Human Grounded Evaluation

When a language model answers from a curated corpus via graph-based retrieval, a large grounding uplift does not establish reasoning over the retrieved structure: the context may already expose the gold answers. We propose exposure accounting, which classifies each gold item by whether the shown context exposes it and whether the answer recovers it. Its scalar reference is the copy ceiling, the recall a verbatim copy of the context achieves; signed gain over copy measures the model's recall relative to this deterministic, judge-free baseline. Across ten models, unaided recall averages 0.26 and grounded recall 0.92, yet gain over copy is uniformly negative (-0.067 to -0.022). Of 11,360 gold-item observations, representing 1,136 target instances evaluated under ten models, only three unexposed items receive lexical credit. A stratified model-judged audit of 423 observations, with a symmetric quotation-verification policy, estimates that 97.1% of credited items assert the requested relation; all three unexposed credits fail relational adjudication. On targets the scaffold does not expose, lexical recovery falls from 0.121 unaided to 0.004 grounded; adjudication validates 71 of the 92 unaided credits and none of the three grounded credits, without establishing full-frame relational recovery rates. Rephrasing questions outside the graph's title vocabulary reduces exposure from 0.964 to 0.328, while an absence-triggered fallback activates on only 2 of 506 questions. A paired production study improves judged quality by +0.27 pooled, but negative controls do not establish content specificity beyond a well-formed on-corpus block. These results support exposure accounting as a standing control for corpus-derived evaluations. The accounting distinguishes exposed-item omissions from beyond-exposure recoveries; it does not determine whether reasoning occurred.

Computer-use agents that operate through screenshots and simulated actions are advancing rapidly, yet their evaluation remains anchored to general desktop and web tasks. Enterprise Resource Planning systems run the finance, procurement, inventory, and customer operations of organizations worldwide, and pose distinct challenges for computer-use agents: dense interfaces, coordinated multi-step interactions, and errors that alter persistent business records rather than surfacing on screen. Existing enterprise computer-use benchmarks rely on proprietary platforms or on simulated approximations of such software. We introduce ERPBench, a benchmark that evaluates screenshot-only agents on a live and reproducible system and scores each task against ground-truth values in its database. Beyond the benchmark, we present a production-grade harness that gates agent actions behind human approval for safe deployment. Evaluating six closed and open-source agents, we demonstrate that strong general performance does not transfer to enterprise reliability. Even when an agent reaches the right form and saves it, the stored record is often wrong: some agents save in up to 85% of runs but write the correct value in as few as 3%. We further characterize failure modes specific to enterprise workflows.

Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contradictory. We introduce EviScope, a paired counterfactual benchmark that holds the question fixed while adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting its evidence. EviScope-v1.1 contains 40 four-condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span-level support labels for automatic evaluation. Across 960 gold-blind generations from Qwen2.5-7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash, paired metrics expose model-dependent grounding behavior that answer accuracy hides. On two local open models, an explicit evidence-action gate underperforms vanilla RAG on QCS: 0.15 vs. 0.50 for Qwen and 0.10 vs. 0.375 for Llama. Gemini reaches 0.944 joint success under both prompts, yet still answers 5% of conflict cases after contradiction insertion. EviScope therefore distinguishes unsupported answering, conflict blindness, and wrong non-answer actions rather than scoring answers alone.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are grounded, citation-valid, or appropriately refused. This paper introduces CiteGuard-RAG, a validation-centered AI system for evidence-grounded question answering. The system integrates hybrid semantic-lexical retrieval, citation-constrained generation, sentence-level grounding validation, and single-pass regeneration. Validation is used at runtime to determine whether a candidate answer should be accepted, refused, or regenerated before final delivery. CiteGuard-RAG is evaluated on 400 questions across a controlled housing-law dataset, PrivacyQA, and CUAD. In the controlled evaluation, it achieves 99.1% retrieval accuracy, 98.3% grounded-answer accuracy, and 98.3% citation validity, with no validation-detected hallucinations. Ablation results show that grounded-answer accuracy drops sharply when validation is removed, even when retrieval accuracy remains unchanged. External evaluation shows that while citation validity remains strong, evidence utilization, span alignment, and refusal calibration become harder under domain shift. These findings indicate that trustworthy RAG systems require explicit validation between retrieval and final answer delivery. CiteGuard-RAG provides a practical architecture for linking retrieval, generation, citation checking, abstention, and regeneration in high-stakes information access.

