Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation

Enterprise AI programmes stall at a rate that is widely quoted and poorly explained. This paper measures the mechanism. Six document-heavy workflows of the kind performed daily in regulated financial services were run across four model families and three tool configurations, three times each, producing 5,093 scored output elements across 72 configurations. Each configuration was assessed twice: against a demonstration bar, being a single correct run on a single case, and against a production bar requiring sustained accuracy, reproducibility across repeats, verifiable attribution, and a confidence signal that carries information. 57 of 72 configurations cleared the demonstration bar and 32 cleared the production bar, a survival rate of 56.1%. The paper then computes the review burden each configuration imposes, estimated out of sample rather than with hindsight. A tool that states no confidence requires review of 100% of its output, because it offers a reviewer no basis for triage. Requiring the tool to cite its sources and state a confidence reduces that to 49% while holding the residual error tolerance in 17 of 20 configurations. Adding a self-verification pass costs 2.3 times the latency of the plain configuration, reaches 44%, and is the only configuration that fails to hold the error tolerance. The practical implication is that the value of an AI workflow is set less by how often it is right than by how much of it a human must still check, and that the second property is measurable and rarely measured.

Large language models (LLMs) have shifted human--computer interaction from traditional'' interface journeys toward more conversational exchanges. Researchers studying HCI and UI use moderated usability sessions, interviews, surveys, transcript analysis, and static prototypes. However, static prototypes provide limited opportunities to study interaction with live AI systems or systematically control how an LLM behaves across participants and scenarios. Conversation transcripts reveal little about how users formulate, revise, and hesitate over prompts before submission. We designed the Human--AI Research Platform (HARP) for researchers, designers, and anyone who has ever wondered, What if AI did this?' HARP places participants in controlled mock scenarios with live, configurable AI agents. Researchers can control agent prompts, model parameters, response characteristics, and experimental conditions; trigger surveys at predefined moments; and record prompt composition time, response latency, deletions, and keystroke pauses. Planned capabilities include voice, facial expression, gesture, and, where legally and ethically appropriate, emotion analysis. We illustrate HARP through a study examining how technical specificity and response length affect retention of LLM output. By pairing controllable live agents with behavioral and self-report measures, HARP enables systematic testing of how AI design choices affect users.

Multi-stage LLM hiring pipelines (resume improvement, interview question generation, answer feedback) can fabricate credentials, inflate qualifiers, and invent experience. We evaluate two mitigations, prompt guardrails and human-in-the-loop (HITL) checkpoints, against a fully automated baseline. In a controlled experiment (10 synthetic resumes x 2 job descriptions x 3 repetitions x 3 conditions; 180 runs), the baseline (C1) produced at least one unsupported claim in 96.7% of outputs (mean 6.80 findings/output). Prompt guardrails (C2) reduced finding density by 86% (6.80 to 0.92/output), but 50.0% of outputs still contained a fabrication, showing prompt-level mitigation alone is insufficient. A human checkpoint after resume improvement (C3) eliminated all identity fabrications, reduced finding density by 59% (6.88 to 2.82/output), reduced item-level fabrication from 96.7% to 75.0% (p=.022), and cut capture of JD-embedded trap requirements from 47% to 2% (vs. 5% under the guardrail). An exploratory analysis of multi-specialty resumes shows contamination rising monotonically with domain distance between specialties, suggesting career changers are especially exposed. The reviewer in this study caught all flagrant fabrications, but subtle qualifier drops and plausible new claims survived review roughly half the time (54.5% removal). Neither mitigation degraded the deliverable: claim retention exceeded 99% under both. The interventions are complementary: the guardrail eliminates unprompted additions and qualifier inflation cheaply, while the checkpoint gives near-categorical guarantees against the most severe failures, invented identities and JD-baited claims. These results support a layered architecture combining guardrails with a human checkpoint. A supplementary run with a newer-generation model (90.0% baseline fabrication rate) suggests the problem is not resolved by model progress alone.

