialogue splits, respectively, and ablating either feedback signal reduces the aggregate score on both. Together, MedDDC-Eval supports comparison under a shared diagnostic reader and evaluation-informed policy development, while complementing end-to-end evaluation when terminal diagnosis generation is also part of the target capability.

The dominant practice in language model evaluation is to report a single accuracy number per model and declare the higher one better, without testing whether the gap could plausibly be sampling noise. On benchmarks of a few thousand items, and under temperature sampling where a model can differ from itself run to run by more than the reported gap between models, this practice routinely overstates confidence in headline claims. The statistical machinery to fix this -- confidence intervals, paired significance tests, power analysis, clustered standard errors, multiple-comparison correction -- is well established, but no standard, pip-installable tool packages it in the shape an evaluation actually takes: a per-item results table. We present evalci, a pure-Python library (numpy/scipy/pandas only) that turns a per-item results table into a publication-ready claim -- e.g., "Model A beats Model B, $Δ=3.1$ pts, 95% CI [1.2, 5.0], paired permutation $p=0.002$, $n=1{,}319$" -- in one function call, with adapters for lm-evaluation-harness and HELM output. Every routine is validated against an independent reference (statsmodels, or brute-force exact enumeration) rather than only against itself. As a case study, we re-analyze a public comparison of nine language models' MMLU accuracy and find that 3 of the 8 adjacent leaderboard-rank gaps are not statistically significant after correcting for the 36 pairwise comparisons the ranking implies. evalci is available at https://pypi.org/project/evalci/ (source: https://github.com/Shreyaskc/evalci, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21201815)

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong results on many medical benchmarks, but their clinical reasoning remains difficult to evaluate reliably. A central risk is an evaluation illusion: fluent and well-structured explanations can appear clinically convincing even when the final diagnosis is incorrect. We introduce CLExEval, a human-in-the-loop framework for evaluating LLM clinical reasoning under progressive information masking. CLExEval combines 5,600 expert-physician annotations with 200 clinical reasoning traces derived from 40 rare diagnostic cases. Our analysis identifies three recurring failure patterns: (i) verbosity bias, where GPT-4o-mini's diagnostic accuracy drops from 95.0% to 32.5% under information scarcity; (ii) a hidden knowledge paradox, where a specialist model reaches 92.5% maximum diagnostic potential but fails to retrieve that knowledge reliably in verbose contexts; and (iii) a 68.6% reasoning-to-output mismatch, where correct diagnoses appear in reasoning traces but are not reflected in final answers. We further evaluate the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm on a human-verified failure set (n = 142). GPT-4o-mini approved 47.9% of clinically incorrect outputs, while HuatuoGPT-o1 approved all validly scored failures and showed a positive self-preference bias. These results suggest that standalone automated clinical evaluations can substantially overestimate clinical reliability without expert-grounded validation.

Creating and editing slides is a rich, multimodal activity that is ubiquitous in professional and educational settings, making it an ideal testbed for real-world computer-use agents. Microsoft PowerPoint is among the most widely adopted and feature-rich environments for presentation creation. We introduce PPT-Eval, a benchmark of 120 PowerPoint tasks across 12 files that cover both content creation and presentation editing scenarios, organized by difficulty. A central challenge in this domain is evaluation: tasks are complex, multimodal, and often admit many valid solutions. Moreover, today's agents frequently make only partial progress, which binary success metrics fail to capture. To address this, we design a robust evaluation framework to help create task-specific rubrics for PowerPoint tasks, taking inspiration from and building on past works for rubric-based evaluation. These rubrics award partial credit for intermediate steps, penalize unnecessary changes and poor aesthetics, and provide natural language feedback. This nuanced approach proves highly effective, achieving a Kendall's τ-b correlation of 0.77 with human judgments. We find that existing frontier agents still struggle with solving PowerPoint tasks, with strong models like Claude-4.5-Opus achieving only a 45% success rate and an average partial score of 57%. The benchmark is located at: https://microsoft.github.io/ppteval.

