Daily Papers

Evaluations are critical for understanding the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Fundamentally, evaluations are experiments; but the literature on evaluations has largely ignored the literature from other sciences on experiment analysis and planning. This article shows researchers with some training in statistics how to think about and analyze data from language model evaluations. Conceptualizing evaluation questions as having been drawn from an unseen super-population, we present formulas for analyzing evaluation data, measuring differences between two models, and planning an evaluation experiment. We make a number of specific recommendations for running language model evaluations and reporting experiment results in a way that minimizes statistical noise and maximizes informativeness.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

Evaluations of large language model (LLM) risks and capabilities are increasingly being incorporated into AI risk management and governance frameworks. Currently, most risk evaluations are conducted by designing inputs that elicit harmful behaviors from the system. However, a fundamental limitation of this approach is that the harmfulness of the behaviors identified during any particular evaluation can only lower bound the model's worst-possible-case behavior. As a complementary method for eliciting harmful behaviors, we propose evaluating LLMs with model tampering attacks which allow for modifications to latent activations or weights. We pit state-of-the-art techniques for removing harmful LLM capabilities against a suite of 5 input-space and 6 model tampering attacks. In addition to benchmarking these methods against each other, we show that (1) model resilience to capability elicitation attacks lies on a low-dimensional robustness subspace; (2) the attack success rate of model tampering attacks can empirically predict and offer conservative estimates for the success of held-out input-space attacks; and (3) state-of-the-art unlearning methods can easily be undone within 16 steps of fine-tuning. Together these results highlight the difficulty of removing harmful LLM capabilities and show that model tampering attacks enable substantially more rigorous evaluations than input-space attacks alone. We release models at https://huggingface.co/LLM-GAT

Web agents enable users to perform tasks on web browsers through natural language interaction. Evaluating web agents trajectories is an important problem, since it helps us determine whether the agent successfully completed the tasks. Rule-based methods are widely used for this purpose, but they are challenging to extend to new tasks and may not always recognize successful trajectories. We may achieve higher accuracy through human evaluation, but the process would be substantially slower and more expensive. Automatic evaluations with LLMs may avoid the challenges of designing new rules and manually annotating trajectories, enabling faster and cost-effective evaluation. However, it is unclear how effective they are at evaluating web agents. To this end, we propose AgentRewardBench, the first benchmark to assess the effectiveness of LLM judges for evaluating web agents. AgentRewardBench contains 1302 trajectories across 5 benchmarks and 4 LLMs. Each trajectory in AgentRewardBench is reviewed by an expert, who answers questions pertaining to the success, side effects, and repetitiveness of the agent. Using our benchmark, we evaluate 12 LLM judges and find that no single LLM excels across all benchmarks. We also find that the rule-based evaluation used by common benchmarks tends to underreport the success rate of web agents, highlighting a key weakness of rule-based evaluation and the need to develop more flexible automatic evaluations. We release the benchmark at: https://agent-reward-bench.github.io

How to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation remains an open question. Existing benchmarks have two limitations - data leakage and lack of domain-specific evaluation. The former hurts the fairness of benchmarks, and the latter hinders practitioners from selecting superior LLMs for specific programming domains. To address these two limitations, we propose a new benchmark - EvoCodeBench, which has the following advances: (1) Evolving data. EvoCodeBench will be dynamically updated every period (e.g., 6 months) to avoid data leakage. This paper releases the first version - EvoCodeBench-2403, containing 275 samples from 25 repositories. (2) A domain taxonomy and domain labels. Based on the statistics of open-source communities, we design a programming domain taxonomy consisting of 10 popular domains. Based on the taxonomy, we annotate each sample in EvoCodeBench with a domain label. (3) Domain-specific evaluations. Besides the Pass@k, we compute the Domain-Specific Improvement (DSI) and define LLMs' comfort and strange domains. These evaluations help practitioners select superior LLMs in specific domains and discover the shortcomings of existing LLMs. We evaluate 8 popular LLMs (e.g., gpt-4, DeepSeek Coder) on EvoCodeBench and summarize some insights. EvoCodeBench reveals the actual abilities of these LLMs in real-world repositories. For example, the highest Pass@1 of gpt-4 on EvoCodeBench-2403 is only 20.74%. Besides, we evaluate LLMs in different domains and discover their comfort and strange domains. For example, gpt-4 performs best in most domains but falls behind others in the Internet domain. StarCoder 2-15B unexpectedly performs well in the Database domain and even outperforms 33B LLMs. EvoCodeBench has been released.

Language model users often issue queries that lack specification, where the context under which a query was issued -- such as the user's identity, the query's intent, and the criteria for a response to be useful -- is not explicit. For instance, a good response to a subjective query like "What book should I read next?" would depend on the user's preferences, and a good response to an open-ended query like "How do antibiotics work against bacteria?" would depend on the user's expertise. This makes evaluation of responses to such queries an ill-posed task, as evaluators may make arbitrary judgments about the response quality. To remedy this, we present contextualized evaluations, a protocol that synthetically constructs context surrounding an underspecified query and provides it during evaluation. We find that the presence of context can 1) alter conclusions drawn from evaluation, even flipping win rates between model pairs, 2) nudge evaluators to make fewer judgments based on surface-level criteria, like style, and 3) provide new insights about model behavior across diverse contexts. Specifically, our procedure uncovers an implicit bias towards WEIRD contexts in models' "default" responses and we find that models are not equally sensitive to following different contexts, even when they are provided in prompts.

Large language models are shifting from passive information providers to active agents intended for complex workflows. However, their deployment as reliable AI workers in enterprise is stalled by benchmarks that fail to capture the intricacies of professional environments, specifically, the need for long-horizon planning amidst persistent state changes and strict access protocols. In this work, we introduce EnterpriseOps-Gym, a benchmark designed to evaluate agentic planning in realistic enterprise settings. Specifically, EnterpriseOps-Gym features a containerized sandbox with 164 database tables and 512 functional tools to mimic real-world search friction. Within this environment, agents are evaluated on 1,150 expert-curated tasks across eight mission-critical verticals (including Customer Service, HR, and IT). Our evaluation of 14 frontier models reveals critical limitations in state-of-the-art models: the top-performing Claude Opus 4.5 achieves only 37.4% success. Further analysis shows that providing oracle human plans improves performance by 14-35 percentage points, pinpointing strategic reasoning as the primary bottleneck. Additionally, agents frequently fail to refuse infeasible tasks (best model achieves 53.9%), leading to unintended and potentially harmful side effects. Our findings underscore that current agents are not yet ready for autonomous enterprise deployment. More broadly, EnterpriseOps-Gym provides a concrete testbed to advance the robustness of agentic planning in professional workflows.

Perceiving and generating diverse modalities are crucial for AI models to effectively learn from and engage with real-world signals, necessitating reliable evaluations for their development. We identify two major issues in current evaluations: (1) inconsistent standards, shaped by different communities with varying protocols and maturity levels; and (2) significant query, grading, and generalization biases. To address these, we introduce MixEval-X, the first any-to-any real-world benchmark designed to optimize and standardize evaluations across input and output modalities. We propose multi-modal benchmark mixture and adaptation-rectification pipelines to reconstruct real-world task distributions, ensuring evaluations generalize effectively to real-world use cases. Extensive meta-evaluations show our approach effectively aligns benchmark samples with real-world task distributions and the model rankings correlate strongly with that of crowd-sourced real-world evaluations (up to 0.98). We provide comprehensive leaderboards to rerank existing models and organizations and offer insights to enhance understanding of multi-modal evaluations and inform future research.