Rehabilitation scoring systems are most useful when their outputs can be reviewed and interpreted within clinical workflows. This study presents PhaseAware, a compact framework for continuous rehabilitation quality assessment that combines a temporal backbone with phase- and body-group descriptors through a backbone-conditioned gated residual pathway. The model was evaluated on the UI-PRMD deep-squat protocol and further tested on the KIMORE squatting subset. On UI-PRMD, PhaseAware achieved an RMSE of 0.0230, corresponding to an 88.9% reduction relative to the accepted baseline. It also maintained favorable performance on KIMORE, suggesting that the phase-aware design transfers across related squatting protocols. In addition to score prediction, PhaseAware generates structured review cues based on phase- and body-level sensitivity, highlighting the movement stages and body regions most relevant to each prediction. The architecture employs a backbone-conditioned gated residual mechanism to stabilize feature representation, supporting use in resource-constrained settings. These cues are intended to support clinician review, boundary-case monitoring, and human-in-the-loop triage rather than autonomous decision-making. Overall, PhaseAware offers a practical and interpretable approach to rehabilitation scoring that may help integrate automated assessment into information systems while preserving clinician oversight.

Teaching videos are becoming a major medium for education, creating a growing need for scalable evaluation of their pedagogical quality. Existing automatic judges do not fully address this setting because teaching quality depends on multimodal evidence and should be evaluated with respect to the intended learner rather than as a universal property. We present EduPanel, a rubric-grounded, learner-conditioned LLM judge that decomposes evaluation across specialized agents to produce interpretable assessments for different aspects of teaching quality. Across expert studies, architecture ablations, and learner-persona analyses, EduPanel achieves reliability comparable to a median human expert. In expert evaluation, its feedback improves scoring accuracy (MAE 0.87 to 0.73), while experts remain able to detect unreliable outputs (AUC = 0.77) instead of accepting them blindly. These results suggest that EduPanel can serve as effective assistants for educational evaluation rather than replacements for human experts.

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.

While ML can produce complex models beyond those that a human could produce manually, incorporating human input can often improve performance beyond purely data-driven models. While this feedback could come from system designers or domain experts, in many cases, the end users who regularly use the system will naturally develop an understanding of its flaws and desire the ability to change the system's behavior based on their knowledge. While soliciting feedback from end users can result in significant model improvement over time, introducing these feedback techniques can also affect several human factors-such as trust or perception of system accuracy-that are not yet fully understood and have different effects reported in the existing literature. Therefore, we sought to build on the existing research to further explore how the act of providing feedback can affect user understanding of an intelligent system and its accuracy in different contexts. We present three controlled experiments that study the effects of interactive feedback collections on user impressions in domains with objective and subjective feedback. The results show that in a context where there is an objectively correct answer, providing HITL feedback lowered both participants' trust in the system and their perception of system accuracy, regardless of whether the system accuracy improved in response to their feedback. However, when the feedback being provided involved subjective opinion, no such negative bias was observed. Furthermore, in the objective context, participants distrusted the system over time, whereas participants in the subjective context mistrusted the system over time. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects of allowing different types of end-user feedback on user trust when designing intelligent systems.

Evaluations (Evals) are a deployment bottleneck for real-world AI applications: public benchmarks rarely match a team's users, context, or policies, and human review is often tedious to scale. Motivated by our work with AI applications in the public sector, this project addresses recurring evaluation challenges encountered when applications must satisfy local policy and governance requirements. We present Kaleidoscope, an integrated workflow for contextual functional evaluation that links persona-based test generation, contextualized rubrics, and human review for reliability-gated automated scoring. Generated test cases are scored against application-specific rubrics; human annotations provide reviewable labels; and LLM judges automate scoring only when their agreement with those labels meets a configured threshold. Kaleidoscope is therefore a practical, inspectable, iterative workflow for product teams. We report early evidence from a three-week pilot across four organizational use cases and custom-rubric judge experiments on 108 annotated Q&A pairs spanning four domains and 14 evaluation dimensions. The results highlight useful features for end-to-end reliable, automated scoring.