Visual feedback in the form of user-uploaded images and videos is becoming increasingly common in e-commerce platforms because it provides authentic evidence of product quality, defects, packaging conditions, and real-world usage. However, visual feedback alone often lacks the contextual explanations and subjective opinions necessary for informed decision-making, while many users provide limited textual feedback due to the effort required to compose detailed reviews. To bridge this gap, we introduce image-grounded review assistance, a novel task that aims to generate editable review drafts from user-uploaded product images. Unlike conventional image captioning, which focuses on objective visual description, the proposed task requires product-specific understanding, sentiment estimation, and evidence-driven review composition under challenging real-world conditions, including degraded image quality, excessive zoom-in, target ambiguity, and partial product visibility. We propose a multi-agent vision-language framework consisting of four specialised roles: product grounding, visual sentiment estimation, visual evidence generation, and review synthesis. The framework employs explicit intermediate representations, including product entities, predicted ratings, and evidence summaries, to improve interpretability and visual grounding. Experiments on a curated subset of the Amazon Reviews Electronics dataset demonstrate the feasibility of generating coherent, product-aware, and sentiment-aware review drafts from visual feedback. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to formulate image-grounded review assistance as a multi-agent vision-language reasoning problem, providing a practical step toward AI-assisted review authoring in e-commerce systems.

Reviewer comments naturally relate to specific parts of the reviewed paper, yet grounding these comments to the underlying evidence is difficult due to long multimodal documents. Existing benchmarks do not capture this setting and largely focus on explicit, information-seeking queries. We introduce ReGround, a large-scale dataset for reviewer comment grounding that links 10,267 reviewer comments to 16,274 evidence in the original anonymous submission of 3,656 papers. We build on a simple observation: author rebuttals often include explicit references to content of the submission used to address reviewer comments, providing a high-precision annotation source. We cast grounding as a retrieval task and evaluate a wide range of retrieval methods. Results show that retrieval over the entire paper content performs poorly, evidence-type inference is a major bottleneck, and multimodal evidence provides complementary signals that text alone misses. Our dataset exposes grounding reviewer comments as a difficult and practically important problem for scientific document understanding.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for translating Natural Language (NL) planning descriptions into PDDL problem instances. However, standard evaluation criteria such as syntactic validity or planner success can substantially overestimate faithfulness to the described task: a generated problem may be parseable and solvable while misrepresenting the intended initial state, goal, object structure, or optimization target. This paper studies an end-to-end NL-to-PDDL pipeline that combines LLM generation, checks in terms of PDDL parsing, planning and validation, a domain-conformance checker, an LLM critic, and iterative repair. Fine-grained repair feedback is constructed from the domain description, the generated problem, the natural language problem description, and operational diagnostics. Reference-based comparisons against curated benchmark PDDL problem descriptions are used for post-hoc benchmark analysis, and these offline checks include renaming-invariant structural matching and semantic equivalence, where domain support is available. Across Planetarium, AutoPlanBench, and curated PDDL2.1 problems, results show that operational success and benchmark-reference reconstruction can diverge substantially. Results also show that structured repair can be useful, and that PDDL2.1 remains challenging for reference reconstruction, even when operational success improves.

Natural-language-driven "vibe coding" enables the one-shot generation of visually rich and interactive web applications, yet reliable assessment of their quality has not kept pace. Existing evaluations often score isolated artifacts or final task outcomes, offering limited evidence about which failures occur and why. We introduce VideoVIBE, a video-grounded benchmark that transforms human-operated webpage recordings into fine-grained diagnostic tasks. It contains approximately 1.7K diagnostic Video QA instances derived from 6,338 verified failures across generated webpages, spanning semantic-logical, visual-motion, structural-temporal, and functional failures. Diagnoses are grounded primarily in recorded presentation and behavior, with webpage source code used as complementary context. We further propose V2Lens, a training-free, evidence-grounded multi-agent system that challenges and selectively refines initial video-based diagnoses through targeted visual and source-code verification. Across thirteen closed-source and open-weight Video MLLMs, Gemini-2.5-Flash is the strongest standalone model with a score of 64.54, while V2Lens reaches 71.72, an improvement of 7.18 points. Together, our results show that video-grounded evaluation can move beyond isolated artifacts and aggregate outcomes toward a behaviorally faithful and diagnostically informative account of generated application quality.