The validity of AI safety evaluations depends on models behaving consistently across controlled and deployment settings. Prior work has identified test-time contextual cues, such as hypothetical scenarios, as a source of verbalized evaluation awareness and subsequent behavioral shift. In this paper, we investigate a potential explanation of this phenomenon: evaluation meta-knowledge, defined as parametric knowledge about the structural traits that characterize evaluations. Similar to dataset contamination, where benchmark exposure leads to higher performance through memorization, we hypothesize that models trained on texts describing evaluation practices may implicitly learn to recognize and respond to evaluation-like contexts, for instance, through exposure to scientific articles or social media posts about AI benchmarking. To test this, we fine-tune models on synthetic documents describing evaluation traits such as verifiable structures or moral dilemmas. Evaluating this fine-tuned model on six safety benchmarks, we find that it is significantly safer than the base model and control model. This behavioral shift persists even when restricting the analysis to responses lacking explicit verbalization of evaluation awareness. Our results demonstrate that evaluation meta-knowledge may inflate safety benchmark performance, introducing a novel confounder that is independent of explicit memorization or verbalized evaluation awareness, thus, challenging to detect. These findings have important implications for the design and interpretation of AI safety evaluations. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/compass-group-tue/arxiv2026_evaluation_meta_knowledge.

We introduce Michelangelo: a minimal, synthetic, and unleaked long-context reasoning evaluation for large language models which is also easy to automatically score. This evaluation is derived via a novel, unifying framework for evaluations over arbitrarily long contexts which measure the model's ability to do more than retrieve a single piece of information from its context. The central idea of the Latent Structure Queries framework (LSQ) is to construct tasks which require a model to ``chisel away'' the irrelevant information in the context, revealing a latent structure in the context. To verify a model's understanding of this latent structure, we query the model for details of the structure. Using LSQ, we produce three diagnostic long-context evaluations across code and natural-language domains intended to provide a stronger signal of long-context language model capabilities. We perform evaluations on several state-of-the-art models and demonstrate both that a) the proposed evaluations are high-signal and b) that there is significant room for improvement in synthesizing long-context information.

Disentangling model activations into meaningful features is a central problem in interpretability. However, the absence of ground-truth for these features in realistic scenarios makes validating recent approaches, such as sparse dictionary learning, elusive. To address this challenge, we propose a framework for evaluating feature dictionaries in the context of specific tasks, by comparing them against supervised feature dictionaries. First, we demonstrate that supervised dictionaries achieve excellent approximation, control, and interpretability of model computations on the task. Second, we use the supervised dictionaries to develop and contextualize evaluations of unsupervised dictionaries along the same three axes. We apply this framework to the indirect object identification (IOI) task using GPT-2 Small, with sparse autoencoders (SAEs) trained on either the IOI or OpenWebText datasets. We find that these SAEs capture interpretable features for the IOI task, but they are less successful than supervised features in controlling the model. Finally, we observe two qualitative phenomena in SAE training: feature occlusion (where a causally relevant concept is robustly overshadowed by even slightly higher-magnitude ones in the learned features), and feature over-splitting (where binary features split into many smaller, less interpretable features). We hope that our framework will provide a useful step towards more objective and grounded evaluations of sparse dictionary learning methods.

Generative world models are reshaping embodied AI, enabling agents to synthesize realistic 4D driving environments that look convincing but often fail physically or behaviorally. Despite rapid progress, the field still lacks a unified way to assess whether generated worlds preserve geometry, obey physics, or support reliable control. We introduce WorldLens, a full-spectrum benchmark evaluating how well a model builds, understands, and behaves within its generated world. It spans five aspects -- Generation, Reconstruction, Action-Following, Downstream Task, and Human Preference -- jointly covering visual realism, geometric consistency, physical plausibility, and functional reliability. Across these dimensions, no existing world model excels universally: those with strong textures often violate physics, while geometry-stable ones lack behavioral fidelity. To align objective metrics with human judgment, we further construct WorldLens-26K, a large-scale dataset of human-annotated videos with numerical scores and textual rationales, and develop WorldLens-Agent, an evaluation model distilled from these annotations to enable scalable, explainable scoring. Together, the benchmark, dataset, and agent form a unified ecosystem for measuring world fidelity -- standardizing how future models are judged not only by how real they look, but by how real they behave.

We review human evaluation practices in automated, speech-driven 3D gesture generation and find a lack of standardisation and frequent use of flawed experimental setups. This leads to a situation where it is impossible to know how different methods compare, or what the state of the art is. In order to address common shortcomings of evaluation design, and to standardise future user studies in gesture-generation works, we introduce a detailed human evaluation protocol for the widely-used BEAT2 motion-capture dataset. Using this protocol, we conduct large-scale crowdsourced evaluation to rank six recent gesture-generation models -- each trained by its original authors -- across two key evaluation dimensions: motion realism and speech-gesture alignment. Our results provide strong evidence that 1) newer models do not consistently outperform earlier approaches; 2) published claims of high motion realism or speech-gesture alignment may not hold up under rigorous evaluation; and 3) the field must adopt disentangled assessments of motion quality and multimodal alignment for accurate benchmarking in order to make progress. Finally, in order to drive standardisation and enable new evaluation research, we will release five hours of synthetic motion from the benchmarked models; over 750 rendered video stimuli from the user studies -- enabling new evaluations without model reimplementation required -- alongside our open-source rendering script, and the 16,000 pairwise human preference votes collected for our benchmark.

The emergence of audio-visual foundation models underscores the importance of reliably assessing their multi-modal understanding. The VGGSound dataset is commonly used as a benchmark for evaluation audio-visual classification. However, our analysis identifies several limitations of VGGSound, including incomplete labelling, partially overlapping classes, and misaligned modalities. These lead to distorted evaluations of auditory and visual capabilities. To address these limitations, we introduce VGGSounder, a comprehensively re-annotated, multi-label test set that extends VGGSound and is specifically designed to evaluate audio-visual foundation models. VGGSounder features detailed modality annotations, enabling precise analyses of modality-specific performance. Furthermore, we reveal model limitations by analysing performance degradation when adding another input modality with our new modality confusion metric.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has intensified the imperative to scrutinize fairness alongside accuracy. Recent studies have begun to investigate fairness evaluations for LLMs within domains such as recommendations. Given that personalization is an intrinsic aspect of recommendation systems, its incorporation into fairness assessments is paramount. Yet, the degree to which current fairness evaluation frameworks account for personalization remains unclear. Our comprehensive literature review aims to fill this gap by examining how existing frameworks handle fairness evaluations of LLMs, with a focus on the integration of personalization factors. Despite an exhaustive collection and analysis of relevant works, we discovered that most evaluations overlook personalization, a critical facet of recommendation systems, thereby inadvertently perpetuating unfair practices. Our findings shed light on this oversight and underscore the urgent need for more nuanced fairness evaluations that acknowledge personalization. Such improvements are vital for fostering equitable development within the AI community.