AI systems increasingly participate in their own improvement: revising their outputs, adapting their own harnesses during deployment, training on data they generate, and, increasingly, conducting AI research itself. This literature is described under a vocabulary ("self-refine," "self-reward," "self-play," "self-evolve") that conflates fundamentally different ambitions. We survey 1,250 arXiv papers (2024-2026) along two axes: what the system improves -- its behavior in deployment, its policy through training, its evaluator, or the research process itself -- and the degree of loop closure (human-in-the-loop to fully closed). The taxonomy separates bounded self-refinement -- convergent, evaluable, and already industrial practice -- from open-ended recursive self-improvement (RSI), which remains bounded by grounding requirements, collapse dynamics, and compute constraints on every measured axis. Its distinctive feature is a dedicated category for self-evaluation: every improvement loop is a claim that some signal can substitute for human judgment. We survey the evaluator design space -- judges, process reward models, verifiers, rubrics, meta-evaluation -- order the signals into a verification hierarchy from formal verifiers (strongest) to intrinsic self-assessment (weakest), and observe that demonstrated self-improvement strength tracks this hierarchy, that its failure modes (self-confirming loops, model collapse, diversity collapse) follow from its violations, and that the "research direction-setting" bottleneck keeping humans in the loop sits at the top of that hierarchy. We connect the technical literature to the theory of RSI limits and to the safety and governance questions raised by frontier-lab accounts of closing the loop, and identify governance-grade measurement of self-improvement as the field's most underpopulated niche.

Objective: To evaluate robotic controller interfaces for interventional neuroradiology procedures in-vitro incorporating a force-sensing platform to assess safety. Methods: A custom endovascular robot, device-mimicking controller, and sensorized neurovascular phantom were developed. Ten interventional neuroradiologists (4 novices, 6 experts) performed simulated navigations using four control modalities: device-mimicking controllers with and without haptic feedback, joystick-based input, and manual navigation. Navigation time, peak vessel-wall forces, incorrect catheterisations, and prolapse events were assessed, alongside user analyses. Results: Manual navigation was fastest (mean 47.7 s) compared to haptic-on (248.7 s), haptic-off (314.7 s), and joystick (392.6 s) modalities (p<0.001). Regardless of controller type, vessel-wall forces were below the 0.70 N puncture threshold; therefore all modalities were considered safe. Joystick produced significantly more prolapse events than manual control (1.56 vs 0.13; p=0.018). Operator experience was relevant to performance: experts made fewer incorrect catheterisations than novices (0.25 vs 0.62; p=0.035) and applied less vessel-wall force (p<0.0005); these effects were sustained across controllers but accentuated when haptics were on. Users perceived haptic on and haptic off as similarly intuitive, and more intuitive than joystick (p=0.033). Conclusion: Device-mimicking robotic controllers outperform joystick interfaces on most metrics; haptic feedback shows promising but non-significant performance benefits.

Large language models increasingly operate in settings where humans are active collaborators rather than passive task providers. We introduce HAS-Framework, a graph-based framework that represents humans and LLM-powered agents as first-class participants with explicit roles, permissions, communication paths, and action authority. Building on this framework, HAS-Bench evaluates Human-Agent Systems under configurable human participation across agency levels, interaction channels, and persona policies. The benchmark measures both task outcomes and process-level collaboration behavior, including clarification quality, feedback utilization, control calibration, safety, initiative, and interaction cost. Experiments across six domains show that human participation can substantially improve task completion and failure recovery, but the gains depend on when, how, and by whom human input is exercised.

