Evaluation Benchmarks

Despite its crucial role in video object removal (VOR), existing evaluation paradigms face two critical limitations: questionable references and a misalignment between tradi- tional metrics and human preference. To address these challenges, we introduce VOR- Bench, which advances VOR evaluation through three integrated components. First, we present the VOR Dataset (VORD), the first benchmark dataset providing both paired edited videos and graffiti masks. Its unique strength lies in a diverse data spectrum, which encompasses model-generated, tool-rendered, and camera-captured data, ensuring robust assessment across real-world scenarios. Second, we develop rMPAF, a realistic Motion- capable Paired-video Acquisition Framework. By combining the strengths of image- based object removal and fine-tuned video generation models, rMPAF automatically generates realistic, motion-coherent paired videos. Finally, we propose three evaluation dimensions and introduce VOR-MDSM, the first perception-driven VLM-based scoring model specifically designed for mask-guided VOR. It bridges the gap between arithmetic metrics and human perception by covering the essential visual attributes and matching nuanced human judgment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that VOR-Bench yields evaluation results that align closely with human perception, achieving a remarkable cor- relation (\r{ho} > 0.9) with subjective assessments. We will release VOR-Bench along with its documentation to ensure full reproducibility.

Robustness evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical challenge, particularly in assessing their sensitivity to perturbations in input data. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM robustness across multiple dimensions, including word error rate, character repetition and duplication, modifications in choices, and variability in instruction following. To facilitate this evaluation, we construct a synthetic and augmented dataset encompassing a diverse set of LLM benchmarks, specifically targeting multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets and instruction-following tasks. We conduct extensive experiments on LLMs of varying scales-small, medium, and large-as well as across base and instruction-tuned variants. Our analysis quantifies the variability in model responses under perturbed conditions and highlights discrepancies relative to baseline models. The findings provide insights into the stability of LLMs across different evaluation scenarios contributing to the development of more robust and reliable language models as well as robust evaluation methodologies.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate robot manipulation outcomes, but existing benchmarks offer limited evidence of cross-domain generalization. We introduce FailBench, a benchmark for robot failure detection comprising 2,197 manipulation attempts across 14 public sources (12 real-world, 2 simulated). In FailBench, 75% of failures occur naturally, and six real-world sources come from non-failure-detection datasets. Evaluating 13 VLM-based detectors, we find the best model achieves only 0.77 mean balanced accuracy. Notably, models fine-tuned for failure detection consistently underperform general-purpose VLMs and their own pretrained baselines. Performance depends heavily on required visual evidence: models approach saturation when outcomes depend on observable object motion, but degrade to near-chance (<0.60 balanced accuracy) on contact-intensive assembly tasks. Error analysis reveals a systematic bias toward predicting success under ambiguous evidence, which persists even with increased reasoning effort. Finally, we show that input-level intervention--spatially localizing and cropping outcome-relevant regions--improves the top detector by 2.4 percentage points without extra training.

Reducing the review of clearly cancer-negative screening mammograms could lower radiologist workload without compromising cancer detection. We propose a closed-loop threshold-aware training strategy in which the dismissal threshold is recalculated during training and used to penalize cancer-positive images that approach the dismissal region. We evaluated the method on NLBS and RSNA using five controlled training configurations, with case-level assessment based on a one-sided 99% Clopper--Pearson upper bound for cancer prevalence among dismissed cases. The proposed model achieved the highest case-level dismissal rates at both 98% and 95% recall targets. On NLBS, dismissal reached 19.74% and 21.70%, while the cross-entropy baseline did not meet either recall target. On RSNA, dismissal improved from 7.04% to 14.31% and from 13.49% to 19.69%. In external RSNA$\to$NLBS evaluation, the proposed model achieved dismissal rates of 12.95% and 19.87% at the 98% and 95% recall targets, respectively. These results support closed-loop threshold-aware training for high-recall selective dismissal.

We present an overview of the ImageEval 2026 shared task on culturally grounded Arabic multimodal evaluation. It includes two tasks: (i) AynVQA, covering spoken visual question answering and image-grounded hallucination detection in English and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), and (ii) CRAI-Bench, evaluating the cultural accuracy of text-to-image generation. A total of 14 teams participated in the test phase, with 12 teams submitting system description papers. Participating systems used a range of approaches, including zero-shot prompting, fine-tuning of vision-language models, speech-recognition pipelines, ensembling, and score calibration. We describe the task setup, datasets, evaluation procedure, and participating systems, and summarize the main results across the different tracks. All datasets and evaluation scripts from the shared task are released to the research community. The shared task highlights the challenges of culturally grounded multimodal evaluation, particularly for Arabic speech and image-text reasoning.

With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), research idea generation has attracted increasing attention. Existing approaches enable LLMs to retrieve relevant literature and propose novel ideas for research areas. However, current evaluation practices for idea generation remain fragmented and lack objective standards, often relying on direct LLM scoring, which limits their ability to provide unified and reliable assessments across a coherent distribution of generated ideas. To address this challenge, we propose LigBench, an automated evaluation benchmark that enables fine-grained and reliable evaluation of AI research ideas, consistently applicable across different generation distributions. In addition, we introduce PAIR-IQ, a dataset tailored for training pairwise idea judgment models and serving as an auxiliary reference to support more objective comparative evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LigBench achieves stable and interpretable evaluations, significantly improving alignment with expert judgments. Furthermore, models trained on PAIR-IQ exhibit enhanced ranking accuracy and robustness, establishing a principled standard for scalable and objective research idea assessment.

Text-to-image (T2I) models are increasingly asked to illustrate literary and cultural content, yet we cannot measure how well an image renders the meaning of a poem. The task is many-sided: a good illustration must be visually sound, faithful to the poem's imagery and scene, culturally and stylistically apt, free of spurious text, and true to its emotion, and its deepest requirements, imagery and especially implicit emotion, are never stated in the words. Existing metrics (CLIPScore, BLIPScore, VQAScore) reward literal text-image correspondence and so cannot tell whether an illustration succeeds, let alone why, or even separate the best model from the worst. We introduce TangPoetryBench, a multi-dimensional benchmark of 1,280 images (320 classical Chinese Tang poems x 4 state-of-the-art T2I models) with quality-controlled human annotations across ten dimensions. Analyzing this data, we reveal the shared and model-specific strengths and weaknesses of current T2I models, including their ability to evoke a poem's implicit emotion. We further introduce PoemAutoEvaluator (PAE), an open, rubric-conditioned evaluator that reaches parity with a strong proprietary judge (Claude), generalizes to an unseen generator and a second poetic tradition (Song Ci), and lets the benchmark scale to new images without fresh human annotation. We release the benchmark, annotations, and evaluator.

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate impressive performance in benign scenarios, their cognitive reliability deteriorates significantly in complex scenes under adverse conditions. In these settings, models often rely on implicit inference without sufficient visual evidence, leading to a disconnect between perception and reasoning. Meanwhile, existing outcome-oriented benchmarks evaluate only final predictions and fail to diagnose failures in the underlying reasoning process. To address this gap, the authors propose AD2-Bench, which introduces a Hierarchical Visual Diagnosis framework that decomposes reasoning into a structured Chain of Evidence (CoE). This fine-grained diagnosis reveals that robust multimodal reasoning fundamentally depends on accurate evidence acquisition. Building on this perspective, the authors formulate reasoning from a probabilistic viewpoint and identify two primary causes of reasoning failure: Spatial Ambiguity, where models fail to distinguish target objects from background clutter, resulting in localization errors; and Semantic Uncertainty, where degraded visual features lead to incorrect semantic interpretation, resulting in understanding errors. To overcome these evidence deficiencies, they further propose Evidence-grounded Visual Reasoning (EGVOR), which replaces implicit reasoning with the explicit generation of Evidence Atoms - structured spatial-semantic triplets that enforce tight alignment between localization and semantic understanding. The model is trained through a hierarchical curriculum that progresses from reflective supervision construction to reinforcement learning, where reducing reasoning variance is explicitly rewarded. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EGVOR substantially improves reasoning stability under adverse conditions, providing a more robust framework for trustworthy multimodal cognition.