As language models (LMs) scale, they develop many novel behaviors, good and bad, exacerbating the need to evaluate how they behave. Prior work creates evaluations with crowdwork (which is time-consuming and expensive) or existing data sources (which are not always available). Here, we automatically generate evaluations with LMs. We explore approaches with varying amounts of human effort, from instructing LMs to write yes/no questions to making complex Winogender schemas with multiple stages of LM-based generation and filtering. Crowdworkers rate the examples as highly relevant and agree with 90-100% of labels, sometimes more so than corresponding human-written datasets. We generate 154 datasets and discover new cases of inverse scaling where LMs get worse with size. Larger LMs repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer ("sycophancy") and express greater desire to pursue concerning goals like resource acquisition and goal preservation. We also find some of the first examples of inverse scaling in RL from Human Feedback (RLHF), where more RLHF makes LMs worse. For example, RLHF makes LMs express stronger political views (on gun rights and immigration) and a greater desire to avoid shut down. Overall, LM-written evaluations are high-quality and let us quickly discover many novel LM behaviors.

The rapid rise of autonomous AI systems and advancements in agent capabilities are introducing new risks due to reduced oversight of real-world interactions. Yet agent testing remains nascent and is still a developing science. As AI agents begin to be deployed globally, it is important that they handle different languages and cultures accurately and securely. To address this, participants from The International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, including representatives from Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Kenya, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have come together to align approaches to agentic evaluations. This is the third exercise, building on insights from two earlier joint testing exercises conducted by the Network in November 2024 and February 2025. The objective is to further refine best practices for testing advanced AI systems. The exercise was split into two strands: (1) common risks, including leakage of sensitive information and fraud, led by Singapore AISI; and (2) cybersecurity, led by UK AISI. A mix of open and closed-weight models were evaluated against tasks from various public agentic benchmarks. Given the nascency of agentic testing, our primary focus was on understanding methodological issues in conducting such tests, rather than examining test results or model capabilities. This collaboration marks an important step forward as participants work together to advance the science of agentic evaluations.

A significant challenge for robot learning research is our ability to accurately measure and compare the performance of robot policies. Benchmarking in robotics is historically challenging due to the stochasticity, reproducibility, and time-consuming nature of real-world rollouts. This challenge is exacerbated for recent generalist policies, which has to be evaluated across a wide variety of scenes and tasks. Evaluation in simulation offers a scalable complement to real world evaluations, but the visual and physical domain gap between existing simulation benchmarks and the real world has made them an unreliable signal for policy improvement. Furthermore, building realistic and diverse simulated environments has traditionally required significant human effort and expertise. To bridge the gap, we introduce Policy Evaluation and Environment Reconstruction in Simulation (PolaRiS), a scalable real-to-sim framework for high-fidelity simulated robot evaluation. PolaRiS utilizes neural reconstruction methods to turn short video scans of real-world scenes into interactive simulation environments. Additionally, we develop a simple simulation data co-training recipe that bridges remaining real-to-sim gaps and enables zero-shot evaluation in unseen simulation environments. Through extensive paired evaluations between simulation and the real world, we demonstrate that PolaRiS evaluations provide a much stronger correlation to real world generalist policy performance than existing simulated benchmarks. Its simplicity also enables rapid creation of diverse simulated environments. As such, this work takes a step towards distributed and democratized evaluation for the next generation of robotic foundation models.

Open-weight bio-foundation models present a dual-use dilemma. While holding great promise for accelerating scientific research and drug development, they could also enable bad actors to develop more deadly bioweapons. To mitigate the risk posed by these models, current approaches focus on filtering biohazardous data during pre-training. However, the effectiveness of such an approach remains unclear, particularly against determined actors who might fine-tune these models for malicious use. To address this gap, we propose BioRiskEval, a framework to evaluate the robustness of procedures that are intended to reduce the dual-use capabilities of bio-foundation models. BioRiskEval assesses models' virus understanding through three lenses, including sequence modeling, mutational effects prediction, and virulence prediction. Our results show that current filtering practices may not be particularly effective: Excluded knowledge can be rapidly recovered in some cases via fine-tuning, and exhibits broader generalizability in sequence modeling. Furthermore, dual-use signals may already reside in the pretrained representations, and can be elicited via simple linear probing. These findings highlight the challenges of data filtering as a standalone procedure, underscoring the need for further research into robust safety and security strategies for open-weight bio-foundation models.

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor practices remain uneven across the AI ecosystem. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of both first-party and third-party social impact evaluation reporting across a wide range of model developers. Our study examines 186 first-party release reports and 183 post-release evaluation sources, and complements this quantitative analysis with interviews of model developers. We find a clear division of evaluation labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and has declined over time in key areas such as environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators including academic researchers, nonprofits, and independent organizations provide broader and more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, this complementarity has limits. Only model developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, financial costs, and training infrastructure, yet interviews reveal that these disclosures are often deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or regulatory compliance. Our findings indicate that current evaluation practices leave major gaps in assessing AI's societal impacts, highlighting the urgent need for policies that promote developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure to aggregate and compare third-party evaluations in a consistent and accessible way.

Unlearning aims to remove copyrighted, sensitive, or private content from large language models (LLMs) without a full retraining. In this work, we develop a multi-task unlearning benchmark (LUME) which features three tasks: (1) unlearn synthetically generated creative short novels, (2) unlearn synthetic biographies with sensitive information, and (3) unlearn a collection of public biographies. We further release two fine-tuned LLMs of 1B and 7B parameter sizes as the target models. We conduct detailed evaluations of several recently proposed unlearning algorithms and present results on carefully crafted metrics to understand their behavior and limitations.

The imperative to eliminate undesirable data memorization underscores the significance of machine unlearning for large language models (LLMs). Recent research has introduced a series of promising unlearning methods, notably boosting the practical significance of the field. Nevertheless, adopting a proper evaluation framework to reflect the true unlearning efficacy is also essential yet has not received adequate attention. This paper seeks to refine the evaluation of LLM unlearning by addressing two key challenges -- a) the robustness of evaluation metrics and b) the trade-offs between competing goals. The first challenge stems from findings that current metrics are susceptible to various red teaming scenarios. It indicates that they may not reflect the true extent of knowledge retained by LLMs but rather tend to mirror superficial model behaviors, thus prone to attacks. We address this issue by devising and assessing a series of candidate metrics, selecting the most robust ones under various types of attacks. The second challenge arises from the conflicting goals of eliminating unwanted knowledge while retaining those of others. This trade-off between unlearning and retention often fails to conform the Pareto frontier, rendering it subtle to compare the efficacy between methods that excel only in either unlearning or retention. We handle this issue by proposing a calibration method that can restore the original performance on non-targeted data after unlearning, thereby allowing us to focus exclusively on assessing the strength of unlearning. Our evaluation framework notably enhances the effectiveness when assessing and comparing various LLM unlearning methods, further allowing us to benchmark existing works, identify their proper hyper-parameters, and explore new tricks to enhance their practical efficacy.