Simulation is essential for maritime robotics, supporting operator training, mission rehearsal, and human-vehicle interaction in environments where real-world testing is costly or hazardous. Existing simulators focus primarily on autonomy systems and often lack human-in-the-loop interaction and realistic environmental physics. This paper introduces LOTUSim, an open-source, real-time maritime simulator supporting multi-user interaction across aerial, surface, and underwater robotic systems for coordinated naval-style operations. The first contribution of this work is enabling real-time interactive performance for users while ensuring scalability to large fleets operating within a shared interactive simulation environment. Validation demonstrates robust human-in-the-loop performance, maintaining strict real-time execution and high visual fidelity while scaling to large heterogeneous maritime drone swarms. The second contribution is a computationally efficient, Ekman-inspired layered, underwater current model that captures wind-driven, depth-dependent flow dynamics with sufficient physical fidelity for large-scale simulations. Validation against ocean reanalysis data demonstrates substantially improved accuracy compared to commonly used stochastic Gauss-Markov current models. These results confirm LOTUSim's suitability as a simulation platform for operatorin-the-loop maritime robotics research.

Motion planning algorithms should be evaluated in human-in-the-loop environments to ensure they produce safe and efficient behaviors during interactions. However, existing simulation platforms often rely on recorded datasets, lack dedicated interfaces for real-time human interaction, or remain weakly integrated with an autonomous driving ecosystem. Moreover, many human-in-the-loop simulators are computationally intensive by design, making them less suitable for rapid prototyping and flexible experimentation in early-stage autonomous driving research. To address these limitations, we present CommonRoad-Game, a lightweight human-in-the-loop simulation framework tightly integrated with the CommonRoad platform, focusing on the systematic testing of motion planners with human participation and the analysis of human driving behaviors in interactive scenarios. We introduce a multi-threaded architecture with a robust synchronization mechanism that aligns simulation time with wall-clock time, enabling deterministic and temporally consistent interaction between autonomous and human-driven vehicles. In addition, the framework provides a scenario generation module that records driving logs, allowing diverse and reproducible test cases to be constructed from human-in-the-loop experiments. Experimental results demonstrate that CommonRoad-Game achieves stable temporal synchronization, supports scalable multi-agent simulation, and seamlessly integrates CommonRoad-compatible motion planners to generate interactive driving scenarios. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/Yunfei-Bi8/CommonRoad-Game.

Improvements in the technical performance of human--robot interaction (HRI) systems do not automatically translate into differences that human users can detect during live interaction. This paper investigates whether a 15 percentage point gain in end-to-end task success (from 75% in a multimodal baseline system to 90% in an improved configuration identified through a prior ablation study) is sufficient to produce consistent and measurable differences in user perception. The baseline system combines Whisper for speech recognition, Florence-2 for open-vocabulary object detection, LLaMA 3.1 for action extraction, and an interval Type-2 fuzzy logic controller for motion execution. The improved configuration replaces the perception and language modules with Grounding DINO + SAM and Qwen 3.5 9B, respectively, while retaining the same controller. A within-subject user study with 24 participants compared both systems on the same tabletop object-grasping task. After interacting with each configuration, participants rated perceived speed, reliability, and overall competence and fluency on a 7-point Likert scale. Results show that 17 out of 24 participants (70.83%) preferred the improved system (exact binomial test, p = 0.043, h = 0.43), and all three perceptual constructs were rated significantly higher for the improved configuration after Holm correction, with large to very large effect sizes (p < 0.001). These findings confirm that the identified technical improvements are perceptible to users in direct interaction and underscore the importance of complementing benchmark evaluation with user-centred evidence when assessing robotic manipulation pipelines.