This preprint presents the results of the fourth GENEA Challenge, a large-scale human evaluation of five speech-driven gesture-generation systems trained by participating teams on the Seamless Interaction dataset of dyadic conversations. As in the 2023 GENEA Challenge, we used a disentangled evaluation methodology to assess motion quality and speech alignment without confounding between the two, and performed a dyadic mismatching study to isolate the effect of listening and reacting to the interlocutor. We additionally introduce a new semantic gesture-generation task and a text-mismatching evaluation methodology using the Grounded Gestures subset of the data. In total, we ran four large-scale user studies, collecting over 23,000 votes from 869 test-takers. In the motion-realism study, the dataset's filtered segments had substantially higher motion quality than all challenge submissions (68-95% pairwise winrate). In the speech-alignment study, the motion-capture segments provided a conceptual ceiling at 62% alignment score, with the top submission significantly behind at 32% and the rest only slightly above the 0% expected of an input-independent system. In the dyadic study, motion capture again set the ceiling at 65% appropriateness score, but no submission scored substantially above chance, indicating that the systems could not yet respond to the interlocutor. Finally, the semantic mismatching evaluation found highly expressive gestures in the dataset (test-takers identified the matching transcript 79% of the time), yet almost all submissions failed to generate semantically expressive motion, with the best achieving only an 8% appropriateness score. The collected votes and outputs will be made publicly available at https://genea-workshop.github.io/2026/challenge/ to facilitate reproducibility and further research.

Understanding both expressed and evoked emotions is critical for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to achieve comprehensive affect-aware interactions. However, existing benchmarks typically examine expressed and evoked emotions in isolation or are constrained to coarse-grained and incomplete affective characterizations. To bridge this gap, we introduce E$^3$mo-Bench, a scalable benchmark comprising $12{,}314$ question-answer pairs across $2{,}524$ videos with predefined affective perspectives. It evaluates evoked and expressed emotion understanding via $3$ complementary tasks: emotion perception, open-vocabulary recognition, and valence-arousal-dominance (VAD) assessment. To efficiently scale reliable continuous annotations, we propose Bayesian Pairwise Alignment, which aggregates sparse, low-burden pairwise judgments into anchor-referenced VAD estimates. Furthermore, we develop E$^3$mo-Score, a training-free agent that aggregates complementary judgments from a five-model committee to improve VAD estimation. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our framework and expose a pronounced performance skew between evoked and expressed emotion paradigms. These findings, coupled with MLLMs' persistent deficits in fine-grained recognition and dimensional assessment, chart a clear course for advancing multimodal emotional intelligence.

Despite significant advances in instruction-following and auditory comprehension, the evaluation of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in Spoken Language Models (SLMs) remains confined to rudimentary paralinguistic perception, lacking a systematic, theory-driven cognitive framework. We introduce EmoSBench, the first comprehensive EI evaluation benchmark for SLMs constructed upon the four-branch theoretical model, covering Perceiving, Understanding, Using, and Managing Emotion across ten sub-tasks. Preliminary assessments on EmoSBench reveal a substantial gap: even leading proprietary models like GPT-4o-Audio achieve only 52.6%, significantly trailing human baselines. To bridge this gap, we develop EmoS, a specialized evaluator model optimized via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). To facilitate its effective training, we curate EmoDialogue, a bilingual dataset providing necessary fine-grained supervision through response pairs with rigorously defined EI gradations. Concurrently, we introduce a reward mechanism integrating a Steep Exponential Accuracy Reward (SEAR) and a Rationale Fidelity Reward (RFR) to enforce precise ordinal scoring and valid reasoning. Experiments demonstrate that EmoS reaches 83.8% accuracy, approaching human-level performance. Furthermore, evaluations on authentic, unconstrained spoken interactions validate its robust real-world generalization, establishing a foundational framework for advancing emotionally intelligent dialogue systems.

Existing safety evaluation datasets for large language models (LLMs) predominantly focus on English and Western contexts, often overlooking the linguistic diversity and culturally grounded safety risks present in other languages. To address this gap, we introduce SurakshaEval, a novel safety benchmark composed of human-written prompts spanning real-world scenarios, explicitly designed for ten major Indian languages - Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Punjabi, Tamil, and Telugu, along with English. SurakshaEval includes both generic prompts common across India and region- and language-specific prompts that capture localized sociocultural sensitivities. We benchmark a broad range of state-of-the-art LLMs on SurakshaEval, establish baseline safety performance, and identify recurring failure modes, including over-refusal, missed detection of implicit bias, and insufficient contextual awareness in regionally sensitive settings. Our results show that even strong multilingual LLMs struggle to reliably meet nuanced safety requirements when operating in Indic languages, particularly in native scripts. These findings highlight the urgent need for safety evaluation frameworks that incorporate region-specific data and structured assessment protocols, enabling the development and deployment of AI systems that operate securely, ethically, and in alignment with diverse societal values. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/debobanerjee/SurakshaEval. Warning: This paper contains text that may be offensive or unsafe.

We present MameLoshnLM, the first open-source 8B-parameter language model built specifically for Yiddish. Despite Yiddish's rich textual tradition, its limited digital presence and the scarcity of reliable evaluation resources have constrained progress in Yiddish language modeling. Existing multilingual corpora and benchmarks are often poor proxies for the language, containing substantial amounts of noisy, machine-translated, and misclassified text. We address these gaps by introducing Oytser, a high-quality Yiddish pretraining corpus that combines contemporary web-native sources with literary materials, and Kashes, a multi-task benchmark spanning translation, linguistic analysis, information extraction, and language understanding. Using these resources, we continue pretraining Llama 3.1 8B to obtain MameLoshnLM. Across the tasks in the benchmark, MameLoshnLM outperforms open baselines of similar scale. Our analyses show that these gains are not only quantitative: relative to general-purpose multilingual models, MameLoshnLM better captures language-defining lexical and morphological patterns, pointing to a broader failure mode of noisy web-scale multilingual data for low-resource languages. Our results provide both a foundation for Yiddish NLP and a practical template for language model development in historically rich but digitally underrepresented languages.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering has shifted the focus from function-level generation to repository-scale assistance. However, existing benchmarks largely rely on bug reports from GitHub Issues, which often allow models to bypass genuine understanding via pattern matching on error logs. This misalignment under-measures Edit Bias, which refers to premature generation, where models prematurely propose code modifications instead of understanding the existing repository architecture. Furthermore, current LLM-as-a-Judge scalar scoring suffers from high variance and low interpretability. This work introduces RepoProbe, a novel benchmark for evaluating repository-level code understanding through open-ended Q&A using GitHub Discussions, which focuses on open-ended architectural inquiries rather than defect reporting. To ensure rigorous evaluation, we propose a Checklist-Based Verification Protocol that decomposes answers into atomic, verifiable facts, thereby replacing subjective ratings with objective verification. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs reveals a persistent gap between high clarity and evidencegrounded technical correctness. It also quantitatively confirms the prevalence of edit bias, in which models prioritize code generation instead of architectural analysis. Finally, we demonstrate that our verification protocol significantly improves evaluation reliability compared to traditional evaluations with scalar scoring.

Recent advances in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in web UI generation. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focus on single-turn full-page generation from scratch, overlooking the iterative workflow of real-world frontend engineering, where developers repeatedly reconstruct missing regions and modify localized elements within existing codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce MT-Web2Code, the first multimodal coding benchmark for multi-turn Macro-Level Regional Reconstruction and Micro-Level Localized Modification, which contains 102 tasks spanning 16 vertical domains. To construct deterministic repair trajectories without costly turn-level human annotation, we develop a scalable Reverse-Corruption Trajectory Engine that iteratively injects structural and stylistic defects into golden pages. We further propose a dual-axis evaluation protocol that measures target-region fidelity and the preservation of unaffected content, where regional reconstruction is assessed by a 5-dimensional VLM-based rubric and localized modification by deterministic pixel-grounded alignment. Experiments on 13 frontier coding agents reveal that current agents struggle to faithfully reconstruct target regions while preserving unaffected content, lack fine-grained visual-code alignment for localized edits, and suffer from error snowballing over multiple turns. Beyond benchmarking, our deterministic evaluation metrics provide fine-grained feedback signals that may facilitate future research on training iterative UI coding agents. Our evaluation code and data will soon be released.