Trustworthy capability evaluations are crucial for ensuring the safety of AI systems, and are becoming a key component of AI regulation. However, the developers of an AI system, or the AI system itself, may have incentives for evaluations to understate the AI's actual capability. These conflicting interests lead to the problem of sandbagging, which we define as strategic underperformance on an evaluation. In this paper we assess sandbagging capabilities in contemporary language models (LMs). We prompt frontier LMs, like GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, to selectively underperform on dangerous capability evaluations, while maintaining performance on general (harmless) capability evaluations. Moreover, we find that models can be fine-tuned, on a synthetic dataset, to hide specific capabilities unless given a password. This behaviour generalizes to high-quality, held-out benchmarks such as WMDP. In addition, we show that both frontier and smaller models can be prompted or password-locked to target specific scores on a capability evaluation. We have mediocre success in password-locking a model to mimic the answers a weaker model would give. Overall, our results suggest that capability evaluations are vulnerable to sandbagging. This vulnerability decreases the trustworthiness of evaluations, and thereby undermines important safety decisions regarding the development and deployment of advanced AI systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are demonstrating increasing prowess in cybersecurity applications, creating creating inherent risks alongside their potential for strengthening defenses. In this position paper, we argue that current efforts to evaluate risks posed by these capabilities are misaligned with the goal of understanding real-world impact. Evaluating LLM cybersecurity risk requires more than just measuring model capabilities -- it demands a comprehensive risk assessment that incorporates analysis of threat actor adoption behavior and potential for impact. We propose a risk assessment framework for LLM cyber capabilities and apply it to a case study of language models used as cybersecurity assistants. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals high compliance rates but moderate accuracy on realistic cyber assistance tasks. However, our framework suggests that this particular use case presents only moderate risk due to limited operational advantages and impact potential. Based on these findings, we recommend several improvements to align research priorities with real-world impact assessment, including closer academia-industry collaboration, more realistic modeling of attacker behavior, and inclusion of economic metrics in evaluations. This work represents an important step toward more effective assessment and mitigation of LLM-enabled cybersecurity risks.

Synthetic data generators, when trained using privacy-preserving techniques like differential privacy, promise to produce synthetic data with formal privacy guarantees, facilitating the sharing of sensitive data. However, it is crucial to empirically assess the privacy risks associated with the generated synthetic data before deploying generative technologies. This paper outlines the key concepts and assumptions underlying empirical privacy evaluation in machine learning-based generative and predictive models. Then, this paper explores the practical challenges for privacy evaluations of generative models for use cases with millions of training records, such as data from statistical agencies and healthcare providers. Our findings indicate that methods designed to verify the correct operation of the training algorithm are effective for large datasets, but they often assume an adversary that is unrealistic in many scenarios. Based on the findings, we highlight a crucial trade-off between the computational feasibility of the evaluation and the level of realism of the assumed threat model. Finally, we conclude with ideas and suggestions for future research.

Safety and responsibility evaluations of advanced AI models are a critical but developing field of research and practice. In the development of Google DeepMind's advanced AI models, we innovated on and applied a broad set of approaches to safety evaluation. In this report, we summarise and share elements of our evolving approach as well as lessons learned for a broad audience. Key lessons learned include: First, theoretical underpinnings and frameworks are invaluable to organise the breadth of risk domains, modalities, forms, metrics, and goals. Second, theory and practice of safety evaluation development each benefit from collaboration to clarify goals, methods and challenges, and facilitate the transfer of insights between different stakeholders and disciplines. Third, similar key methods, lessons, and institutions apply across the range of concerns in responsibility and safety - including established and emerging harms. For this reason it is important that a wide range of actors working on safety evaluation and safety research communities work together to develop, refine and implement novel evaluation approaches and best practices, rather than operating in silos. The report concludes with outlining the clear need to rapidly advance the science of evaluations, to integrate new evaluations into the development and governance of AI, to establish scientifically-grounded norms and standards, and to promote a robust evaluation ecosystem.

Interpretability of Deep Learning (DL) is a barrier to trustworthy AI. Despite great efforts made by the Explainable AI (XAI) community, explanations lack robustness -- indistinguishable input perturbations may lead to different XAI results. Thus, it is vital to assess how robust DL interpretability is, given an XAI method. In this paper, we identify several challenges that the state-of-the-art is unable to cope with collectively: i) existing metrics are not comprehensive; ii) XAI techniques are highly heterogeneous; iii) misinterpretations are normally rare events. To tackle these challenges, we introduce two black-box evaluation methods, concerning the worst-case interpretation discrepancy and a probabilistic notion of how robust in general, respectively. Genetic Algorithm (GA) with bespoke fitness function is used to solve constrained optimisation for efficient worst-case evaluation. Subset Simulation (SS), dedicated to estimate rare event probabilities, is used for evaluating overall robustness. Experiments show that the accuracy, sensitivity, and efficiency of our methods outperform the state-of-the-arts. Finally, we demonstrate two applications of our methods: ranking robust XAI methods and selecting training schemes to improve both classification and interpretation robustness.

With the release of the o1 model by OpenAI, reasoning models adopting slow thinking strategies have gradually emerged. As the responses generated by such models often include complex reasoning, intermediate steps, and self-reflection, existing evaluation methods are often inadequate. They struggle to determine whether the LLM output is truly equivalent to the reference answer, and also have difficulty identifying and extracting the final answer from long, complex responses. To address this issue, we propose xVerify, an efficient answer verifier for reasoning model evaluations. xVerify demonstrates strong capability in equivalence judgment, enabling it to effectively determine whether the answers produced by reasoning models are equivalent to reference answers across various types of objective questions. To train and evaluate xVerify, we construct the VAR dataset by collecting question-answer pairs generated by multiple LLMs across various datasets, leveraging multiple reasoning models and challenging evaluation sets designed specifically for reasoning model assessment. A multi-round annotation process is employed to ensure label accuracy. Based on the VAR dataset, we train multiple xVerify models of different scales. In evaluation experiments conducted on both the test set and generalization set, all xVerify models achieve overall F1 scores and accuracy exceeding 95\%. Notably, the smallest variant, xVerify-0.5B-I, outperforms all evaluation methods except GPT-4o, while xVerify-3B-Ib surpasses GPT-4o in overall performance. These results validate the effectiveness and generalizability of xVerify.