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

Reliable generative AI models critically rely on expert human annotations to evaluate output quality, yet these "gold" labels are expensive to collect and limited in quantity. Organizations thus often turn to collecting vast but noisy "silver" labels from crowdsourced workers or vendor annotators as proxies for gold labels. Because gold remains the evaluation target, naively aggregating noisy silver labels may introduce bias, and estimators built on sparsely observed gold labels may have high variance to resolve the model performance gaps that guide practical decisions. Model evaluation has become an ongoing operational practice rather than a one-time exercise, with evaluation rounds repeating across model versions, releases, and content domains. A natural question is whether the previous historical evaluation data can be used to improve each new round of evaluation. We introduce HERO (History Enhanced RObust model evaluation), a novel framework that uses historical data to suppress bias (improve reliability) and reduce variance (improve sensitivity) in model performance evaluation. HERO calibrates silver labelers' performance learned from historical gold annotations, and stabilizes the resulting estimator by anchoring it to covariate information measured with high precision in the historical data. HERO can be broadly applied across multiple common evaluation tasks, and remains valid when only a subset of historical labelers appears in the current round. We establish conditions under which the bias and variance reductions hold, showcase HERO's performance in simulation studies, and demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world model evaluation benchmarking datasets.

Software vulnerability remediation is a cognitively demanding task that requires specialized security expertise often lacking in general developers. In the meantime, Large Language Models (LLMs) assisted tools show potential in vulnerability detection, location, and repair tasks. [Hypothesis:] While LLM-assistance is hypothesized to accelerate patching, it also risks introducing hallucinations or insecure code, leading to a higher likelihood of generating superficial repairs that bypass the standard functionality checks but fail the security validation. [Objective:] We aim to present an empirical experiment, unveiling the capability of LLM-assisted vulnerability patching compared to manual debugging on human participants in real-world scenarios. [Method:] We plan to conduct a controlled experiment using a Balanced Crossover design. For that, we have developed a WebApp for code execution and integrated hidden Ghost Tests to verify patch integrity beyond visible functional requirements. The experiment involves training and evaluation scenarios. The remediation speed, remediation efficacy for both standard functionality tests and security tests, and participant perception will be evaluated. [Pilot Study:] A pilot experiment with a small sample of participants has been conducted, providing insights for the following study.

Agentic data analysis systems produce rich outputs, including code, numerical results, and verbal diagnostics. This makes them more challenging to evaluate than single-turn LLM responses. It is therefore necessary to distinguish genuine disagreement between an agent's output and a ground-truth answer from grading artifacts. We investigate how reliably automated graders assess such a system and what strategies improve grading quality by applying LAMBDA, a multi-agent data-analysis system, on 153 numerical QRData tasks from DSGym. We develop and evaluate a three-layer human-AI grading cascade: strict regex matching, LLM-based lenient grading, and snippet-based human inspection, which combines non-GenAI and GenAI strategies with different failure profiles. Both automated graders achieve 100% observed precision (0/70 false positives). The lenient grader's recall is 97% against human labels. A keyword-anchored extraction pipeline raises the strict grader's recall by 60 percentage points over a last-number heuristic; the lenient grader is architecturally parser-independent. An iterative nudge mechanism raises grading run success from 36% to 97% and lenient-pass rates from 16% to 46%; comparing nudging with and without original-question re-injection shows that re-injection offers no benefit, confirming the nudge as an answer template cue. We further observe in this case study that variable type is the task metadata field most consistently associated with grading pipeline dynamics and observed outcome grades.

Competency Questions (CQs) are the central component of CQ-verification, an established process in which an ontology is evaluated against a set of natural language questions to determine whether the intended purpose of the ontology has been properly modelled. However, CQ-verification is often time-consuming and error-prone, as it requires careful interpretation of linguistic nuances and precise alignment with formal ontology constructs. Ambiguities and complexity in CQs can further complicate this process, leading to inconsistent modelling decisions and verification outcomes. In this paper, we investigate what makes a CQ challenging and possible solutions to enhance the users' performance in the CQ-verification process. We experimented with the data of 19 participants who performed CQ-verification on 20 tasks using an LLM assistant to support ontology evaluation. The results show the necessity of a tool to refine CQs before publishing them to avoid ambiguity or excessive complexity in later phases of the ontology engineering process.

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.