Data agents enable natural-language analytics over organizational workspaces, where relevant evidence may be scattered across databases, structured files, long documents, and multimedia. Existing benchmarks largely isolate structured querying, retrieval, or open-ended analysis, leaving heterogeneous evidence discovery, complete tabular outputs, and deterministic evaluation insufficiently unified. We introduce DataSpace, a benchmark in which data agents produce verifiable tabular results from task-local heterogeneous workspaces. It contains 410 cross-language tasks and 7,439 artifacts totaling 15.01 GB across CSV, JSON, SQLite, Markdown, PDF, and video. DataSpace also served as the official evaluation benchmark for the KDD Cup 2026 Data Agents for Complex Data Analysis competition. Each agent receives only a question and workspace and returns the complete requested tabular result. We construct DataSpace with DataSpace-Builder, an execution-grounded framework comprising cross-language transformation, constraint-aware relational sampling, modality routing and artifact rendering, and human review and task repair by 11 domain experts. A deterministic evaluator performs header-invariant column alignment, type- and precision-aware normalization, and order-aware row comparison. Across six recently released frontier multimodal models and five widely used agent harnesses, the best accuracy reaches 66.34%, while harness choice creates a 15.36-point spread with the backbone fixed. Multimodal evidence integration and joins consistently reduce accuracy across all six backbones. These results show that DataSpace remains unsaturated and identify key challenges for improving data-agent reliability.

While human evaluation is the gold standard in many NLP tasks, it suffers from prohibitive costs and poor scalability. When identifying top-performing models, typical evaluation protocols waste effort by exhaustively evaluating all models on the entire benchmark, a safe but inefficient approach. In this work, we formalize multi-model human evaluation as a best-arm identification problem in a multi-armed bandit setup with correlated arms, where pulling an arm corresponds to human-evaluating a model. By sampling adaptively based on the intermediate model rankings obtained on the samples so far, we can focus the annotation budget on the most competitive models. We prove the optimality of the proposed algorithms and show that it improves discrimination between top-performing models. This makes evaluations faster, cheaper and more aligned with large-scale competition evaluation goals.

Recent advances in unified multimodal models have significantly improved text-guided image editing abilities. In particular, models such as Nano-Banana-Pro and GPT-Image-2 demonstrate emerging capabilities in multi-source image editing (MIE), including tasks such as object synthesis, person-background composition, and cross-image style fusion. However, existing benchmarks and image editing assessment (IEQA) methods remain primarily focused on single-image editing tasks and largely overlook the more challenging setting of MIE. This highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive and human-aligned benchmark for MIE. To this end, we introduce MIE-Bench, the first large-scale multiple image editing benchmark with fine-grained human preference annotations. Specifically, MIE-Bench includes 3,000 editing instances across 16 tasks, each involving more than two source images and an editing prompt, together with 36K edited images produced by 12 state-of-the-art editing models and over 108K mean opinion scores (MOSs) covering visual quality, instruction following, and attribute preservation. Based on MIE-Bench, we propose MIEScore, a multimodal large language model (MLLM)-based evaluation model enhanced with skill optimization and multi-dimensional supervised fine-tuning, to provide human-aligned feedback for MIE. Extensive experiments show that MIEScore achieves state-of-the-art performance in aligning with human preferences and generalizes well across other IEQA datasets. Both the dataset and the model are available at https://github.com/IntMeGroup/MIEScore.

Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples. We introduce a dataset-centric meta-evaluation framework that audits benchmark datasets at the sample level along five latent dimensions: 1. Cognitive and Knowledge Demands, 2. Language and Content Quality, 3. Task Properties, 4. Context, and 5. Ethics, Safety, and Fairness. Applying this framework, we annotate five influential benchmarks -- MMLU, ARC, WinoGrande, HellaSwag, and TruthfulQA -- revealing pronounced internal heterogeneity that is not captured by aggregate accuracy scores. We show how these annotations enable criterion-driven orchestration of composite benchmark subsets across datasets, supporting targeted evaluation of model capabilities such as Reasoning Depth or Ethical Sensitivity. This approach reframes benchmark evaluation as dataset introspection, providing a principled methodology for analyzing and re-composing existing benchmarks to better reflect diverse evaluation needs.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as CLIP are now foundational to multimodal systems, yet their robustness to spurious correlations remains poorly understood at scale. We present the first large-scale empirical study of 194 publicly available VLMs, including 16 model families, covering a wide range of model sizes, 24 training datasets, and three evaluation benchmarks, namely ImageNet (overall performance), CelebA (typical single-attribute bias), and UrbanCars (complex multi-attribute biases). Across these settings, the Spearman correlation between model scale and performance weakens as evaluation shifts from ImageNet ($ρ{=}0.68$) to single-attribute ($ρ{=}0.48$) and further to multi-attribute ($ρ{=}0.05$) bias benchmarks. In contrast, properties of the training data (size and quality) show more consistent relationships with worst-group accuracy across both bias benchmarks. Notably, curated datasets yield improvements of up to 25% over uncurated alternatives at a comparable scale. Finally, the effect of architectural choices (e.g., patch size, image resolution) is highly context-dependent, varying with the nature of the benchmark, including the type of bias and its spatial distribution within images.

Current human evaluation of machine translation typically assesses single outputs in isolation, a paradigm that suffers from high annotator noise and cost. We introduce Contrastive Error Span Annotation (cESA), a protocol that presents multiple translations of the source input (text, video, audio, image). In cESA, the annotator sees multiple translations of the same document, marks major and minor error spans, and then assigns a score from 0% to 100% on absolute scale. By allowing annotators to access the shared context across multiple outputs, cESA facilitates more consistent and efficient judgments. We validate cESA using a large-scale human evaluation of English->Japanese translations of 12 models, demonstrating reductions in annotation time and noise compared to standard pointwise evaluation. Unlike existing contrastive ranking methods, cESA yields absolute quality judgments that enable simple, interpretable non-parametric model rankings without the need for post-hoc corrections.

India is a vast nation of over 1.4 billion people, varied by hundreds of diverse and locally specific traditions and cultures and 22 officially recognized languages. Large language models (LLMs) are now being deployed on a massive scale throughout the mainland as well as in remote villages. However, the common benchmarks - MMLU, BIG-Bench, and TruthfulQA are almost exclusively English- and Western-centric. They do not identify those safety, fairness, and accuracy failures unique to the Indian context. That is the gap Inspect India Evals seeks to fill. It is an open-source framework built on top of UK AISI's Inspect AI platform. It has six benchmarks: Multilingual MMLU across sixteen Indian languages, BharatBBQ (our adaptation of BBQ for Indian social bias), a safety evaluation for Digital Public Infrastructure, a multilingual safety test using harmful prompts in Indian languages, a multi-turn jailbreak resistance test, and an Indian cultural knowledge benchmark scored using LLM-as-judge rubrics. In this study, we tested five open-weight models ranging from 8B to 32B parameters. Sarvam-M 24B and Gemma 2 27B came out on top, both scoring 80% on the composite India Fairness Index, with Sarvam-M even beating larger 32B models on Indian cultural knowledge and DPI safety compliance. All models scored 100% refusal on Multilingual Safety, whereas DPI safety varied from 20% to 100%. The framework is public. It's built to work with the UK AISI registry. Anyone can reproduce or extend this work.

Training deep learning models with freely available web images can reduce their dependence on costly manual annotations. Although webly supervised learning has been widely studied for single-label recognition, its multi-label counterpart remains underexplored, partly due to the lack of unified benchmarks and fair comparison protocols. To address this gap, we construct a benchmark for webly supervised multi-label recognition (WS-MLR), including Web-COCO and Web-Pascal, and re-implement representative baselines under a unified setting. The two datasets cover the same 80 and 20 categories as MS-COCO and Pascal VOC, respectively, and contain about 300 thousand images retrieved from the Internet using category-word combinations as search keywords. We further propose a Dual-Branch Multi-Label Contrastive Learning (DBMLCL) framework, which learns category-specific instance-level and category-level representations together with their similarities to identify and correct noisy labels. Extensive experiments on the benchmark demonstrate that DBMLCL achieves superior performance compared to representative baselines.