This paper addresses the limitations of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) with respect to insufficient evaluation. They are illustrated through the DetoxAI image recognition system for bias detection and concept unlearning. Then, an example of a human-grounded evaluation of methods for explaining image classification is presented. The paper further explores methods for adapting explanations to evolving data streams with concept drift. Experiences with adapting counterfactuals for this problem are discussed. Finally it is related to the challenges of tracking the co-evolution of data, models, and explanations.\footnote{This paper has been accepted for a publication in J.Nalepa (ed) Explainable AI in Space. Proceedings of EASi 2026 Workshop at IJCAI-ECAI 2026 Bremen, Springer CCIS vol 3107 (2016).}

Large language models can now generate fluent and complete stories, yet many outputs still feel formulaic and unnatural because of cliches, over-explanation, linear causal progression, and stereotyped endings, an immediately recognizable AI flavor. Existing detection and evaluation methods often stop at source labels or holistic scores, while revision methods typically target predefined issues through localized edits, limiting their ability to support multiple plausible revision strategies or guide story-wide changes in information release, causal organization, and ending treatment. We introduce CraftAlign, a framework that aligns AI stories with the craft of human storytelling by both assessing Human/AI writing patterns and providing revision guidance. CraftAlign comprises two learned modules and an inference-time guidance pipeline. A feature estimator built on Qwen3.5-9B predicts 304 explicit writing features spanning style and narrative. A class-conditional energy model scores the resulting feature configuration against Human and AI writing patterns, conditioning on the original writing prompt when available. At inference time, CraftAlign applies schema-valid structured perturbations, selects changes that move the feature configuration toward the Human writing pattern, and converts them into natural-language guidance for a separate editor to rewrite the full story. Experiments show that CraftAlign accurately distinguishes Human and AI writing patterns and that its guidance outperforms revision baselines across editors and in a human study.

Scientific user facilities accumulate decades of operational knowledge that no single search index covers: electronic logbooks, technical documents, internal wikis, operations chat messages, maintenance records, and live control-system data. We present APS-RAG, Advanced Photon Source Retrieval Augmented Generation, a deployed platform that makes the institutional knowledge at the Advanced Photon Source (APS) accessible to staff through natural-language queries, along with an operations-grounded evaluation. The retrieval engine fuses dense, sparse, and knowledge-graph (KG) channels with query-type-adaptive reciprocal-rank fusion, adds a corrective agentic loop, and runs a native-tool ReAct executor over a Model Context Protocol (MCP) tooling layer. We construct APS-Bench, a 50-question, question-answering (QA) dataset with auditable gold answers. Every retrieval-augmented variant numerically improves strict vital-nugget recall over a naive BM25 baseline (63.8%), with the full corrective Agentic GraphRAG scoring (70.3%). The cross-encoder reranker contributes significantly to answer quality: removing it and allowing the LLM to score relevance drastically reduces strict vital recall by 32.8%. The graph channel and corrective loop contribute positively as expected, but the performance gains are marginal. Additionally, we also compare the performance of open-source and closed-source LLMs in final answer synthesis. We release the APS-Bench construction methodology, the six-layer evaluation harness, and the underlying codebase, along with the '/aps-rag' retrieval agent skill framework, to support reproduction and adoption at other facilities. Together, the deployed platform and its operations-grounded evaluation present a promising workflow for trustworthy, statistically grounded AI assistance in facility operations, transferable to other large scientific instruments.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for network automation, yet their output quality and inference cost can vary substantially across LLM families. We present HuGLEN, a stepwise evaluation pipeline that uses an LLM-as-a-judge together with a small set of expert ratings to enable scalable and reproducible comparison of candidate LLMs, and to rank them using a quality efficiency score (QES). We demonstrate HuGLEN for translating outputs from an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) model for the optical network quality of transmission (QoT) estimation task into operator-friendly explanations. Our results show that a medium-sized LLM (12B parameters) achieves the highest QES, indicating the best trade-off between explanation quality and efficiency. Overall, HuGLEN reduces the human-labeling burden while supporting consistent model selection for operator-facing automation tasks.