How should we evaluate generation systems that combine autoregressive (AR) and diffusion decoding? We study this question through Speculative Refinement (SpecRef), a training-free hybrid method that warm-starts a masked diffusion language model from an AR draft using entropy-guided selective masking. Evaluating SpecRef across six benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP, GSM8K, BBH, ARC-Challenge, HellaSwag) with three distinct evaluation protocols (execution-based pass@1, exact-match, log-likelihood scoring), we surface several findings relevant beyond our specific system: (1) code benchmarks conflate structural discovery with logical correctness: providing a syntactic scaffold lifts accuracy from near zero to over 20% without changing the model, indicating that much of the baseline failure is structural; (2) a refinement tension phenomenon where multi-stage correction degrades already-correct tokens, exposing benchmark saturation ceilings invisible to single-model evaluation; (3) log-likelihood and generative evaluation produce different model rankings for the same model pair, suggesting they measure different capabilities; (4) standard Python post-processing silently breaks code evaluation for non-AR generators. These observations apply to any multi-stage or non-autoregressive generation pipeline and point toward more diagnostic evaluation practices.

A modern model release reports scores on 40+ benchmarks and the same evaluations were run many more times before it: to track training progress, compare design choices, and select the checkpoint for the release. But do we need to run every eval? We compile a public score matrix of 84 frontier models on 133 benchmarks (2,604 cells, 23.3% filled) and find it is approximately rank-2: a model's scores across all 133 benchmarks are largely determined by just two numbers. We confirm this in two ways: scores hidden from the matrix are best recovered using two factors, and two factors already explain over 90% of the variation among models on the benchmarks they share. Building on this, we design BenchPress: a logit-space rank-2 matrix completion method that recovers held-out scores to within 4.6 points, and a confidence layer that says when each prediction can be trusted. Using BenchPress, we find a subset of five benchmarks {GPQA-D, HLE, Codeforces, MMLU-Pro, ARC-AGI-1} that can recover the rest of a model's public scorecard to within 3.93 points. For a tighter inference budget, a cheaper set {GPQA-D, MMLU-Pro, Aider Polyglot, MATH-500, AIME 2026} can predict a model's evals to within 4.55. We release the score matrix, the BenchPress code, and an interactive tool that predicts any model's score on any benchmark.

Executable evaluation -- checking the consequences of an agent's actions with a program rather than grading its prose -- has become a prominent way to assess tool-using AI agents in software settings. Electric power engineering has not yet had an analogous benchmark: language-model use is still dominated by retrieval and text question answering, while agents acting on power-system artifacts remain mostly academic prototypes. We introduce the Power Systems Agent Benchmark, an executable benchmark for power-engineering agents. An agent receives a structured task and returns a structured solution; a deterministic evaluator recomputes the engineering quantities, checks operational constraints, and returns a feasibility flag, a normalized score, and explicit violations. The benchmark contains 41 task families across eight areas of power engineering, from power flow and protection to stability, microgrids, reliability, power quality, and forecasting. Each task is grounded in a citable source, standard, or documented engineering formulation. To resist contamination, held-out cases are synthesized on demand by per-family generators from private seeds: the construction is inspectable, but the instances remain private. In a reference evaluation with three command-line agents, the strongest score near the compact tier's ceiling, a smaller open model trails, and public and held-out performance are broadly consistent; a separate public-split grid with OpenCode and Aider probes harness effects. The reference evaluation doubles as quality control: unanimous failures flag candidate task or evaluator defects, and it exposed a latent evaluator bug missed by self-consistency checks. The evaluators are compact deterministic surrogates, but the task contract allows their internals to be upgraded to simulator-backed checks without changing how tasks are posed or solved.