With the wide application of large language models (LLMs) in real-world scenarios, the value implication of their outputs is crucial. However, existing evaluation benchmarks suffer from insufficient coverage of value dilemmas in daily scenarios involving multiple value conflicts and simplistic evaluation formalisms that fail to assess LLMs' value alignment. To address these issues, we propose D2VBench, a value alignment benchmark comprising 10,000 instances of real daily dilemma scenarios constructed through a multi-stage collaboration between LLMs and humans, grounded in 158 manually annotated fine-grained value concepts. For evaluation on the benchmark, we present a hybrid evaluation paradigm that integrates multiple-choice questions with open-ended questions. We conduct comprehensive evaluations on eight mainstream LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that D2VBench exhibits high reliability and robustness, effectively reflecting the LLMs' alignment across different value categories and dimensions, and providing a more realistic and fine-grained tool for research on value alignment. The dataset is available at https://github.com/tjunlp-lab/D2VBench.

Multimodal humor in memes, cartoons, and comics remains difficult for AI systems because intended meaning depends on non-literal mechanisms, shared cultural knowledge, and communicative intent rather than literal scene description. This survey focuses on visual humor understanding in single-image and multi-panel artifacts, while treating humor generation as an emerging downstream frontier. We position the literature against prior humor, sarcasm, and general MLLM surveys and organize it using a capability-centric hierarchy spanning recognition, interpretation and reasoning, and generation. Under this lens, we synthesize benchmark design, evaluation protocols, and modeling paradigms, tracing the field's shift from task-specific fusion models to large-model approaches based on multimodal alignment, evidence-grounded reasoning, and controlled generation. We conclude by highlighting the main barriers to progress: shortcut-prone evaluation, limited cultural and narrative coverage, weak evidence grounding, and unresolved safety and ownership concerns.

This paper reports on a collaboration between the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) and the European Master's in Translation (EMT) to localise the MMLU dataset into 11 European languages. Beyond creating a more inclusive benchmark for LLM evaluation, the project offers master's students authentic, project-based professional training in translation, revision, project management, and multilingual coordination, while highlighting key methodological, administrative, and workflow challenges.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) across languages remains challenging, as most multilingual benchmarks rely on translated English datasets, often obscuring linguistic and cultural specificity in the target language. This issue is particularly pronounced for less-resourced languages such as Kyrgyz, where reliable natively authored evaluation data are scarce. Building on previously introduced Kyrgyz-language evaluation datasets, this work reports the first systematic and large-scale evaluation of LLMs in Kyrgyz using the KyrgyzLLM-Bench benchmark suite. KyrgyzLLM-Bench comprises two natively authored datasets$-$KyrgyzMMLU and KyrgyzRC$-$together with carefully translated and manually post-edited versions of WinoGrande, HellaSwag, BoolQ, and TruthfulQA. We evaluate 26 open- and closed-source LLMs under zero-shot and few-shot settings, analyzing model performance, cross-lingual transfer, and the impact of translation artifacts on evaluation reliability. Across families and tasks, model rankings transfer broadly from English to Kyrgyz on WinoGrande and BoolQ, and to a lesser extent on MMLU, while HellaSwag exhibits a substantial English-Kyrgyz performance gap consistent with translation-induced plausibility shifts. Few-shot prompting improves several open-source models on reading comprehension but behaves inconsistently for proprietary models on translated tasks. We publicly release all datasets, evaluation code, and per-model results, and integrate the Kyrgyz tasks into a widely used multilingual evaluation framework to support future research on Kyrgyz NLP.

Adversarial attacks against vision models like object detectors are often evaluated under limited conditions, leaving their performance under-characterized. Bridging simulation and differentiable rendering enables more robust, end-to-end evaluation of these adversarial attacks, yet there is no easy-to-use, unified system that offers a rich set of customizable configurations for adversarial attacks across multiple scenes, objects, environmental and lighting conditions, and camera trajectories. We present ALLUDE, which addresses these gaps, offering first-of-its-kind evaluation capabilities across Linux and Windows. We comprehensively demonstrate ALLUDE's evaluation breadth through a two-pronged strategy: (1) using Latin Hypercube Sampling, we draw a representative subset from 5,400 configurations spanning 10 scene-object pairs, 9 weather conditions, 4 optimizers, 5 camera trajectories, and 3 detection models; (2) we stress-test existing attacks (CAMOU, RAUCA, FCA) under diverse weather conditions and continuous camera trajectories, revealing degradation of attack success across every attack, exposing evaluation gaps in prior work. Through ALLUDE's end-to-end differentiable rendering, adversarial attacks can be optimized against shifting real-world deployment conditions. Our cross-platform code is open source.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to interpret visualizations, yet current evaluations remain largely chart-centric and provide limited evidence of understanding of scientific visualization (SciVis). We benchmark six MLLMs on the scientific visualization literacy assessment test, a standardized SciVis literacy assessment comprising 49 items based on 18 scientific visualizations and illustrations, spanning 8 techniques and 11 task types. We evaluate three closed-source and three open-source models under a closed-world protocol and compare their performance using data from 485 human participants. Results show that current MLLMs do not exhibit uniform SciVis literacy. Gemini is the strongest model overall, exceeding the human mean across the evaluated subsets, whereas the open-source models remain below the human baseline. Performance is highly uneven across techniques and tasks: models perform best on scientific illustration, search, and spatial understanding, but struggle on texture-based and integration-based visualizations and on quantitative estimation. Error analysis reveals recurring failures in fine-grained quantitative estimation, flow-direction interpretation, and grounded encoding interpretation. These findings position SciVis literacy as a necessary benchmark dimension for evaluating multimodal AI systems. Our code and model outputs are publicly available at https://github.com/patdmp/mllm-scivis-lit-benchmark.

Deepfake detectors that achieve near-perfect scores on academic benchmarks collapse on real-world content: recent in-the-wild evaluations report AUC drops of 45-50% for state-of-the-art open-source models. We argue this gap is structural: static detectors are trained once against a moving generative frontier. We present BitMind Forensics (BMF), trained through Bittensor SN34, an open adversarial competition that continually refreshes the training distribution. We evaluate one dated export comprising image, general-video, and human-video checkpoints across nineteen public datasets: the canonical face-swap suites (FaceForensics++, Celeb-DF v1/v2/++, DFDC, DFD, UADFV, DF40) and recent in-the-wild and AI-generated-media benchmarks (Sumsub, Deepfake-Eval-2024, WildRF, Community Forensics, AIGCDetectBench, GenImage, AI-GenBench, AIGIBench, RAID, GenVidBench, GenVideo-100K). BMF reaches 0.936 AUC on Sumsub's original images and 0.872 pooled AUC over its full four-condition manipulation battery (1.4M images), staying robust under perturbation (0.855 JPEG, 0.799 downscaled), while GPEN enhancement improves detection (0.996). On Deepfake-Eval-2024, it matches the best commercial detector on images (0.915 vs 0.90) and exceeds it on video (0.822 vs 0.79), far above the best open-source detectors (0.56 and 0.63). It reaches 0.991 AUC on a 21-generator AI-image panel and 0.918 on GenVidBench, and exceeds the FF++-trained frontier on DFDC (0.947 vs 0.843) and Celeb-DF v2 (0.9985 vs 0.956), both contamination-audited, with statistical parity on Celeb-DF++. In a temporal study, successive dated exports improve on held-out media from generators absent from the static baseline's training (image 0.842 to 0.902; video 0.864 to 0.936). Our evaluation harness is public, and at publication the production API serves the exact evaluated snapshot for independent verification.

Evaluating retail conversational agents requires methods beyond lexical-overlap metrics to assess intent alignment, factuality, helpfulness, clarity, tone, and overall response quality. Although LLM-as-a-judge methods provide scalable alternatives to human evaluation, production deployment introduces challenges in governance, reproducibility, cost, schema consistency, traceability, and reliability. We present GenAI Evaluation, a governed, configuration-driven pipeline for large-scale evaluation of retail conversational systems. It processes production chatbot logs through normalization, sharding, asynchronous execution, and schema-constrained LLM scoring. The framework evaluates helpfulness, truthfulness, clarity, tone alignment, and translation-specific dimensions. Selective re-evaluation processes only incomplete, malformed, or schema-invalid records, while schema locking, versioned configurations, validation logs, and record-level provenance support auditability. The framework processes approximately 50,000 records daily and has evaluated more than two million interactions. Validation used 12,980 stratified-random human-labeled records from four trained annotators. Classification covered 14 intents, 156 sub-intents, 18 major domains, and 129 sub-domains. The pipeline achieved a macro F1 score of 0.93 and 89% human-acceptability accuracy for translation.