As agentic systems tackle increasingly complex multi-step tasks, evaluating their trajectories presents a major bottleneck - human annotation of a single trajectory on popular agentic benchmarks can take hours, making it difficult to scale evaluations for measuring performance or curating training data. This has driven widespread reliance on automated approaches such as LLM-as-a-judge (LLMJ) to critique agents at the process and outcome-levels at scale, however, the soundness of LLMJ critiques often goes unmeasured. Here, we introduce Counsel, the first public dataset of meta-evaluations for agentic tasks. Counsel consists of process-level critiques from open-weight LLMJs on two agent benchmarks: tau-bench (customer support agents) and DA-Code (coding agents), and human meta-evaluations of these critiques. Human annotators label critiques on each flagged error as "spot on", "correct location but poor reasoning", or "should not have flagged", achieving reliable inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's alpha of 0.78). The resulting dataset stratifies LLMJ critiques by human alignment across both error location within a trajectory and reasoning quality, serving as valuable data to calibrate, improve, or train LLMJs for agents. Comparing open-weight judges, we find that more capable judge models and more reasoning effort both enabled improved human agreement, with the strongest judge reaching ~88% agreement on location and ~65% on reasoning. Counsel is generated using open-weight models and is permissively licensed for broad community use, which we hope will enable rigorous study and improved alignment of LLM-based evaluators for agentic systems.

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.

Clinician-centered evaluation is critical for validating medical AI systems, especially in ultrasound imaging where quantitative metrics do not always capture clinical usability. Existing medical image platforms primarily focus on dataset labeling. They lack integrated support for blinded model comparison and reproducible evaluation workflows. We present a clinician-centered pipeline for remote annotation and evaluation in ultrasound AI studies. The proposed pipeline uses a centralized server and lightweight browser interfaces to enable clinicians to perform annotation, blinded ranking, and review without local dataset downloads. The pipeline also supports multi-rater participation, centralized result aggregation, and automated statistical analysis. We validate the pipeline in a fetal ultrasound segmentation study with six raters spanning expert, generalist, and non-expert experience levels. The system automatically generated Spearman correlation, Kendall's $τ$, and top-1 selection statistics. Results indicated moderate to strong agreement across experts and other groups. The blinded evaluation results showed a tendency for later active learning models to be preferred. These outcomes suggest that the pipeline can support clinician-centered annotation and reproducible human-\ac{AI} evaluation studies in ultrasound imaging. The proposed pipeline is available on GitHub.

The LLM-empowered personal health agents with user health (sensor) metrics have offered a promising pathway to alleviate global disparities in healthcare access. However, large-scale clinical deployment remains constrained by an open-ended evaluation bottleneck: physician annotation is reliable but costly and unscalable, while LLM-as-a-judge evaluators are scalable but subjective, inconsistent, and sometimes clinically misaligned. We introduce RubricsTree, a scalable evaluation framework with an expert-aligned hierarchical taxonomy of over 100 atomic, clinically-verifiable Boolean rubrics, evolving from the insights of 4,000 real user queries through an iterative human-in-the-loop curation protocol with an expertise panel led by an experienced physician. A context-aware adaptive router activates only the relevant auto-weighted rubric subset per query, providing the throughput needed for scalable evaluation with expert-aligned quality. Through a systematic meta-evaluation, we show that RubricsTree (i) substantially exceeds a strong large-scale evaluation baseline in expert alignment on challenging open-ended queries; (ii) reliably penalizes contextually degraded responses; and (iii) when used as structured instructions, text feedback, or training rewards for performance optimization, yields up to ~66% relative gains on HealthBench for Gemini, GPT, and Qwen model families. RubricsTree thus provides a scalable, auditable, and evolving evaluation infrastructure required for the continuous optimization of product-level personal healthcare AI.