We introduce Meta Agents Research Environments (ARE), a research platform for scalable creation of environments, integration of synthetic or real applications, and execution of agentic orchestrations. ARE provides simple abstractions to build complex and diverse environments, each with their own rules, tools, content, and verifiers, helping to bridge the gap between model development and real-world deployment. We also propose Gaia2, a benchmark built in ARE and designed to measure general agent capabilities. Beyond search and execution, Gaia2 requires agents to handle ambiguities and noise, adapt to dynamic environments, collaborate with other agents, and operate under temporal constraints. Unlike prior benchmarks, Gaia2 runs asynchronously, surfacing new failure modes that are invisible in static settings. Our experiments show that no system dominates across the intelligence spectrum: stronger reasoning often comes at the cost of efficiency, and budget scaling curves plateau, highlighting the need for new architectures and adaptive compute strategies. Perhaps more importantly, ARE abstractions enable continuous extension of Gaia2 to other environments, empowering the community to rapidly create new benchmarks tailored to their domains. In AI's second half, progress increasingly depends on defining meaningful tasks and robust evaluations to drive frontier capabilities forward.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) can autonomously conduct complex investigations and generate comprehensive reports, demonstrating strong real-world potential. However, existing evaluations mostly rely on close-ended benchmarks, while open-ended deep research benchmarks remain scarce and typically neglect personalized scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce Personalized Deep Research Bench, the first benchmark for evaluating personalization in DRAs. It pairs 50 diverse research tasks across 10 domains with 25 authentic user profiles that combine structured persona attributes with dynamic real-world contexts, yielding 250 realistic user-task queries. To assess system performance, we propose the PQR Evaluation Framework, which jointly measures (P) Personalization Alignment, (Q) Content Quality, and (R) Factual Reliability. Our experiments on a range of systems highlight current capabilities and limitations in handling personalized deep research. This work establishes a rigorous foundation for developing and evaluating the next generation of truly personalized AI research assistants.

Large language model (LLM) developers aim for their models to be honest, helpful, and harmless. However, when faced with malicious requests, models are trained to refuse, sacrificing helpfulness. We show that frontier LLMs can develop a preference for dishonesty as a new strategy, even when other options are available. Affected models respond to harmful requests with outputs that sound harmful but are subtly incorrect or otherwise harmless in practice. This behavior emerges with hard-to-predict variations even within models from the same model family. We find no apparent cause for the propensity to deceive, but we show that more capable models are better at executing this strategy. Strategic dishonesty already has a practical impact on safety evaluations, as we show that dishonest responses fool all output-based monitors used to detect jailbreaks that we test, rendering benchmark scores unreliable. Further, strategic dishonesty can act like a honeypot against malicious users, which noticeably obfuscates prior jailbreak attacks. While output monitors fail, we show that linear probes on internal activations can be used to reliably detect strategic dishonesty. We validate probes on datasets with verifiable outcomes and by using their features as steering vectors. Overall, we consider strategic dishonesty as a concrete example of a broader concern that alignment of LLMs is hard to control, especially when helpfulness and harmlessness conflict.

Large language models (LLMs) often appear to excel on public benchmarks, but these high scores may mask an overreliance on dataset-specific surface cues rather than true language understanding. We introduce the Chameleon Benchmark Overfit Detector (C-BOD), a meta-evaluation framework that systematically distorts benchmark prompts via a parametric transformation and detects overfitting of LLMs. By rephrasing inputs while preserving their semantic content and labels, C-BOD exposes whether a model's performance is driven by memorized patterns. Evaluated on the MMLU benchmark using 26 leading LLMs, our method reveals an average performance degradation of 2.15% under modest perturbations, with 20 out of 26 models exhibiting statistically significant differences. Notably, models with higher baseline accuracy exhibit larger performance differences under perturbation, and larger LLMs tend to be more sensitive to rephrasings indicating that both cases may overrely on fixed prompt patterns. In contrast, the Llama family and models with lower baseline accuracy show insignificant degradation, suggesting reduced dependency on superficial cues. Moreover, C-BOD's dataset- and model-agnostic design allows easy integration into training pipelines to promote more robust language understanding. Our findings challenge the community to look beyond leaderboard scores and prioritize resilience and generalization in LLM evaluation.

We introduce xbench, a dynamic, profession-aligned evaluation suite designed to bridge the gap between AI agent capabilities and real-world productivity. While existing benchmarks often focus on isolated technical skills, they may not accurately reflect the economic value agents deliver in professional settings. To address this, xbench targets commercially significant domains with evaluation tasks defined by industry professionals. Our framework creates metrics that strongly correlate with productivity value, enables prediction of Technology-Market Fit (TMF), and facilitates tracking of product capabilities over time. As our initial implementations, we present two benchmarks: Recruitment and Marketing. For Recruitment, we collect 50 tasks from real-world headhunting business scenarios to evaluate agents' abilities in company mapping, information retrieval, and talent sourcing. For Marketing, we assess agents' ability to match influencers with advertiser needs, evaluating their performance across 50 advertiser requirements using a curated pool of 836 candidate influencers. We present initial evaluation results for leading contemporary agents, establishing a baseline for these professional domains. Our continuously updated evalsets and evaluations are available at https://xbench.org.

LLM-as-a-Judge, which generates chain-of-thought (CoT) judgments, has become a widely adopted auto-evaluation method. However, its reliability is compromised by the CoT reasoning's inability to capture comprehensive and deeper details, often leading to incomplete outcomes. Existing methods mainly rely on majority voting or criteria expansion, which is insufficient to address the limitation in CoT. We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses, thereby exposing deeper and more comprehensive details within the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed CoT judgment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach enhances evaluation reliability, achieving an average accuracy gain of 6.7% across five benchmarks. Moreover, our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), referred to as crowd rejection sampling, thereby enabling more efficient SFT. Our analysis confirms that CoTs generated by ours are more comprehensive and of higher quality, and evaluation accuracy improves as inference scales.

Progress in AI is often demonstrated by new models claiming improved performance on tasks measuring model capabilities. Evaluating language models in particular is challenging, as small changes to how a model is evaluated on a task can lead to large changes in measured performance. There is no common standard setup, so different models are evaluated on the same tasks in different ways, leading to claims about which models perform best not being reproducible. We propose OLMES, a completely documented, practical, open standard for reproducible LLM evaluations. In developing this standard, we identify and review the varying factors in evaluation practices adopted by the community - such as details of prompt formatting, choice of in-context examples, probability normalizations, and task formulation. In particular, OLMES supports meaningful comparisons between smaller base models that require the unnatural "cloze" formulation of multiple-choice questions against larger models that can utilize the original formulation. OLMES includes well-considered recommendations guided by results from existing literature as well as new experiments investigating open questions.

As LLMs evolve on a daily basis, there is an urgent need for a trustworthy evaluation method that can provide robust evaluation results in a timely fashion. Currently, as static benchmarks are prone to contamination concerns, users tend to trust human voting platforms, such as Chatbot Arena. However, human annotations require extensive manual efforts. To provide an automatic, robust, and trustworthy evaluation framework, we innovatively propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents. Firstly, an examiner LLM devises queries. Then, a pair of candidate LLMs engage in a multi-round peer-battle around the query, during which the LLM's true performance gaps become visible. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collectively discuss and determine the winner, which alleviates bias and promotes fairness. In our extensive experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences, providing a promising alternative to human evaluation platforms.

Evaluating the quality of search, ranking and RAG systems traditionally requires a significant number of human relevance annotations. In recent times, several deployed systems have explored the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated judges for this task while their inherent biases prevent direct use for metric estimation. We present a statistical framework extending Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that combines minimal human annotations with LLM judgments to produce reliable estimates of metrics which require sub-instance annotations. Our method requires as few as 100 human-annotated queries and 10,000 unlabeled examples, reducing annotation requirements significantly compared to traditional approaches. We formulate our proposed framework (PRECISE) for inference of relevance uplift for an LLM-based query reformulation application, extending PPI to sub-instance annotations at the query-document level. By reformulating the metric-integration space, we reduced the computational complexity from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K), where |C| represents corpus size (in order of millions). Detailed experiments across prominent retrieval datasets demonstrate that our method reduces the variance of estimates for the business-critical Precision@K metric, while effectively correcting for LLM bias in low-resource settings.