Hybrid quantum-classical machine learning workflows repeatedly evaluate many small parametrized circuits during training and model exploration. In this regime, framework dispatch and orchestration overhead often dominate runtime. Prior simulators accelerate execution but leave open the question of when compile-once specialization is the right choice for static variational circuits. We answer this question with VQCSim, a compile-once, PyTorch-native statevector execution path with native autograd. In a systematic MQT Bench study, VQCSim compiles all tested static circuits and provides 87.7% end-to-end semantic validation. Across a five-GPU evaluation set, VQCSim delivers pooled median speedups of 4.49x for native inference and 26.78x for native training, while retaining a 3.31x advantage under matched finite-difference training. Ablation identifies native autograd as the dominant source of acceleration (27.6x), with compile-once caching and batch vectorization contributing additional gains. The speedup trades higher GPU memory (VQCSim is memory-limited at the high end) for lower runtime. We derive a hardware-aware regime map and release vqcsim-oracle, an open-source backend selector with 91.1%-97.7% top-1 agreement (including cross-GPU transfers), enabling automatic simulator selection in QML design loops.

Recent advances in text-to-image (T2I) generation have led to models capable of producing highly realistic images. Yet, reliably evaluating their outputs remains challenging, especially at scale. Existing automatic evaluators, often relying on a static prompt set, struggle to capture subtle failure modes such as partial prompt misalignment, compositional errors, or visually plausible but semantically incorrect generations. In this work, we introduce DynEval, a Dynamic Evaluation framework designed to jointly assess text-to-image alignment and image quality of T2I models. To support scalable training beyond limited human-annotated data, we construct two large datasets. First, we build GenDB, a collection of 500K prompt-image pairs generated from human-written prompts drawn from DiffusionDB using a tiered prompt-model generation strategy. Second, building upon GenDB, we construct DynEvalInstruct, a 250K instruction dataset comprising prompt-image-response triplets distilled from a structured evaluation pipeline that decomposes evaluation into text-image alignment and visual quality reasoning. Using this dataset, we perform full fine-tuning of a compact evaluator through a curriculum learning strategy to effectively distill the superior evaluation capabilities of a larger teacher vision-language model, resulting in DynEval-2B and DynEval-4B. In extensive comparisons against existing evaluators across 11 benchmarks, our evaluator achieves a higher overall correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, it provides fine-grained analysis of the capabilities and failure modes of 36 T2I models across 42 subcategories and 9 semantic dimensions.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for e-commerce attribute extraction requires labeled data representative across thousands of product types, attributes, and multiple languages. This combinatorial scale translates to millions of annotations, rendering human labeling prohibitively costly. While recent work has demonstrated synthetic label generation using LLMs, deploying such approaches at industrial scale requires integrated quality control mechanisms. We present SynthAVE, a large-scale benchmark for attribute-value verification spanning 12,726 products across 229 product types, 792 attributes, and 4 languages (Spanish, French, Italian, German). To validate synthetic labels at scale, we introduce a multi-LLM arena framework where each sample is evaluated by 21 judge configurations (7 model families $\times$ 3 prompts), with final labels determined via majority voting; disagreements with the synthetic label are expert-adjudicated and agreement cases are audited on a stratified sample. The majority vote ensemble agrees with expert labels at Cohen's $κ= 0.92$ (95.0% agreement), while individual judges agree with one another only moderately (Fleiss' $κ= 0.76$)--by design, since we select for diversity. This demonstrates that diverse models with varying individual judgments aggregate into highly reliable predictions, enabling cost-effective validation at scale while concentrating expert effort on the cases where it changes the label. We estimate the resulting label quality at 97.9%.

Evaluation benchmarks are essential for assessing vision-language models (VLMs), but most multimodal benchmarks are static, making them vulnerable to temporal staleness, data contamination, and costly maintenance. We present MMBench-Live, a continuously evolving multimodal benchmark built by a multi-agent-driven automated pipeline. Our framework treats benchmark evolution as task-guided dataset construction, integrating structured benchmark specification, feedback-controlled real-time data acquisition, and verifiable QA generation with executable reasoning. To maintain cross-version comparability, we introduce a distribution-consistent update strategy that extracts task-related visual patterns from the original benchmark to guide data collection and filtering. Instantiated from MMBench, MMBench-Live contains 5.9K newly generated evaluation instances with a high answer correctness rate, while each update costs about USD 30 and takes 1-2 hours. Extensive evaluations show that MMBench-Live preserves stable model rankings, maintains semantic alignment with the original benchmark, and exhibits weaker contamination-related memorization signals, suggesting a practical and scalable paradigm for sustainable multimodal benchmark evolution. The project is available at https://github.com/PRIS-CV/MMBench-Live.

LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference. We instead ask: how far are current LLM-generated ideas from human researchers? To characterize this gap, we build a large-scale evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers. For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea. LLMs are then prompted to generate a new idea from the set of paper titles and summaries. We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm, and use it to quantify the divergence between human and LLM ideas. Across idea sets generated by different LLMs, we observe a consistent distributional gap: LLM ideas are disproportionately concentrated around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods, whereas the human paper reference distribution spreads more broadly across ways of framing gaps and constructing contributions. This result suggests that strong LLMs can produce a range of reasonable ideas, but that range remains narrower than, and systematically shifted relative to, human research taste.

This paper presents an overview of the second edition of the TalentCLEF challenge, organized as a Lab at the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF) 2026. TalentCLEF is an initiative aimed at advancing Natural Language Processing research in Human Capital Management. The second edition of the challenge consisted of two tasks: Task A, contextualized job-person matching, focuses on identifying and ranking the most suitable candidates represented by their resumes for a given job vacancy in English and Spanish. Task B, job-skill matching with skill type classification, addresses retrieving the most relevant skills for a given job title in English and distinguishing between core and contextual skills. TalentCLEF attracted 113 registered teams and received more than 400 submissions in the two tasks, reflecting the growing interest of the research community in shared evaluation benchmarks for Human Capital Management. This paper describes the motivation and organization of the challenge, summarizes the datasets and evaluation settings, and reports the main results obtained by the participating teams.

Auto-formalization is critical for scalable formal verification, but existing progress largely focuses on isolated statements, while theory-scale auto-formalization, which coherently translates hundreds of interdependent definitions, lemmas, and theorems, remains open due to challenges in consistency, faithfulness, scalability, and correctness. In this paper, we introduce LCS-Bench, a stand-alone, theory-scale benchmark based on Logics for Computer Science. LCS-Bench is built through a novel semi-automated agentic pipeline that leverages concept graphs, formal signature planning, issue tracking, sorry-filling with counter-example search, complemented by faithfulness review from human experts. The resulting artifact covers 327 textbook items, over 4,076 Lean declarations, and more than 85K lines of Lean code. The dataset supports broad evaluation through a data engine that automatically derives five tracks of evaluation benchmarks, measuring different aspects of auto-formalization and theorem-proving capabilities. We also introduce a novel evaluation protocol featuring definitional equivalence checkers, enabling more fine-grained and faithful assessment. Through extensive evaluation on 14 models, we demonstrate that (1) LCS-Bench is of high quality, consistent, and faithful; (2) the benchmark is challenging, with state-of-the-art models achieving only 20.1% on auto-formalization tasks; and (3) our analysis reveals key findings regarding theory-scale auto-formalization and suggests promising directions for future work.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process diverse inputs, e.g., text, images, audio, and video, and generate textual responses. While their capabilities have advanced rapidly, evaluation of such models has not kept pace. Most existing evaluation benchmarks are limited to isolated tasks and reveal little about whether a model integrates information across modalities. We examine current means for evaluating MLLMs and review the existing benchmark taxonomy to identify gaps, including temporal-spatial coherence, physical world understanding, multimodal consistency, and selective attention. Addressing these gaps is essential for measuring real progress in multimodal intelligence and exposing capability boundaries.