This paper describes DS@GT ARC's submission to the CLEF 2026 LongEval Task 4 on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). In this submission, we examine a divergence between traditional natural language evaluation metrics and citation integrity as applied to RAG QA systems. We evaluate a corrective pipeline using Corrective RAG (CRAG) and CiteFix against baseline and frontier model benchmark RAG QA scores. While frontier models maximized answer relevance and fluency scores, our RAGAs LLM-as-judge diagnostics indicate that frontier models would correctly identify relevant documents without using their context in answer generation. Conversely, by filtering chunks pre-generation and enforcing strict entailment of generated claims to the cited material post-generation, our corrective pipeline marginally improved citation faithfulness and answer grounding. We propose that evaluation of trustworthy RAG QA requires metrics that reward strict answer grounding.

Large language models are increasingly used to assist scientific reading, but existing evaluation methods often fail to detect whether answers are supported by verifiable citations. We introduce ResearchQA, a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers spanning eight domains and four question types: lookup, comprehension, multi-hop, and adversarial. ResearchQA is designed for citation-grounded evaluation: it permits multiple valid supporting passages for a claim and rewards grounded refusal when the source paper does not support an answer. We evaluate eight leading closed- and open-weight models in a citation-grounded chat-with-paper setting using a deterministic citation matcher and an LLM-based rubric evaluator. Citation-based metrics separate systems more clearly than LLM-evaluator scores: section coverage and citation accuracy vary substantially across models, while evaluator scores remain tightly compressed. We further find that open-weight models approach the best closed-model citation accuracy while achieving 3 to 6 times lower per-example latency. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and evaluator prompt.

Generative world models hold immense promise as scalable simulators for autonomous systems, particularly for synthesizing rare but safety-critical multi-agent interactions, such as vehicle collisions. However, current evaluation paradigms index heavily on visual fidelity and semantic alignment, leaving a critical blind spot: they cannot reliably quantify whether generated dynamics actually obey the fundamental physical laws required for reliable simulation. Assessing this physical plausibility is inherently difficult due to a lack of physical metrics and the challenge of extracting metric-scale kinematics from uncalibrated video rollouts. To bridge this gap, we introduce CrashTwin, a physics-grounded evaluation framework designed to stress-test the physical trustworthiness of world models. CrashTwin couples a diverse dataset of multi-agent collision scenarios, comprising 25K controllable synthetic and 12K in-the-wild real-world collision sequences with a novel calibration-free reconstruction pipeline, enabling the recovery of 3D physical attributes directly from world model rollouts. We propose a diagnostic suite that systematically evaluates three dimensions: spatio-temporal consistency, momentum and kinetic energy conservation, and world-dynamics integrity. Extensive benchmarking of state-of-the-art models reveals a crucial insight: high perceptual quality frequently masks severe physical violations during complex interactions. By quantitatively exposing these failure modes, CrashTwin provides a vital diagnostic tool for developing physically grounded world models capable of reliable real-world simulation.

Automatically generating slide decks from source documents is an important application of large language models (LLMs). Existing benchmarks primarily assess slide completeness and technical depth, while overlooking the target audience as a critical real-world factor. For instance, specialists demand rigorous proofs, whereas decision-makers prioritize actionable conclusions. To bridge this gap, we introduce X+Slides, a benchmark specifically designed for audience-conditioned slide generation. Built on a diverse corpus spanning 113 topics and seven presentation scenes, X+Slides employs a dynamic evaluation framework constructed from 8,133 deduplicated, source-grounded probes. By assigning audience-specific utility weights to the same source-grounded probes, X+Slides reports four complementary metrics: Audience Coverage measures how much audience-essential information is conveyed, Domain-wise Coverage shows which information types are covered, Efficiency measures delivered utility per unit of attention cost, and Correctness verifies whether slide claims are supported by the source. Experiments on DeepPresenter, SlideTailor, and NotebookLM show that current systems can recover a substantial but still incomplete part of audience-essential information: at $τ_A=0.7$, DeepPresenter reaches a best Audience Coverage of 0.714, SlideTailor reaches 0.594, and the NotebookLM ablation reaches 0.853 while showing clear grounding differences. These results indicate that visual quality and broad topic coverage should not be treated as evidence support without source-grounded evaluation.