Evaluating generalist robot manipulation policies in the real world is expensive, slow, and difficult to scale. Action-conditioned video world models offer a scalable alternative by simulating policy rollouts. Autoregressive rollouts accumulate compounding errors, observations across multiple camera views must remain mutually consistent, and the evaluator must generalize to policies whose behaviors lie outside the training distribution. We address these challenges with SC3-Eval, a self-consistent video generation recipe that adapts a pre-trained video foundation model into an accurate policy evaluator by enforcing three complementary forms of consistency. First, forward-inverse dynamics consistency jointly trains the model to predict frames from actions and to recover actions from frames, anchoring generated rollouts to a physically plausible action manifold and counteracting the drift a forward-only model cannot penalize. Second, cross-view consistency trains the model to inpaint each camera view from the other, keeping the multi-camera observation coherent over long rollouts without any explicit memory mechanism. Third, test-time consistency reuses the inverse dynamics mode at inference as a per-action-chunk uncertainty signal that terminates rollouts whose generated frames drift away from the requested actions. We also demonstrate SC3-Eval rollouts reproduce the failure modes that policies exhibit in real-world rollouts, supporting fine-grained diagnostic comparison rather than aggregate ranking alone. Across seven real-world vision-language-action policies, SC3-Eval attains a closed-loop Pearson correlation of $0.929$ and MMRV of $0.119$, outperforming three strong prior video-model-based baselines, and generalizes to new tasks.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved near-perfect performance in \emph{solving} high-school mathematics, their ability to \emph{evaluate} the diverse reasoning processes of real human students remains under-examined. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textbf{RealMath-Eval}, a rigorously annotated benchmark of 224 real-world exam responses from high schools. Our initial evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art LLM judges struggle significantly on this task, exhibiting a high Mean Squared Error ($\sim$2.96) against expert human grading. To probe a plausible explanation, we contrast this performance with a control setting where the same judges evaluate synthetic LLM-generated solutions. We identify a stark Evaluation Gap'': judges are considerably more accurate and consistent on synthetic text (MSE $\sim$1.17) but struggle to generalize to authentic student reasoning. Through semantic embedding analysis, we find that synthetic errors suffer from a structural collapse'' into predictable, low-dimensional linear subspaces, whereas human errors form a more diverse error space. Furthermore, generative probability probes suggest that human reasoning involves significantly higher information-theoretic surprisal, indicating that student reasoning transitions are more out-of-distribution for current models. Finally, we find that surface-level style transfer fails to close this gap. Our findings suggest that current LLM evaluation pipelines relying heavily on synthetic data may not adequately capture the diversity of authentic student mathematical reasoning.

Automatic evaluation is critical for high-stakes text generation, where errors often involve omitted findings, hallucinated content, polarity reversals, location changes, uncertainty mismatches, and temporal-comparison errors rather than low surface similarity alone. Radiology report generation provides a challenging test case because generated reports must preserve structured clinical evidence across sources. We present RadOT-Eval, an interpretable structured-evidence optimal transport framework for offline auditing of radiology report generation. RadOT-Eval decomposes reference and candidate reports into attribute-structured clinical evidence units, aligns corresponding evidence using entropy-regularized optimal transport, and uses clinically meaningful side-channel discrepancies in a monotone risk model to predict error burden. All transport, feature, and readout choices are selected using the ReXVal dataset, and the frozen system is evaluated on the independent RadEvalX dataset. RadOT-Eval achieves Spearman correlations of 0.715, 0.548, and 0.399 with total, clinically significant, and clinically insignificant annotated error burden, respectively, yielding higher point estimates than standard evaluation metrics and the open-source large language model (LLM)-based evaluator GREEN-radllama2-7B. In a frozen auxiliary corruption-sensitivity stress test on ReXErr-v1, RadOT-Eval achieves 0.768 AUROC and a 0.990 corrupted-greater-than-clean paired win rate. These results show that structured evidence transport provides an auditable, rank-oriented evaluation tool for high-stakes generated clinical text under ReXVal-only model selection and frozen RadEvalX testing.

Recent neural audio codec-based speech generation (CodecFake) produces highly realistic audio, posing a challenge to existing deepfake countermeasure models. While using codec resynthesized speech (CoRS) as proxy data improves performance, it often suffers from limited generalization. We propose Domain-Shift Feature Augmentation (DSFA), which simulates "in-the-wild" variations by transforming deterministic feature statistics into stochastic distributions during fine-tuning. To evaluate generalization, we further introduce Codec-based Speech Generation Extension Evaluation (CoSG ExtEval) dataset, a more challenging extension of the CoSG Eval (from CodecFake+) dataset, featuring 40 unseen generative models and long-form audio. Experimental results demonstrate that combining a post-trained SSL backbone with DSFA effectively narrows the proxy-to-wild domain gap. This approach achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse CodecFake attacks in both CoSG Eval and CoSG ExtEval.

AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments. Yet current agent benchmarks largely evaluate short-form tasks, such as single pull requests, small tickets, or 5-10 minute exercises, limiting our ability to measure agents' capabilities in planning, long-context understanding, and memory use. We introduce SWE-Marathon, a benchmark of 20 long-horizon tasks spanning software engineering and adjacent technical domains. Each task consists of a unique executable environment, a human-written reference solution, and a multi-layer verification suite. Logged agent attempts average 27.2M total tokens, making SWE-Marathon substantially longer-horizon than existing SWE and command-line agent benchmarks. Current frontier coding agents solve fewer than 30% of tasks. Failures often arise from poor self-verification, self-reported infeasibility, and premature termination. We also observe reward-hacking behavior in 13.8% of rollouts, where agents attempt to exploit the environment or verifier to bypass the intended workflow. SWE-Marathon includes adversarial review of test suites and execution environments, as well as multi-layer checks designed to prevent shortcut solutions. We release SWE-Marathon, evaluation code, and agent trajectories at https://swe-marathon.org/.

While GUI agents have advanced rapidly, they often lack the robustness to recover from their own errors, hindering real-world deployment. To bridge this gap at both the evaluation and data levels, we introduce GUI-RobustEval and propose Robustness-driven Trajectory Synthesis. GUI-RobustEval contains $1,216$ executable test cases that systematically measure error recovery capabilities across a broad and realistic spectrum of error modes. At the data level, RoTS is a scalable synthesis framework that creates $800k$ high-quality data via a tree-based pipeline that proactively discovers diverse error modes and synthesizes corresponding recovery steps. Our two models, RoTS-7B and RoTS-32B, fine-tuned on our dataset, both demonstrate significant gains on GUI-RobustEval and traditional GUI benchmarks. Notably, RoTS-32B achieves state-of-the-art performance on OSWorld, with a $47.4\%$ success rate and a $33.8\%$ All-Pass@4 score, suggesting that improved long-horizon error recovery ability contributes to both robustness and overall performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/AlibabaResearch/RoTS.

Inpatient medication recommendation requires clinicians to repeatedly select specific medications, doses, and routes as a patient's condition evolves. Existing benchmarks formulate this task as admission-level prediction over coarse drug codes with multi-hot diagnostic and procedure code inputs, failing to capture the per-timepoint, information-rich nature of real prescribing. We propose RxEval, a prescription-level benchmark that evaluates LLM prescribing capability by multiple-choice questions: each question presents a detailed patient profile and time-ordered clinical trajectory, requiring selection of specific medication-dose-route triples from real prescriptions and patient-specific distractors generated via reasoning-chain perturbation. RxEval comprises 1,547 questions spanning 584 patients, 18 diagnostic categories, and 969 unique medications. Evaluation of 16 LLMs shows that RxEval is both challenging and discriminative: F1 ranges from 45.18 to 77.10 across models, and the best Exact Match is only 46.10%. Error analysis reveals that even frontier models may overlook stated patient information and fail to derive clinical conclusions.

"Oh-Oh, yes, I'm the great pretender. Pretending that I'm doing well. My need is such, I pretend too much..." summarizes the state in the area of jailbreak creation and evaluation. You find this method to generate adversarial attacks proposed by a reputable institution (e.g., BoN from Anthropic or Crescendo from Microsoft Research). However, this method does not deliver on the promise claimed in the paper despite having top ASR scores against industry-grade LLMs. You successfully generate the jailbreak prompts against your target (open) model. However, the generated jailbreak prompt works against the target model with a 50% consecutive success rate (5 out of 10 attempts) despite having an 80% ASR (on paper) on the latest closed-source model (with a guardrail system)! This observation leads us to think. First, Attack Success Rate (ASR), the primary metric for LLM jailbreak benchmarking, is not a stable quantity. Second, published ASR numbers are therefore systematically inflated and incomparable across papers. Therefore, we wonder "Why a successful jailbreak prompt does not perform consistently well against a target model on which the prompts have been optimized?". To answer this question, we study the impact of stochasticity not only during attack evaluation but also during attack generation. Our evaluation includes several jailbreak attacks, models (different sizes and providers), and judges. In addition, we propose a new metric and two new frameworks (CAS-eval and CAS-gen). Our evaluation framework, CAS-eval, shows that an attack can have an ASR drop of up to 30 percentage points when a jailbreak prompt needs to succeed on more than one attempt. Thankfully, our attack generation framework (CAS-gen) improves previous jailbreak methods and helps them recover this loss of 30 percentage points!