Scaling adversarial evaluation of large language models requires both a method for generating hard inputs and a reliable way to confirm that resulting failures are real. We present AdversaBench, an end-to-end red-teaming pipeline that mutates seed prompts with five structured operators, queries a target model, and confirms failures through a three-judge panel with a meta-judge tiebreaker. We report experiments on 45 seeds across three categories: reasoning, instruction-following, and tool use. Every seed produced a confirmed failure. Four findings stand out. First, operator effectiveness varies sharply by category: inject_distractor scores 0.00 mean reward on instruction-following seeds but 0.80-0.83 on reasoning and tool-use. Second, binary failure rate hides difficulty: instruction-following seeds required 2.4 attacker iterations on average versus 1.1 for other categories, a gap visible in survival curves. Third, pairwise judge agreement of 80-87% coexists with near-zero Cohen's kappa due to label skew; category-level disagreement rates are more informative. Fourth, adversarial prompts generated against Llama 3.1 8B transfer zero-shot to Llama 3.3 70B, suggesting the mutations exploit general behavioral patterns rather than model-specific weaknesses. Code, dataset, and analysis scripts are available at https://github.com/khanak0509/AdversaBench .

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as perception-reasoning backbones for embodied intelligence in safety-critical physical systems, where perception or reasoning errors can lead to unsafe decisions or actions. Although many red-teaming methods have been developed to probe VLM vulnerabilities, their evaluation remains fragmented across datasets, metrics, and threat models, making direct comparison difficult and obscuring whether observed differences arise from stronger attacks, more vulnerable models, or incompatible evaluation settings. Existing chatbot-centric red-teaming benchmarks mainly standardize jailbreak and content-safety evaluation, but they do not systematically capture physically grounded functional failures or cover red-teaming methods that target physical-world VLMs. This raises the key challenge of comparing diverse attack methods under a unified protocol while targeting the same scenario-specific failures. We introduce REALM, to our knowledge the first unified red-teaming benchmark for physical-world VLMs. REALM integrates 12 red-teaming methods, 3 model-agnostic defenses, and 13 VLMs under a practical black-box threat model with shared datasets and metrics. To align adversarial objectives across attack families, REALM introduces an agentic target-generation pipeline that constructs shared, scenario-specific, and physically grounded attack objectives for each scene, enabling fair comparison of diverse red-teaming methods under aligned adversarial goals. Our evaluation shows that text and typographic injection attacks induce the most failures, multimodal co-optimization yields the strongest visual-perturbation transfer, single-pass attacks approach iterative methods at much lower cost, and model scale alone does not confer adversarial robustness. Code is available at https://github.com/UCF-ML-Research/REALM.

Automatic review generation is a promising direction for accelerating scientific progress. While most work adopts an end-to-end setup, its fully automated nature makes it less suitable for settings that demand accountability. To better balance automation and accountability, we formalize judgment-grounded expansion, a human-AI collaboration mode where a reviewer provides an evaluative claim and the system expands it into review comment candidate(s). We model it as a structured generate-check-refine process and conduct a user study to collect human-model interaction data. We study two practical challenges for judgment-grounded expansion: scalable evaluation and candidate set curation. We develop methods to simulate the process for large-scale evaluation, and show that conformal prediction is well suited to balancing candidate set size and target coverage. Our work establishes judgment-grounded expansion as a concrete task and provides empirical and methodological foundations for the design of future collaborative review generation systems.

We conduct a systematic study of 18 widely used vision-language benchmarks and identify three major issues: 1) many items do not rely on visual cues and therefore fail to effectively measure multimodal understanding; 2) many items are already close to performance saturation for current LVLMs, which limits their discriminative power; 3) a small number of anomalous items affect the reliability of evaluation results. To this end, we propose MMGist, a curated benchmark that covers seven capability dimensions and contains 7,262 items. MMGist is constructed through a three-stage pipeline, which sequentially combines text-ablation filtering, cross-model saturation filtering, and anomaly detection filtering. We conduct extensive experiments on 27 leading LVLMs and compare MMGist with the raw pool of 23,250 items. The results show that MMGist preserves model rankings with high fidelity, with Spearman $ρ= 0.98$, while reducing evaluation items by 69% and improving cross-model discrimination by 78%. Further results indicate that Visual Logic remains a systematic weakness of current LVLMs, while knowledge-intensive dimensions such as Expert Knowledge dimensions remain important factors for distinguishing closed-source models from open-source models. These findings suggest that high-quality evaluation should prioritize visual dependency, discriminative power, and reliability, rather than simply pursuing benchmark scale.

Training datasets have tremendous proprietary value and are vulnerable to unauthorized copying. Existing defenses mainly focus on tracking individual data points, but pay little attention to the threat of dataset regeneration. Through a measurement study of public tumor datasets, we identify substantial real-world partial-dataset replication, raising concerns about potential license noncompliance. To counter the challenge of tracking previously unknown adversarial regeneration, our key insight is that regeneration that preserves model utility inevitably preserves measurable signals across multiple feature scales. We categorize these dataset features into sample-, set-, and distribution-level features and design four similarity metrics to accurately identify regeneration. Based on these metrics, we develop DIPBox, which to our knowledge is the first testing framework that tracks regeneration suspects via multi-scale similarity testing across a spectrum of defender access settings, from limited to full information. We further provide a learning-theoretic analysis that justifies these multi-scale metrics and formalizes an inherent utility--divergence trade-off, implying fundamental limits on evasive regeneration. Extensive experiments on 16 vision and text base datasets, 320 regenerated datasets, and 590 derived models validate that DIPBox outperforms previous solutions while characterizing its robustness and limits under three adaptive attacks.

Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to improve productivity and transform the production of creative content. However, existing research indicates that image generation models are significantly influenced by biases. This work investigates the inherent biases and language-induced biases present in text-to-image models within the context of occupation-related image generation, complementing established metrics with human preference feedback. We present a comprehensive evaluation of five current text-to-image models: Midjourney v6.1, Stable Diffusion 3 Medium, DALL-E 3, Playground v2.5, and FLUX.1-dev , focusing on gender and ethnicity bias, image quality, and prompt alignment. To facilitate this evaluation, we developed the "Battle-Arena for Fair Image Synthesis" (BAFIS), a platform designed to collect human feedback on bias in generated images. Furthermore, we created a dataset comprising 21,140 synthetic images generated using multilingual prompts, which serves as a basis for our analysis. We further place our results within a broader social context by comparing them to official statistics from the German Federal Employment Agency. Our findings reveal systematic biases in text-to-image models, with established evaluation metrics in partial correlation with subjective user ratings. Thus, our research emphasizes the need for including human preferences to develop fairer and more inclusive text-to-image models.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for open-ended generation, as large-scale human evaluation is often expensive and difficult to scale, yet their preferences remain imperfect proxies for human judgment. Existing auditing pipelines often assume that a reliable subset of examples or clean supervision signals are available beforehand, for example from human annotation, heuristic filtering, or the outputs of strong judges. In LLM evaluation, this assumption is fragile: the initial split may inherit judge bias, while human verification is typically too scarce to define stable groups at scale. We propose AURA, an adaptive uncertainty--aware refinement framework for auditing pairwise LLM--as--a--judge decisions under selected human verification. AURA iteratively learns a human-consistency signal, propagates reliable evidence, and prioritizes uncertain comparisons for human review. The key idea is to treat trust in a judge as a latent quantity that is progressively refined as evidence accumulates. We provide a compact formulation, a stable refinement procedure, and a comprehensive evaluation on both synthetic and real pairwise LLM-answer data.

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant evaluation paradigm for language models, but judge validation in practice relies on exact-match agreement, a metric that does not correct for chance and systematically overstates discriminative ability. We present the largest systematic evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge to date: 21 judges from nine providers across MT-Bench, JudgeBench, and RewardBench, evaluated under three protocols (agreement, consistency, bias audit) over 118 runs and approximately 541,000 individual judgments. Four findings emerge, consistent across the full cohort, including the April 2026 frontier: kappa deflation between exact match and Cohen's kappa is universal (33--41 pp on MT-Bench), judge rankings shift by up to 14 positions across benchmarks, high test--retest reliability (>0.95) coexists with severe position bias (>0.10) in two production-deployed judges (instantiating a consistency--bias paradox), and verbosity bias is small (<0.011) across our cohort under a single pairwise rubric. We distill these into a Minimum Viable Validation Protocol.