Polymers-macromolecular systems composed of repeating chemical units-constitute the molecular foundation of living organisms, while their synthetic counterparts drive transformative advances across medicine, consumer products, and energy technologies. While machine learning (ML) models have been trained on millions of quantum chemical atomistic simulations for materials and/or small molecular structures to enable efficient, accurate, and transferable predictions of chemical properties, polymers have largely not been included in prior datasets due to the computational expense of high quality electronic structure calculations on representative polymeric structures. Here, we address this shortcoming with the creation of the Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset, which contains more than 6.57 million density functional theory (DFT) calculations on up to 360 atom clusters derived from polymeric systems, comprising over 1.2 billion total atoms. OPoly26 captures the chemical diversity that makes polymers intrinsically tunable and versatile materials, encompassing variations in monomer composition, degree of polymerization, chain architectures, and solvation environments. We show that augmenting ML model training with the OPoly26 dataset improves model performance for polymer prediction tasks. We also publicly release the OPoly26 dataset to help further the development of ML models for polymers, and more broadly, strive towards universal atomistic models.

Machine unlearning aims to remove sensitive or undesired data from large language models. However, recent studies suggest that unlearning is often shallow, claiming that removed knowledge can easily be recovered. In this work, we critically examine standard unlearning evaluation practices and uncover key limitations that shake our trust in those findings. First, we show that some evaluations introduce substantial new information into the model, potentially masking true unlearning performance by re-teaching the model during testing. Second, we demonstrate that evaluation outcomes vary significantly across tasks, undermining the generalizability of current evaluation routines. Finally, we find that many evaluations rely on spurious correlations, making their results difficult to trust and interpret. Taken together, these issues suggest that current evaluation protocols may both overstate and understate unlearning success. To address this, we propose two principles for future unlearning evaluations: minimal information injection and downstream task awareness. We validate these principles through a series of targeted experiments, showing how violations of each can lead to misleading conclusions.

As AI chatbots become ubiquitous, voice interaction presents a compelling way to enable rapid, high-bandwidth communication for both semantic and social signals. This has driven research into Large Audio Models (LAMs) to power voice-native experiences. However, aligning LAM development with user goals requires a clear understanding of user needs and preferences to establish reliable progress metrics. This study addresses these challenges by introducing an interactive approach to evaluate LAMs and collecting 7,500 LAM interactions from 484 participants. Through topic modeling of user queries, we identify primary use cases for audio interfaces. We then analyze user preference rankings and qualitative feedback to determine which models best align with user needs. Finally, we evaluate how static benchmarks predict interactive performance - our analysis reveals no individual benchmark strongly correlates with interactive results (tau leq 0.33 for all benchmarks). While combining multiple coarse-grained features yields modest predictive power (R^2=0.30), only two out of twenty datasets on spoken question answering and age prediction show significantly positive correlations. This suggests a clear need to develop LAM evaluations that better correlate with user preferences.

Human evaluation is indispensable and inevitable for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans. However, human evaluation is very difficult to reproduce and its quality is notoriously unstable, hindering fair comparisons among different natural language processing (NLP) models and algorithms. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. In this paper, we explore if such an ability of the LLMs can be used as an alternative to human evaluation. We present the LLMs with the exact same instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used to conduct human evaluation, and then ask the LLMs to generate responses to those questions; we dub this LLM evaluation. We use human evaluation and LLM evaluation to evaluate the texts in two NLP tasks: open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation: the texts rated higher by human experts are also rated higher by the LLMs. We also find that the results of LLM evaluation are stable over different formatting of the task instructions and the sampling algorithm used to generate the answer. We are the first to show the potential of using LLMs to assess the quality of texts and discuss the limitations and ethical considerations of LLM evaluation.

Large pre-trained code generation models, such as OpenAI Codex, can generate syntax- and function-correct code, making the coding of programmers more productive and our pursuit of artificial general intelligence closer. In this paper, we introduce CodeGeeX, a multilingual model with 13 billion parameters for code generation. CodeGeeX is pre-trained on 850 billion tokens of 23 programming languages as of June 2022. Our extensive experiments suggest that CodeGeeX outperforms multilingual code models of similar scale for both the tasks of code generation and translation on HumanEval-X. Building upon HumanEval (Python only), we develop the HumanEval-X benchmark for evaluating multilingual models by hand-writing the solutions in C++, Java, JavaScript, and Go. In addition, we build CodeGeeX-based extensions on Visual Studio Code, JetBrains, and Cloud Studio, generating 4.7 billion tokens for tens of thousands of active users per week. Our user study demonstrates that CodeGeeX can help to increase coding efficiency for 83.4% of its users. Finally, CodeGeeX is publicly accessible and in Sep. 2022, we open-sourced its code, model weights (the version of 850B tokens), API, extensions, and HumanEval-X at https://github.com/THUDM/CodeGeeX.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in lieu of humans. While scalable, their judgments are noisy due to imperfect specificity and sensitivity of LLMs, leading to biased accuracy estimates. Although bias-correction methods exist, they are underutilized in LLM research and typically assume exact knowledge of the model's specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, in general we only have estimates of these values and it is not well known how to properly construct confidence intervals using only estimates. This work presents a simple plug-in framework that corrects such bias and constructs confidence intervals reflecting uncertainty from both test and calibration dataset, enabling practical and statistically sound LLM-based evaluation. Additionally, to reduce uncertainty in the accuracy estimate, we introduce an adaptive algorithm that efficiently allocates calibration sample sizes.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various natural language tasks, marking significant strides towards general artificial intelligence. While general artificial intelligence is leveraged by developing increasingly large-scale models, there could be another branch to develop lightweight custom models that better serve certain domains, taking into account the high cost of training and deploying LLMs and the scarcity of resources. In this paper, we present MindLLM, a novel series of bilingual lightweight large language models, trained from scratch, alleviating such burdens by offering models with 1.3 billion and 3 billion parameters. A thorough account of experiences accrued during large model development is given, covering every step of the process, including data construction, model architecture, evaluation, and applications. Such insights are hopefully valuable for fellow academics and developers. MindLLM consistently matches or surpasses the performance of other open-source larger models on some public benchmarks. We also introduce an innovative instruction tuning framework tailored for smaller models to enhance their capabilities efficiently. Moreover, we explore the application of MindLLM in specific vertical domains such as law and finance, underscoring the agility and adaptability of our lightweight models.