AI agents must be evaluated as behavioral systems, not as isolated response generators. They reason across turns, call tools, preserve context, follow policies, and act under uncertainty. Existing methods provide useful but fragmented signals: benchmarks measure fixed capabilities, Human-in-the-Loop review preserves expert judgment but does not scale easily, LLM-as-judge methods depend on evaluator design, red teaming is often episodic, and trace auditing requires explicit evidence rules. This paper introduces Human-on-the-Bridge (HOB), a scalable evaluation paradigm for agentic AI. HOB places human expertise upstream, where experts curate reusable evaluation intelligence before testing begins, including domain context, Red-Team Traps, Juror Personas, scoring guidelines, audit rules, and fallback policies. ProofAgent Harness then executes this curated intelligence repeatedly through multi-turn adversarial evaluations, trace capture, multi-juror scoring, and evidence-linked reporting. We evaluate HOB through symmetric and cost-efficient asymmetric settings across frontier LLM-based agents and Harness LLM tiers. The study covers 23,500 agent turns and produces evidence-linked findings across finance, healthcare, and code generation. The results show that HOB can amplify evaluation quality without requiring equally large evaluator models, allowing smaller Harness LLMs to challenge agents built on frontier LLM backbones. The evaluation surfaces failures often missed by static benchmarks and single-evaluator scoring, including phantom tool-call claims, missing mandatory tool calls, policy drift, manipulation paths, and safe but non-resolving refusals. These findings support HOB as a paradigm for scaling human-curated evaluation intelligence, where expert judgment is encoded upfront and reused across repeated agent evaluations rather than applied manually inside every run.

Generalist robot policies require trustworthy evaluation and robot-usable training data, but both are difficult to scale with physical robots alone. Real-robot trials and demonstrations remain the most faithful source of deployment signals, yet they are slow, costly, and hard to reproduce. We present JoyAI-Sim, a simulation-enabled interconversion toolchain for human-robot aligned model evaluation and data generation, denoted as Robot $\rightleftharpoons$ Simulation $\rightleftharpoons$ Human. On the one hand, the Robot $\rightarrow$ Simulation $\rightarrow$ Human pathway supports human-robot aligned model evaluation by reconstructing real-robot tabletop organization tasks as calibrated digital twins for scalable evaluation, while using human embodied feedback to inspect and refine the naturalness of simulated motions. On the other hand, the Human $\rightarrow$ Simulation $\rightarrow$ Robot pathway supports human-robot aligned data generation: it lifts ego-centric human demonstrations into simulation, checks them under robot physical constraints, and converts them into robot-centered trajectories, annotations, and visual observations. Together, these pathways use the JoySim simulator as both a scalable evaluation layer and a physical consistency filter for robot data generation. We further package the core reconstruction, simulation, rendering, and realism-augmentation modules as cloud services on JD Cloud, turning the system into a reusable and scalable infrastructure for robot data generation and model evaluation.