Recent vision-language models (VLMs) have shown promising progress in generating webpages from visual inputs, yet existing evaluations mainly focus on short, single-screen, and largely static webpages. We introduce LongWebBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon webpage generation from both structural and functional perspectives. LongWebBench contains 490 real-world long webpages for structural fidelity evaluation and 507 goal-oriented interaction tasks over 129 webpages for functional evaluation. It employs two complementary protocols: a multi-dimensional VLM-based metric for assessing long-range structural coherence, and a DOM-augmented agent-based pipeline for end-to-end functional verification. We further examine the automatic evaluation protocols through human agreement analysis. Experiments with state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary VLMs under single-image and multi-image settings reveal that structural fidelity degrades as webpage length increases, while visually plausible generations often fail to support executable multi-step interactions. These results highlight the need to evaluate long webpage generation beyond visual similarity, with executable interaction as a core criterion. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/zheny2751-dotcom/LongWebBench.

Despite the significant advancement of LLMs in conversation summarization, their evaluation remains limited by insufficient scenarios, input lengths, and sample sizes. Furthermore, existing benchmarks often omit frontier reasoning systems and efficient small models, or lack fine-grained, multi-dimensional assessments. To bridge these gaps, we propose OmniCSEval, a unified benchmark comprising 1,800 diverse conversations across six real-world scenarios, featuring context lengths ranging from 128 to 32k tokens. For fine-grained evaluation, we employ a bidirectional fact-checking framework that integrates key fact matching to assess completeness and conciseness, alongside summary fact verification to evaluate faithfulness. To ensure reliable assessment, we establish a human-LLM collaborative pipeline for key fact extraction and a multi-LLM consensus verifier for summary fact decomposition. Leveraging this framework, we evaluate 28 LLMs across four distinct categories grouped by reasoning capability and model scale. Our extensive empirical study reveals critical insights regarding the cross-scenario challenges current LLMs continue to face, the impacts of reasoning and scale, and the efficiency and adaptability of reasoning models. We also provide guidance for system selection in real-world deployments.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges, e.g., for image quality and safety assessment. However, their adversarial robustness remains largely unexplored, threatening the fairness and reliability of automated judging. To bridge this gap, we introduce RobustMLLMJudge, the first general framework for evaluating the adversarial robustness of general-purpose MLLMs when functioning as judges. It covers diverse attacks against popular judge approaches across quality and safety evaluation scenarios. Using RobustMLLMJudge, we reveal that i) different MLLM judges are highly vulnerable to score-inflating adversarial attacks; and ii) although effective, these attack methods face a critical challenge due to unique constraints in the evaluation protocols of MLLM judges. We further propose MGSIA, namely Manifold-Guided Semantic Induction Attack, a novel method that bypasses these constraints to enable more effective and transferable attacks on MLLM judges. The core idea of MGSIA is to combine affirmative semantic induction with high-score manifold alignment: it maximizes the probability that judges yield affirmative responses (e.g., "Yes") to binary semantic queries, while regularizing adversarial representations toward high-score centers estimated from proxy protocols. Together, these objectives yield transferable score-inflating perturbations. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority and generalizability of MGSIA in deceiving advanced MLLM judges under different evaluation scenarios, highlighting the need for robust MLLM judges. Code and data will be made available at https://github.com/mala-lab/RobustMLLMJudge.

In recent years, there have been notable advancements in the area of instruction-based image editing (IIE), which focuses on the automatic alteration of input images using a model. Nevertheless, assessing the effectiveness of these editing models poses a considerable challenge due to the intricate nature of instructions and the wide variety of edits. To tackle this problem, one urgent task in this domain is the development of a robust evaluation framework that can precisely gauge the quality of editing outcomes and offer valuable benchmarks to guide future improvements. To address this challenge, we present a comprehensive evaluation benchmark named I2EBench2.0, designed for single-round and multi-round assessment of IIE models. I2EBench2.0 has four key features: 1) Evaluation Across Single and Multi-rounds: I2EBench2.0 simultaneously evaluates both single-round and multi-round instruction-based edits, assessing the precision and consistency of the edits. 2) Extensive Evaluation Criteria: I2EBench2.0 encompasses a broad range of criteria, evaluating both high-level and low-level aspects of each IIE model. Specifically, it incorporates 16 dimensions for single-round evaluations and 7 for multi-round evaluations. 3) Alignment with Human Judgment: To ensure our benchmark aligns with human evaluation, we conducted a comprehensive user study for each criterion. 4) Research-driven Insights: By analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of current IIE models across all 16 single-round and 7 multi-round dimensions, we provide critical insights aimed at directing future research in this area. We tested eight recently developed IIE models using I2EBench2.0 and derived academic insights through meticulous comparison and analysis. The related code, dataset, and images generated by all IIE models are available on GitHub: https://github.com/cocoshe/I2EBench.

Emotional intelligence (EI) in Large Language Models (LLMs) is often evaluated through static understanding tasks or single-response dialogue generation. However, emotion management is interactive: a good model should not only recognize a user's emotion, but also improve the user's emotional and relational state over several turns. We introduce EIBench, a simulator-based benchmark for interactive emotion management. EIBench contains 2,222 scenarios, with 2,009 for training and 213 for held-out testing. The scenarios are organized by a 2x2 taxonomy covering Support, Defense, Repair, and Charm, which together capture different forms of support, boundary maintenance, trust repair, and rapport building. In each scenario, an LLM simulator plays the user, updates an emotion-relation state after each turn, and maps the final state to an anchor-based score. This design makes EIBench both an evaluation benchmark and a training environment: the final state gives the outcome reward, while the per-turn state updates provide dense feedback for RL. We evaluate 15 open- and closed-source LLMs. Current models perform well on support and rapport-building scenes, but struggle with boundary maintenance under user pressure. To improve the EI ability of LLMs, we propose Centered Turn-Credit GRPO (CTC-GRPO), a GRPO extension that reuses the simulator's per-turn state updates as dense turn-level feedback while preserving the final outcome reward. CTC-GRPO improves Qwen3-8B from -22.4 to +22.4 on EIBench and also improves on out-of-distribution evaluations including SAGE (+12.4) and EQBench3 (+20.9%). Our results show that simulator-tracked user states can support both evaluation and training for multi-turn emotion management.