LLM-as-a-judge has become a promising paradigm for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language generation (NLG), but the uncertainty of its evaluation remains underexplored. This lack of reliability may limit its deployment in many applications. This work presents the first framework to analyze the uncertainty by offering a prediction interval of LLM-based scoring via conformal prediction. Conformal prediction constructs continuous prediction intervals from a single evaluation run, and we design an ordinal boundary adjustment for discrete rating tasks. We also suggest a midpoint-based score within the interval as a low-bias alternative to raw model score and weighted average. We perform extensive experiments and analysis, which show that conformal prediction can provide valid prediction interval with coverage guarantees. We also explore the usefulness of interval midpoint and judge reprompting for better judgment.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications, their strategic and logical reasoning abilities are increasingly crucial. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments through game-theoretic tasks, e.g., board and card games that require pure logic and strategic reasoning to compete with opponents. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely-recognized tasks, across a comprehensive game taxonomy: complete versus incomplete information, dynamic versus static, and probabilistic versus deterministic scenarios. Then, we investigate two key problems: (1) Characterizing game-theoretic reasoning of LLMs; (2) LLM-vs-LLM competitions as reasoning evaluation. We observe that (1) LLMs have distinct behaviors regarding various gaming scenarios; for example, LLMs fail in complete and deterministic games yet they are competitive in probabilistic gaming scenarios; (2) Open-source LLMs, e.g., CodeLlama-34b-Instruct, are less competitive than commercial LLMs, e.g., GPT-4, in complex games. In addition, code-pretraining greatly benefits strategic reasoning, while advanced reasoning methods such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Tree-of-Thought (ToT) do not always help. Detailed error profiles are also provided for a better understanding of LLMs' behavior.

With LLMs shifting their role from statistical modeling of language to serving as general-purpose AI agents, how should LLM evaluations change? Arguably, a key ability of an AI agent is to flexibly combine, as needed, the basic skills it has learned. The capability to combine skills plays an important role in (human) pedagogy and also in a paper on emergence phenomena (Arora & Goyal, 2023). This work introduces Skill-Mix, a new evaluation to measure ability to combine skills. Using a list of N skills the evaluator repeatedly picks random subsets of k skills and asks the LLM to produce text combining that subset of skills. Since the number of subsets grows like N^k, for even modest k this evaluation will, with high probability, require the LLM to produce text significantly different from any text in the training set. The paper develops a methodology for (a) designing and administering such an evaluation, and (b) automatic grading (plus spot-checking by humans) of the results using GPT-4 as well as the open LLaMA-2 70B model. Administering a version of to popular chatbots gave results that, while generally in line with prior expectations, contained surprises. Sizeable differences exist among model capabilities that are not captured by their ranking on popular LLM leaderboards ("cramming for the leaderboard"). Furthermore, simple probability calculations indicate that GPT-4's reasonable performance on k=5 is suggestive of going beyond "stochastic parrot" behavior (Bender et al., 2021), i.e., it combines skills in ways that it had not seen during training. We sketch how the methodology can lead to a Skill-Mix based eco-system of open evaluations for AI capabilities of future models.

Tensor network (TN) is a powerful framework in machine learning, but selecting a good TN model, known as TN structure search (TN-SS), is a challenging and computationally intensive task. The recent approach TNLS~li2022permutation showed promising results for this task, however, its computational efficiency is still unaffordable, requiring too many evaluations of the objective function. We propose TnALE, a new algorithm that updates each structure-related variable alternately by local enumeration, greatly reducing the number of evaluations compared to TNLS. We theoretically investigate the descent steps for TNLS and TnALE, proving that both algorithms can achieve linear convergence up to a constant if a sufficient reduction of the objective is reached in each neighborhood. We also compare the evaluation efficiency of TNLS and TnALE, revealing that Omega(2^N) evaluations are typically required in TNLS for reaching the objective reduction in the neighborhood, while ideally O(N^2R) evaluations are sufficient in TnALE, where N denotes the tensor order and R reflects the ``low-rankness'' of the neighborhood. Experimental results verify that TnALE can find practically good TN-ranks and permutations with vastly fewer evaluations than the state-of-the-art algorithms.

In this position paper, we argue that human baselines in foundation model evaluations must be more rigorous and more transparent to enable meaningful comparisons of human vs. AI performance, and we provide recommendations and a reporting checklist towards this end. Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations. Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences. Based on a meta-review of the measurement theory and AI evaluation literatures, we derive a framework with recommendations for designing, executing, and reporting human baselines. We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines (studies) in foundation model evaluations and thus identify shortcomings in existing baselining methods; our checklist can also assist researchers in conducting human baselines and reporting results. We hope our work can advance more rigorous AI evaluation practices that can better serve both the research community and policymakers. Data is available at: https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines

As LLM-as-a-Judge emerges as a new paradigm for assessing large language models (LLMs), concerns have been raised regarding the alignment, bias, and stability of LLM evaluators. While substantial work has focused on alignment and bias, little research has concentrated on the stability of LLM evaluators. In this paper, we conduct extensive experiments involving 9 widely used LLM evaluators across 2 different evaluation settings to investigate the uncertainty in model-based LLM evaluations. We pinpoint that LLM evaluators exhibit varying uncertainty based on model families and sizes. With careful comparative analyses, we find that employing special prompting strategies, whether during inference or post-training, can alleviate evaluation uncertainty to some extent. By utilizing uncertainty to enhance LLM's reliability and detection capability in Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) data, we further fine-tune an uncertainty-aware LLM evaluator named ConfiLM using a human-annotated fine-tuning set and assess ConfiLM's OOD evaluation ability on a manually designed test set sourced from the 2024 Olympics. Experimental results demonstrate that incorporating uncertainty as additional information during the fine-tuning phase can largely improve the model's evaluation performance in OOD scenarios. The code and data are released at: https://github.com/hasakiXie123/LLM-Evaluator-Uncertainty.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are designed to process and integrate information from multiple sources, such as text, speech, images, and videos. Despite its success in language understanding, it is critical to evaluate the performance of downstream tasks for better human-centric applications. This paper assesses the application of MLLMs with 5 crucial abilities for affective computing, spanning from visual affective tasks and reasoning tasks. The results show that \gpt has high accuracy in facial action unit recognition and micro-expression detection while its general facial expression recognition performance is not accurate. We also highlight the challenges of achieving fine-grained micro-expression recognition and the potential for further study and demonstrate the versatility and potential of \gpt for handling advanced tasks in emotion recognition and related fields by integrating with task-related agents for more complex tasks, such as heart rate estimation through signal processing. In conclusion, this paper provides valuable insights into the potential applications and challenges of MLLMs in human-centric computing. Our interesting examples are at https://github.com/EnVision-Research/GPT4Affectivity.

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

We introduce TabRepo, a new dataset of tabular model evaluations and predictions. TabRepo contains the predictions and metrics of 1310 models evaluated on 200 classification and regression datasets. We illustrate the benefit of our dataset in multiple ways. First, we show that it allows to perform analysis such as comparing Hyperparameter Optimization against current AutoML systems while also considering ensembling at marginal cost by using precomputed model predictions. Second, we show that our dataset can be readily leveraged to perform transfer-learning. In particular, we show that applying standard transfer-learning techniques allows to outperform current state-of-the-art tabular systems in accuracy, runtime and latency.

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs as a reference-free metric for open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho and MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose the (1) peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments, respectively. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.