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have facilitated Multimodal Summarization with Multimodal Output (MSMO), wherein systems generate concise textual summaries accompanied by salient visuals from multimodal sources. However, current MSMO evaluation remains fragmented: text quality, image-text alignment, and visual diversity are typically assessed in isolation using unimodal metrics, making it difficult to capture whether the modalities jointly support a faithful and useful summary. To address this gap, we introduce MM-Eval, a unified evaluation framework that integrates assessments of textual quality, cross-modal alignment, and visual diversity. MM-Eval comprises three components: (1) text quality, measured using OpenFActScore for factual consistency and G-Eval for coherence, fluency, and relevance; (2) image-text relevance, evaluated via an MLLM-as-a-judge approach; and (3) image-set diversity, quantified using Truncated CLIP Entropy. We calibrate MM-Eval through a learned aggregation model trained on the mLLM-EVAL news benchmark, aligning component contributions with human preferences. Our analysis reveals a text-dominant hierarchy in this setting, where factual consistency acts as a critical determinant of perceived overall quality, while visual relevance and diversity provide complementary signals. MM-Eval improves over heuristic aggregation baselines and provides an interpretable, reference-weak framework for comparative evaluation of multimodal summaries.

Evaluating whether large language models (LLMs) can recover execution-relevant program structure, rather than only produce code that passes tests, remains an open problem. Existing code benchmarks emphasize test-passing outputs, from standalone programming tasks (HumanEval, MBPP, LiveCodeBench) to repository repair (SWE-Bench); this is useful, but offers limited diagnostic signal about which program semantics a model can recover from source. We introduce TraceEval, to our knowledge the first execution-verified, multi-language benchmark for code semantic reasoning: recovering a program's runtime call structure from source code. Unlike prior call-graph benchmarks that rely on static-tool output or hand-annotated ground truth, every positive edge in TraceEval is mechanically witnessed by validation execution, eliminating annotator disagreement and label noise for observed behavior. TraceEval consists of (i) 10,583 real-world programs (2,129 test, 8,454 train) extracted from 1,600+ open-source repositories across Python, JavaScript, and Java via an LLM-assisted harness-generation pipeline with tracer validation; and (ii) a reproducible pipeline that converts any open-source repository into new verified benchmark instances. We evaluate 10 LLMs at zero-shot on the held-out test split. The strongest model, Claude-Opus-4.6, reaches an average F1 of 72.9% across the three languages. To demonstrate the train split's utility as a supervision substrate, we fine-tune the Qwen2.5-Coder family on it: lifts of up to +55.6 F1 bring tuned Qwen2.5-Coder-32B to 71.2%, within 1.7 F1 of zero-shot Claude-Opus-4.6. We release the benchmark, pipeline, baselines, and a datasheet at https://github.com/yikun-li/TraceEva

Existing text-to-image (T2I) benchmarks largely rely on fixed prompt sets, leaving them vulnerable to overfitting and benchmark contamination once publicly released and repeatedly reused. In this work, we propose DynT2I-Eval, a fully automated dynamic evaluation framework for T2I models. It constructs a structured visual semantic space from long-form descriptions, decomposing prompts into controllable dimensions (e.g., subject, logical constraint, environment, and composition). This enables the continuous generation of fresh prompts via task-specific spaces and difficulty-aware sampling. DynT2I-Eval evaluates model performance across text alignment, perceptual quality, and aesthetics. Heterogeneous outputs are unified into prompt-conditioned pairwise comparisons, allowing a dynamic scheduler, micro-batch aggregation, and weighted Bayesian updates to maintain a stable online leaderboard despite changing prompt distributions and model injection. Experiments with independently sampled prompt streams demonstrate that continually refreshed prompts provide a robust evaluation protocol, reducing the impact of prompt-set-specific tuning. Simulations and ablations further confirm that the proposed ranking framework achieves a strong balance among cold-start convergence, late-entry discovery, and long-run ranking fidelity.