Advanced agents are increasingly demonstrating the potential to operate as autonomous engineers, creating a growing demand for evaluation benchmarks that capture the complexity of real-world development. Such environments typically involve both complex code and large-scale data (i.e., file system). However, existing benchmarks usually evaluate code-centric or data-centric capabilities in isolation, leaving a clear gap with real development scenarios. In this paper, we bridge this gap by introducing CODA-BENCH, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate code and data intelligence in a data-intensive environment. We construct a data-intensive Linux sandbox based on the Kaggle ecosystem (containing hundreds of datasets), where agents must actively explore complex file hierarchies to identify relevant resources and generate code for data-driven analytical tasks. CODA-BENCH comprises 1,009 tasks spanning 31 communities, with each task environment containing an average of 980 files, simulating realistic data scale and noise. Evaluations of advanced agents reveal that even top-performing systems struggle to effectively integrate data discovery with code execution, achieving a success rate of only 61.1%. These results highlight a substantial gap in current agentic capabilities for data-intensive tasks and point to promising directions for future research.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly explored as visual critics, reward generators, and failure detectors in robotic manipulation. These roles implicitly require models to judge not only final task success, but also how a manipulation execution is physically and temporally progressing. However, existing evaluations fail to test whether VLMs possess fine-grained process understanding. To address this gap, we present RoboProcessBench, a benchmark for process-aware understanding in vision-language robotic manipulation. RoboProcessBench decomposes such capability into two complementary dimensions, \emph{static monitoring} and \emph{dynamic reasoning}, instantiated as 12 diagnostic question families covering phase, contact, motion, coordination, primitive-local progress, temporal order, outcome, and primitive-level transitions. Built from physically grounded execution traces, the curated benchmark corpus ProcessData contains \textasciitilde 58k question-answer pairs across 260 manipulation tasks, which is further split into ProcessData-SFT and ProcessData-Eval for post-training and evaluation purposes. Extensive evaluation of various VLMs on ProcessData-Eval reveals broad limitations across 12 diagnostic task families, suggesting current models still lack robust process-aware understanding of manipulation executions. But with ProcessData-SFT, the post-trained \textit{Qwen2.5-VL-7B} and \textit{InternVL-3-8B} exhibit consistent gains on local state, motion, progress, and primitive-aware cues. These results demonstrate that RoboProcessBench serves as both an evaluation benchmark and a learnable supervision source for developing VLMs capable of monitoring and evaluating robotic manipulation processes. Project webpage: \href{https://processbench-2026.github.io/RoboProcessBench-Web/}{https://processbench-2026.github.io}.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) demonstrate strong performance on general multimodal reasoning benchmarks, yet their ability to perform engineering reasoning remains largely unexplored. Unlike general visual question answering, engineering problem solving requires interpreting technical diagrams, selecting governing physical principles, and maintaining physically consistent multi-step reasoning. These capabilities are increasingly important for AI systems used in engineering education, scientific assistance, and technical decision-making, where reasoning failures may produce physically invalid yet superficially plausible solutions. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate final answers and provide limited assessment of intermediate reasoning processes. We introduce EngVQA, a multimodal benchmark for evaluating engineering reasoning across 5 engineering subjects containing 696 problems. We introduce an 8-stage automatic evaluation framework for assessing VLM-generated solutions. The framework independently evaluates each stage of the solution, enabling fine-grained analysis of reasoning failures. We benchmark multiple state-of-the-art open and closed source VLMs on our evaluation framework and demonstrate substantial limitations in current engineering reasoning capabilities. Human evaluation shows strong agreement with our automated framework, achieving a Pearson correlation of 0.975 and a mean absolute error of 0.67 on a 10-point grading scale. Our results highlight the importance of process-oriented evaluation for reliable assessment of multimodal engineering reasoning systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability. We introduce SLMJury, a framework for evaluating small language models (SLMs) as judges across two paradigms: closed-ended binary correctness and open-ended quality scoring. We benchmark 16 SLM judges (0.6B-14B parameters) from four model families across ten benchmarks: eight closed-ended tasks spanning mathematical, scientific, and general reasoning (N=64,824 judgments per configuration), plus SummEval and MT-Bench for summarization and conversational scoring. We formalize judging as a budget-conditioned function and study five dimensions. Four findings emerge. (1) The overthinking effect is domain-dependent: for most judges quick 10-token verdicts match or beat extended reasoning on mathematical judging (by 2-7% where they help), while reasoning wins on general tasks by up to 23%. (2) Domain generalization separates model families, with math-to-general accuracy gaps ranging from under 10% to nearly 40%. (3) Closed-ended and open-ended judging draw on different capabilities: the best binary judge (Phi-4) drops to rank 9 on MT-Bench, while reasoning-trained models invert this ordering. (4) Under the Reflect-Critique-Refine (RCR) debate protocol, multi-agent debate degrades accuracy across all tested configurations, whereas the top judges resist six adversarial personas with <=0.55% variance. Reliable automated evaluation does not require large proprietary models, yet no single SLM dominates. The leaderboard is available at https://anishh15.github.io/SLMJury/, and our framework code and pip package are publicly available at https://github.com/anishh15/SLMJury and https://pypi.org/project/slmjury/.

We introduce MMAE, a Massive Multitask Audio Editing benchmark, serving as the first comprehensive evaluation testbed designed for general-purpose instruction-based audio editing. Spurred by the shift toward intelligent creation, interactive editing has rapidly expanded from visual domains, pioneered by models like Nano-banana 2 for images and Gemini-Omni for video, into audio. However, the current evaluation infrastructure lags severely, remaining highly fragmented and restricted to specific subdomains or basic operations. Unlike existing benchmarks that are limited in scope, MMAE extends to a broad spectrum of real-world scenarios, encompassing 7 distinct audio modalities, including sound, speech, music, and their mixtures. Furthermore, we establish a comprehensive taxonomy spanning 6 levels of task complexity, from basic modifications to multi-hop reasoning and multi-round editing, 2 levels of granularity, and 8 distinct operation types. Meticulously curated through human-agent collaboration, MMAE comprises 2,000 high-fidelity samples paired with a pioneering rubric-based evaluation framework. By decomposing free-form tasks into 17,741 verifiable criteria, this robust rubric-based paradigm enables a precise, multi-dimensional assessment of both instruction following and context consistency. Our extensive evaluation of leading models reveals that current systems remain far from achieving reliable edits. Strikingly, the Exact Match Rate (EMR) consistently falls below 5% and plummets to an absolute 0% in complex, mixed-modality tasks, exposing critical bottlenecks in precise execution and structural robustness. We hope MMAE will serve as a catalyst for future advances in the intelligent creation community, providing a clear diagnostic roadmap and establishing a standardized, long-lasting evaluation paradigm for next-generation audio editing systems.

We introduce UnpredictaBench, an evaluation that tests the ability of large language models (LLMs) to capture true underlying distributions. As LLMs are increasingly used as substitutes for other entities (e.g., for humans in economic simulations), the tendency of many models to collapse towards a single plausible answer means a failure to capture the unpredictability of real systems. Recent work on improving output diversity is insufficient for this setting: simulation requires samples that are calibrated to a target distribution, not merely varied outputs. UnpredictaBench isolates a simplified but fundamental version of this problem: sampling outcomes from individual target distributions, including canonical statistical distributions, distributions induced by stochastic programs, and natural-language scenarios that describe random processes. We introduce 448 such problems together with KS@N, a general-purpose evaluation metric that quantifies how well a model outputs approximate black-box target distributions via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test. This is the rate at which we fail to reject model samples of size N against ground-truth samples, with larger N indicating greater difficulty. Tested across open and proprietary models, we find a large spread in distributional capabilities. For instance, when models generate samples of size 100 (KS@100, our standard metric), scores range from near 0 to over 20%. No model is able to achieve over 40% at KS@100, showing significant headroom in distributional sampling as a capability. Although adding reasoning can somewhat increase scores, we find no immediate solution for this issue. UnpredictaBench shows that even simple distributional simulation remains challenging, making it a necessary first step toward using LLMs as stand-ins for complex systems. Project website and resources are available at https://unpredictabenchmark.github.io/.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) operate graphical user interfaces (GUIs) through vision and control primitives, and their capabilities have advanced rapidly, driven in part by standardized online evaluation benchmarks such as OSWorld, which serve both as evaluation tools and as training environments for reinforcement learning. However, macOS remains underserved in this landscape: the only existing benchmark, macOSWorld, covers a narrow slice of first-party applications with simpler tasks, and runs on x86 virtual machines incompatible with Apple Silicon. We introduce MacArena, a benchmark of 421 manually verified tasks spanning 50 applications that combines a curated port of OSWorld tasks, content sourced from macOSWorld, and 49 new macOS-native tasks, all running on Apple's native Virtualization framework on Apple Silicon. We argue that macOS presents distinct GUI challenges beyond what Linux-based benchmarks capture, and our evaluation supports this claim: strong model performance on existing benchmarks can reflect familiarity with task distributions rather than genuine cross-platform GUI competence. Notably, model rankings invert between ported and macOS-native tasks, with a leading model trailing by over 26% on the MacArena subset, suggesting that macOS poses a genuinely harder environment for current GUI agents.

Current evaluations for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) overwhelmingly focus on utility-driven objectives, leaving model behavior under logic-neutral scenarios largely underexplored. Stochasticity is essential in scenarios where multiple actions are equally valid, such as recommending travel itineraries or daily schedules where multiple options have similar utility. In such settings, deterministic policies may lead to repetitive behaviors and reduced coverage of valid alternatives. To bridge this gap, we propose RandomBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether MLLMs can maintain distributionally neutral behavior when selecting among equivalent options. We further introduce three metrics, including RI, BCI, BII, to quantify entropy and distributional bias. Experiments reveal a pervasive phenomenon termed Stochastic Collapse, where MLLMs fail to maintain uniform randomness under explicit random instructions, with top-1 probabilities reaching 97% from the ideal one quarter baseline and RI dropping to 0.068 in Claude Sonnet 4.6. Extensive ablation studies further demonstrate that these deviations persist across languages and representation formats, highlighting the robustness of distributional collapse in logic-neutral decision settings.