Game generation is an emerging application of coding agents, requiring models to transform natural-language specifications into playable interactive systems. Unlike traditional coding tasks, game generation takes place within a game engine, where scripts, scenes, assets, rendering, and runtime interactions must jointly produce coherent gameplay. We formalize end-to-end game generation as the problem of producing a complete game artifact that realizes a specification through observable player-game interaction in a target environment. We argue that evaluating this setting requires three desiderata: Engine Grounding, Artifact Completeness, and Interactive Verification. We propose an interaction-grounded evaluation framework that assesses executable gameplay through replayed demonstrations and rubric-guided multimodal judging. We instantiate this framework as GameCraft-Bench, a benchmark comprising 140 Godot tasks across 15 game families. Evaluations of frontier coding agents show that end-to-end game generation remains highly challenging: the strongest agent achieves only 41.46%, and most agents score below 40%. Further analysis reveals that while agents often implement recognizable mechanics, they struggle to deliver complete games with sufficient content, functional visual feedback, and coherent presentation. See https://tongxuluo.github.io/gamecraft-bench-website for demos, code, and data.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications that require access to up-to-date knowledge. However, retraining LLMs is computationally expensive. Therefore, knowledge editing techniques are crucial for maintaining current information and correcting erroneous assertions within pre-trained models. Current benchmarks for knowledge editing primarily focus on recalling edited facts, often neglecting their logical consequences. To address this limitation, we introduce a new benchmark designed to evaluate how knowledge editing methods handle the logical consequences of a single fact edit. Our benchmark extracts relevant logical rules from a knowledge graph for a given edit. Then, it generates multi-hop questions based on these rules to assess the impact on logical consequences. Our findings indicate that while existing knowledge editing approaches can accurately insert direct assertions into LLMs, they frequently fail to inject entailed knowledge. Specifically, experiments with popular methods like ROME and FT reveal a substantial performance gap, up to 24%, between evaluations on directly edited knowledge and on entailed knowledge. This highlights the critical need for semantics-aware evaluation frameworks in knowledge editing.

Skills, i.e., structured workflow instructions distilled for large language models (LLMs), are becoming an increasingly important mechanism for improving agent performance on real-world downstream tasks. However, as the open-source skill ecosystem rapidly expands, it remains unclear how different models and agent frameworks interact with skills, how to evaluate skill quality, and how users should select skills under practical cost-performance trade-offs. In this paper, we present \textsc{OpenSkillEval}, an automatic evaluation framework for both skill-augmented agent systems and the skills themselves. Instead of relying on static benchmarks, \textsc{OpenSkillEval} automatically constructs realistic task instances from evolving real-world artifacts across five categories of downstream applications: presentation generation, front-end web design, poster generation, data visualization, and report generation. It further collects and organizes community-contributed skills for controlled comparison under unified task settings. Using more than 600 dynamically generated task instances and 30 open-source skills, we conduct a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art models and agent frameworks. Our results show that skill availability does not guarantee effective skill usage, that the benefit of skill augmentation depends strongly on both the underlying model and the agent framework, and that many publicly popular skills do not consistently outperform base agents without skills. These findings highlight the need for dynamic, task-grounded evaluation and provide practical insights into the design, selection, and deployment of skills for LLM agents. Additional cases and benchmark resources are available on the project website: https://yingjiahao14.github.io/OpenSkillEval-Web/.

Existing text-to-image (T2I) evaluation metrics mainly assess whether generated images align with information explicitly stated in the prompt, but often fail to capture factual requirements that are implicit, externally grounded, or identity-defining. As a result, they are not well suited for evaluating factual correctness in prompts involving scientific knowledge, historical facts, products, or culture-specific concepts. We propose FActually Grounded Evaluation and Refinement (FAGER), an agentic framework that evaluates whether generated images correctly reflect visually verifiable facts grounded in or implied by the prompt, while also providing actionable feedback for improvement. FAGER first constructs a structured factual rubric by combining LLM-based fact proposal with reference-guided visual fact extraction and verification, then converts the rubric into question-answer pairs for VLM-based evaluation. To validate FAGER as a factuality metric, we introduce a Factual A/B test, which measures whether a metric prefers factual reference images over corresponding generated images. Across five datasets spanning science, history, products, culture, and knowledge-intensive concepts, FAGER consistently outperforms prior metrics on this test. We further show that FAGER can be used to refine T2I outputs in a fully training-free manner, yielding substantial factuality gains across datasets.