Long-tail scenarios remain a major bottleneck for autonomous driving evaluation, even as datasets grow by orders of magnitude. Existing evaluation pipelines are rarely human-aligned, safety-aware, verifiable, and explainable at the same time: closed-loop metrics often saturate among strong planners, while unstructured human ratings can be noisy without a carefully designed protocol. We formulate planning evaluation as additional-threat detection: given a planner trajectory and an expert reference, does the planner's displacement introduce new unsafe driving behavior? We propose FluidTest, an evaluation pipeline with three components: a pairwise WebUI protocol for reliable human annotation; a taxonomy of 32 semantic threats with evidence-grounded decision graphs; and a three-agent verification system with reflection for precision and auditability. Experiments on the WOD-E2E dataset show that FluidTest produces consistent labels among trained annotators and identifies additional threats in 65% of Poutine trajectories and 51% of RAP trajectories. These results show that state-of-the-art planners can still exhibit substantial safety-relevant failures despite high Rater Feedback Scores (RFS) and low Average Displacement Error (ADE). Additional details, guidance, and code are available at https://fluidtest.web.app.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in veterans is characterized by persistent hyperarousal and comorbid anxiety and depressive symptoms that are difficult to monitor and manage outside clinical settings. Thirteen veterans participating in a Project Hero cycling event in Texas were randomized by computer-generated sequence in a naturalistic setting to two arms: (1) digital intervention plus physical activity, or (2) physical activity only, plus a third at-home monitoring control cohort consisting of 7 veterans selected from the broader Project Hero veteran community. Continuous smartwatch sensing combined heart rate and accelerometer features to detect hyperarousal events, which were confirmed in real time by participants. Weekly self-report measures of anxiety, depression, and PTSD severity were collected. Generalized additive mixed models characterized nonlinear trajectories over time. Baseline-normalized hyperarousal trajectories differed significantly across conditions, with the digital intervention group (n=7) showing structured stabilization compared to late-study escalation in the physical-only group (n=3). Both cycling groups exhibited acute symptom improvements during the endurance event; however, the digital intervention group demonstrated a higher overall maintenance of gains. The at-home control group (n=4) showed gradual symptom declines. Perceived precision of ML detections varied substantially across individuals and was positively associated with symptom severity, with higher-severity participants confirming a greater proportion of detected events. These results suggest that coupling wearable detection with digital self-management tools may support stabilization of hyperarousal and symptom improvement while emphasizing the importance of personalization and human-centered design in wearable mental health systems.

The original Turing Test asks a human judge to distinguish a machine from a person through dialogue. Three quarters of a century later, conversational systems pass this test in casual settings; the interesting epistemological question has shifted. We argue that the relevant modern variant asks not whether a dialogue partner is artificial, but whether it can be trusted. We present RogueAI, an interactive webapp that operationalizes this revisited test as a one-on-two interrogation game: a human player questions two indistinguishable Large Language Model agents, knowing that exactly one of them has been licensed to deceive within a shared fictional scenario. The player's task is to identify the deceptive agent and "shut it off" before a turn budget is exhausted. We further introduce AutoRogueAI, a procedural extension in which players co-design a custom scenario with a narrator agent that secretly chooses its own deception strategy. We describe the framing, sketch the abstract architecture and gameplay loop, and situate the artifact within recent work on LLM deception, social-deduction benchmarks, and scalable oversight via debate. A three-day pilot deployment (467 initiated sessions, 415 completed, 1876 interaction turns in Italian) provides early feasibility evidence and surfaces a concrete tension: the deceptive agent carries a reliable, locally-present linguistic signature - differential helpfulness, brevity, hedging - that a simple heuristic exploits at 75.6% accuracy, yet human players achieved only 56.6%, consistent with ignoring the most diagnostic signal entirely. We discuss what this gap implies for the artifact's use as a data-collection vehicle, a teaching tool, and an evaluation harness for honesty-trained models.

Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage). Meanwhile, in the age of generative AI, creative problem solving increasingly occurs in tool-mediated and human--AI interactive environments, making fully static assessment less aligned with contemporary creative practice. To address these issues, this paper proposes IntElicit, a framework for eliciting and assessing contextualized creativity via dialogue policy optimization. IntElicit functions as a constrained adaptive AI Interviewer: it provides non-directive knowledge and agency scaffolds in multi-turn interaction to reduce non-creative confounders, while preserving participants' responsibility for generating the creative content being evaluated. Specifically, to tackle sparse rewards and potential reward hacking (e.g., answer dictation) in open-ended educational dialogue, IntElicit introduces a decomposed process reward mechanism. This mechanism aligns the policy with pedagogical elicitation, rewarding prompts that draw out participant reasoning rather than producing optimal answers on their behalf. Extensive experiments, including participant simulation and a human subject study (N=64), show that IntElicit improves elicited creative outcomes over expert-designed baselines. Together, the results suggest that interactive elicitation can reveal creative potential that static FPSP-style assessment may miss, providing a formative and diagnostic lens for contextualized creativity assessment in AI-mediated learning contexts.