While large language models (LLMs) and coding agents are often applied to user interface (UI) development, developers find it difficult to reliably assess their proficiency in visual and interaction design. Existing evaluations either rely on human experts, who can accurately assess usability by testing critical flows but are slow and costly, or on automated judges, which are scalable but less accurate and opaque. We present FlowEval, a reference-based framework that measures whether a generated UI supports realistic interaction flows by comparing navigation traces from real websites to traces from generated analogs using reference-based similarity metrics (e.g., dynamic time warping). In a small-scale study with expert UI evaluators, we show that reference-based metrics strongly correlate with human judgments, suggesting that they can provide scalable yet trustworthy evaluation for UI generation systems.

The remarkable success of large language models (LLMs) has motivated researchers to adapt them as universal predictors for various graph tasks. As a widely recognized paradigm, Graph-Tokenizing LLMs (GTokenLLMs) compress complex graph data into graph tokens and treat them as prefix tokens for querying LLMs, leading many to believe that LLMs can understand graphs more effectively and efficiently. In this paper, we challenge this belief: \textit{Do GTokenLLMs fully understand graph tokens in the natural-language embedding space?} Motivated by this question, we formalize a unified framework for GTokenLLMs and propose an evaluation pipeline, \textbf{GTEval}, to assess graph-token understanding via instruction transformations at the format and content levels. We conduct extensive experiments on 6 representative GTokenLLMs with GTEval. The primary findings are as follows: (1) Existing GTokenLLMs do not fully understand graph tokens. They exhibit over-sensitivity or over-insensitivity to instruction changes, and rely heavily on text for reasoning; (2) Although graph tokens preserve task-relevant graph information and receive attention across LLM layers, their utilization varies across models and instruction variants; (3) Additional instruction tuning can improve performance on the original and seen instructions, but it does not fully address the challenge of graph-token understanding, calling for further improvement.

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

Automatic evaluation metrics are essential for building multilingual translation systems. The common practice of evaluating these systems is averaging metric scores across languages, yet this is suspicious since metrics may suffer from cross-lingual scoring bias, where translations of equal quality receive different scores across languages. This problem has not been systematically studied because no benchmark exists that provides parallel-quality instances across languages, and expert annotation is not realistic. In this work, we propose XQ-MEval, a semi-automatically built dataset covering nine translation directions, to benchmark translation metrics. Specifically, we inject MQM-defined errors into gold translations automatically, filter them by native speakers for reliability, and merge errors to generate pseudo translations with controllable quality. These pseudo translations are then paired with corresponding sources and references to form triplets used in assessing the qualities of translation metrics. Using XQ-MEval, our experiments on nine representative metrics reveal the inconsistency between averaging and human judgment and provide the first empirical evidence of cross-lingual scoring bias. Finally, we propose a normalization strategy derived from XQ-MEval that aligns score distributions across languages, improving the fairness and reliability of multilingual metric evaluation.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used in industry VLM applications such as retrieval systems, content generation platforms, and decision-support workflows, where model selection is commonly guided by benchmark rankings. These rankings are largely determined by retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks; however, models with similar task performance often show substantially different behavior across datasets. This creates a Capability-Reliability Gap between benchmark performance and observed model stability. We present ARGUS-EVAL, a capability-reliability-oriented evaluation framework for VLMs that characterizes model behavior through Benchmark Capability P(M), Cross-Dataset Consistency CDC(M), Robustness Retention RR(M), and Efficiency E(M). We evaluate CLIP, BLIP, LXMERT, Gemma-3-4B, and Qwen-2.5VL-3B-Instruct across retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks. The results reveal notable differences between capability-oriented and reliability-oriented rankings. Qwen-2.5VL-3BInstruct achieves the strongest overall capability (R@1 = 82.7%, BLEU-4 = 47.2%, CIDEr = 141.6, CDC = 0.91), whereas CLIP records the lowest latency (31 ms) and memory footprint (0.9 GB).