Evaluating multi-turn dialogue systems remains challenging because response quality depends not only on the current prompt, but also on previously established entities, claims, and conversational commitments. Existing automatic evaluators, including LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and embedding-based metrics, largely rely on flat or turn-isolated representations, making them less effective at detecting long-range issues such as contradiction, topic drift, and entity inconsistency. To address this, we propose SKG-Eval, a quasi-deterministic and interpretable framework that models dialogue as an evolving Semantic Knowledge Graph (SKG) of entities, relations, and commitments across turns. The framework incrementally updates the graph through structured triple extraction and computes three complementary signals: (i) local relevance, measuring alignment with the current prompt and optional reference; (ii) historical consistency, evaluating how newly introduced information connects to prior conversational context using graph-based and embedding-driven signals; and (iii) logical coherence, assessed by a geometric contradiction engine that detects cross-turn conflicts without relying on NLI models or LLM judges. These signals are adaptively fused and aggregated into a length-invariant session score via recency-weighted trend analysis. Across multiple benchmarks, SKG-Eval achieves higher correlation with human judgments and substantially improves detection of long-range inconsistencies in extended conversations. In addition, the framework produces explicit contradiction certificates and deterministic scores for fixed inputs, enabling reproducible and auditable evaluation. Overall, our results suggest that structured externalized state tracking through semantic knowledge graphs provides a scalable alternative to implicit reasoning in LLM-based dialogue evaluators.

Coreference resolution is typically evaluated using aggregate statistical metrics such as CoNLL-F1, which measure structural overlap between predicted and gold clusters. While widely used, these metrics offer limited diagnostic insights, penalizing errors without revealing whether a system struggles with specific semantic categories, such as people, locations, or events, and making it difficult to interpret model capabilities or derive actionable improvements. We address this gap by introducing a semantically-enhanced evaluation framework for coreference resolution. Our approach overlays Concept and Named Entity Recognition (CNER) onto coreference outputs, assigning semantic labels to nominal mentions and propagating them to entire coreference clusters. This enables the computation of typed scores aimed at evaluating mention extraction and linking capabilities stratified by semantic class. Across our experiments on OntoNotes, LitBank, and PreCo, we show that our framework uncovers systematic weaknesses that remain obscured by aggregate metrics. Furthermore, we demonstrate that these diagnostics can be used to design targeted, low-cost data augmentation strategies, achieving measurable out-of-domain improvements.

Recent text-guided image editing (TIE) models have achieved remarkable progress, however, many edited results still suffer from artifacts, unintended modifications, and suboptimal aesthetics. Although several benchmarks and evaluation methods have been proposed, most existing approaches rely on scalar scores and lack interpretability. This limitation largely stems from the absence of high-quality interpretation datasets for TIE and effective reward models to train interpretable evaluators. To address these challenges, we introduce ReasonEdit-22K, the first dataset that combines 22K edited images with 113K Chain-of-Thought (CoT) samples, along with 1.3M human judgments assessing these interpretations in terms of logicality, accuracy, and usefulness. Building upon this dataset, we propose RE-Reward, a multimodal large language model (MLLM)-based reward model designed to provide human-aligned feedback for evaluating interpretable reasoning in image editing. Furthermore, we develop ReasonEdit, which is trained using reward signals derived from RE-Reward and the Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) algorithm to learn an interpretable evaluation model. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ReasonEdit achieves superior alignment with human preferences and exhibits strong generalization across public benchmarks. In addition, it is capable of generating high-quality interpretable evaluation text, enabling more transparent and trustworthy assessment for image editing. The code is available at https://github.com/IntMeGroup/ReasonEdit.

Autonomous multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed to investigate operational incidents and produce structured diagnostic reports. Their trustworthiness hinges on whether each claim is grounded in observed evidence rather than model-internal inference. Existing groundedness evaluators (binary classifiers, LLM-as-judge scalars, self-correction loops) treat supporting evidence as interchangeable and emit a single signal that offers no principled control over downstream action. We present GSAR, a grounding-evaluation and replanning framework that (i) partitions claims into a four-way typology (grounded, ungrounded, contradicted, complementary), giving first-class standing to non-redundant alternative perspectives; (ii) assigns evidence-type-specific weights reflecting epistemic strength; (iii) computes an asymmetric contradiction-penalised weighted groundedness score; and (iv) couples that score to a three-tier decision function (proceed, regenerate, replan) driving a bounded-iteration outer loop under an explicit compute budget. We formalise the algorithm, prove six structural properties, and evaluate five design claims on FEVER with gold Wikipedia evidence under four independently-trained LLM judges (gpt-5.4, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, gemini-2.5-pro). Every ablation reproduces in the same direction on every judge: bootstrap 95% CIs on the rho=0 effect exclude 0 on all four; the no-complementary ablation under Opus 4.7 has CI [-96,-68] of 200; at n=1000 three independent judges converge to DeltaS(rho=0)=+0.058. A head-to-head against Vectara HHEM-2.1-Open is included. To our knowledge, GSAR is the first published groundedness framework coupling evidence-typed scoring with tiered recovery under an explicit compute budget.

We argue that current evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) suffer from four systematic failures that make them structurally inadequate for deployed, agentic systems: distributional, temporal, scope, and process invalidity. These failures compound in RLHF, making reward hacking a predictable consequence of evaluation design rather than an unpredictable training pathology, and RLHF's dual-model architecture imposes a hardware barrier limiting evaluation reproducibility. We propose the Grounded Continuous Evaluation (GCE) framework and present ISOPro as a reference implementation. ISOPro replaces the learned reward model with a deterministic verifier, eliminating reward hacking by construction in verifiable-reward domains, and updates LoRA adapters on CPU, reducing the hardware barrier by an order of magnitude. We validate ISOPro across three architectures (Qwen 2.5 3B, Llama 3.2 3B, Gemma 2 2B) and two domains (scheduling, MBPP), with a head-to-head matched-compute comparison against GRPO-LoRA. Across twelve cells, ISOPro produces the largest absolute capability gains (+25.6, +22.2, +16.0pp) at mean delta +9.0pp and worst-case regression -5.6pp; GRPO-LoRA at consumer-budget hyperparameters reaches a smaller peak gain (+8.5pp), deeper worst-case regression (-10pp), and mean delta -1.5pp. Held-out compositional generalization on MBPP reaches 40% for ISOPro on two of three architectures (including a 0% to 40% bootstrap on Qwen 2.5 3B), against 20% for GRPO-LoRA on one of three. We characterize a buffer-skew failure mode in which the implicit curriculum can erode pre-existing tier capability under three preconditions, with three corresponding mitigations. The work is situated alongside DeepSeek-R1's GRPO, which arrived at the same architectural conclusion at scale: for verifiable-reward domains, the verifier is the reward signal.

Expert domain writing, such as scientific writing, typically demands extensive domain knowledge. Although large language models (LLMs) show promising potential in this task, evaluating the quality of automatically generated scientific writing is a crucial open issue, as it requires knowledge of domain-specific criteria and the ability to discern expert preferences. Conventional automatic evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-judge systems, primarily designed for mainstream NLP tasks, are insufficient to grasp expert preferences and domain-specific quality standards. To address this gap and support realistic human-AI collaborative writing, we focus on related work generation, one of the most challenging scientific tasks, as an exemplar. We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences. GREP decomposes the evaluation into smaller fine-grained dimensions. This localized evaluation is further augmented with contrastive examples to provide detailed contextual guidance for the evaluation dimensions. Empirical investigation reveals that GREP is able to assess the quality of related work sections in a much more robust manner compared to standard LLM judges, reflects natural scenarios of scientific writing, and bears a strong correlation with the assessment of human experts. We also observe that generations from state-of-the-art LLMs struggle to satisfy validation constraints of a suitable related work section.

Text-to-video (T2V) models now produce striking visuals, yet they routinely violate everyday physics; objects float, tools are misused, and causal sequences break down. Existing benchmarks mostly probe isolated physical laws and rely on vision-language models to score videos directly, which entangles perception and reasoning in one judgment and correlates poorly with humans. We introduce PhysVidBench, a benchmark of 383 base prompts, expanded to 766 prompts with enriched variants and 4,123 manually reviewed QA items, together with a language-grounded evaluation framework that takes a different route: instead of asking a VLM "Is this video physically correct?", we caption the video, then ask a language model to answer prompt-derived yes/no physics questions using only the captions. This split between seeing and reasoning makes each score traceable to the captions that justify it and aligns more closely with human judgment than direct VLM scoring (Pearson r=0.45-0.69, compared with 0.21-0.47 for the strongest direct VLM evaluator). To test the framework, we carefully curate a set of human-validated prompts spanning seven physical dimensions, with a focus on tool use and affordances - areas largely absent from prior physics-focused benchmarks. Across 12 open and proprietary T2V systems, the best model reaches only 36.2% average accuracy, and no model consistently handles everyday physical reasoning. The same pipeline can also guide iterative error-guided prompt refinement, improving CogVideoX-2B from 21.6 to 32.7 and CogVideoX-5B from 17.8 to 29.7 without retraining.