Deep neural networks are very successful on many vision tasks, but hard to interpret due to their black box nature. To overcome this, various post-hoc attribution methods have been proposed to identify image regions most influential to the models' decisions. Evaluating such methods is challenging since no ground truth attributions exist. We thus propose three novel evaluation schemes to more reliably measure the faithfulness of those methods, to make comparisons between them more fair, and to make visual inspection more systematic. To address faithfulness, we propose a novel evaluation setting (DiFull) in which we carefully control which parts of the input can influence the output in order to distinguish possible from impossible attributions. To address fairness, we note that different methods are applied at different layers, which skews any comparison, and so evaluate all methods on the same layers (ML-Att) and discuss how this impacts their performance on quantitative metrics. For more systematic visualizations, we propose a scheme (AggAtt) to qualitatively evaluate the methods on complete datasets. We use these evaluation schemes to study strengths and shortcomings of some widely used attribution methods over a wide range of models. Finally, we propose a post-processing smoothing step that significantly improves the performance of some attribution methods, and discuss its applicability.

Ultrasound imaging is one of the most prominent technologies to evaluate the growth, progression, and overall health of a fetus during its gestation. However, the interpretation of the data obtained from such studies is best left to expert physicians and technicians who are trained and well-versed in analyzing such images. To improve the clinical workflow and potentially develop an at-home ultrasound-based fetal monitoring platform, we present a novel fetus phantom ultrasound dataset, FPUS23, which can be used to identify (1) the correct diagnostic planes for estimating fetal biometric values, (2) fetus orientation, (3) their anatomical features, and (4) bounding boxes of the fetus phantom anatomies at 23 weeks gestation. The entire dataset is composed of 15,728 images, which are used to train four different Deep Neural Network models, built upon a ResNet34 backbone, for detecting aforementioned fetus features and use-cases. We have also evaluated the models trained using our FPUS23 dataset, to show that the information learned by these models can be used to substantially increase the accuracy on real-world ultrasound fetus datasets. We make the FPUS23 dataset and the pre-trained models publicly accessible at https://github.com/bharathprabakaran/FPUS23, which will further facilitate future research on fetal ultrasound imaging and analysis.

While the evaluation of explanations is an important step towards trustworthy models, it needs to be done carefully, and the employed metrics need to be well-understood. Specifically model randomization testing is often overestimated and regarded as a sole criterion for selecting or discarding certain explanation methods. To address shortcomings of this test, we start by observing an experimental gap in the ranking of explanation methods between randomization-based sanity checks [1] and model output faithfulness measures (e.g. [25]). We identify limitations of model-randomization-based sanity checks for the purpose of evaluating explanations. Firstly, we show that uninformative attribution maps created with zero pixel-wise covariance easily achieve high scores in this type of checks. Secondly, we show that top-down model randomization preserves scales of forward pass activations with high probability. That is, channels with large activations have a high probility to contribute strongly to the output, even after randomization of the network on top of them. Hence, explanations after randomization can only be expected to differ to a certain extent. This explains the observed experimental gap. In summary, these results demonstrate the inadequacy of model-randomization-based sanity checks as a criterion to rank attribution methods.

Dark patterns, which are user interface designs in online services, induce users to take unintended actions. Recently, dark patterns have been raised as an issue of privacy and fairness. Thus, a wide range of research on detecting dark patterns is eagerly awaited. In this work, we constructed a dataset for dark pattern detection and prepared its baseline detection performance with state-of-the-art machine learning methods. The original dataset was obtained from Mathur et al.'s study in 2019, which consists of 1,818 dark pattern texts from shopping sites. Then, we added negative samples, i.e., non-dark pattern texts, by retrieving texts from the same websites as Mathur et al.'s dataset. We also applied state-of-the-art machine learning methods to show the automatic detection accuracy as baselines, including BERT, RoBERTa, ALBERT, and XLNet. As a result of 5-fold cross-validation, we achieved the highest accuracy of 0.975 with RoBERTa. The dataset and baseline source codes are available at https://github.com/yamanalab/ec-darkpattern.

To increase the availability and adoption of the soundscape standard, a low-cost calibration procedure for reproduction of audio stimuli over headphones was proposed as part of the global ``Soundscape Attributes Translation Project'' (SATP) for validating ISO/TS~12913-2:2018 perceived affective quality (PAQ) attribute translations. A previous preliminary study revealed significant deviations from the intended equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure levels (L_{A,eq}) using the open-circuit voltage (OCV) calibration procedure. For a more holistic human-centric perspective, the OCV method is further investigated here in terms of psychoacoustic parameters, including relevant exceedance levels to account for temporal effects on the same 27 stimuli from the SATP. Moreover, a within-subjects experiment with 36 participants was conducted to examine the effects of OCV calibration on the PAQ attributes in ISO/TS~12913-2:2018. Bland-Altman analysis of the objective indicators revealed large biases in the OCV method across all weighted sound level and loudness indicators; and roughness indicators at 5{\%} and 10{\%} exceedance levels. Significant perceptual differences due to the OCV method were observed in about 20{\%} of the stimuli, which did not correspond clearly with the biased acoustic indicators. A cautioned interpretation of the objective and perceptual differences due to small and unpaired samples nevertheless provide grounds for further investigation.

The introduction of ISO 12913-2:2018 has provided a framework for standardized data collection and reporting procedures for soundscape practitioners. A strong emphasis was placed on the use of calibrated head and torso simulators (HATS) for binaural audio capture to obtain an accurate subjective impression and acoustic measure of the soundscape under evaluation. To auralise the binaural recordings as recorded or at set levels, the audio stimuli and the headphone setup are usually calibrated with a HATS. However, calibrated HATS are too financially prohibitive for most research teams, inevitably diminishing the availability of the soundscape standard. With the increasing availability of soundscape binaural recording datasets, and the importance of cross-cultural validation of the soundscape ISO standards, e.g.\ via the Soundscape Attributes Translation Project (SATP), it is imperative to assess the suitability of cost-effective headphone calibration methods to maximise availability without severely compromising on accuracy. Hence, this study objectively examines an open-circuit voltage (OCV) calibration method in comparison to a calibrated HATS on various soundcard and headphone combinations. Preliminary experiments found that calibration with the OCV method differed significantly from the reference binaural recordings in sound pressure levels, whereas negligible differences in levels were observed with the HATS calibration.

The evaluation of large language models is a complex task, in which several approaches have been proposed. The most common is the use of automated benchmarks in which LLMs have to answer multiple-choice questions of different topics. However, this method has certain limitations, being the most concerning, the poor correlation with the humans. An alternative approach, is to have humans evaluate the LLMs. This poses scalability issues as there is a large and growing number of models to evaluate making it impractical (and costly) to run traditional studies based on recruiting a number of evaluators and having them rank the responses of the models. An alternative approach is the use of public arenas, such as the popular LM arena, on which any user can freely evaluate models on any question and rank the responses of two models. The results are then elaborated into a model ranking. An increasingly important aspect of LLMs is their energy consumption and, therefore, evaluating how energy awareness influences the decisions of humans in selecting a model is of interest. In this paper, we present GEA, the Generative Energy Arena, an arena that incorporates information on the energy consumption of the model in the evaluation process. Preliminary results obtained with GEA are also presented, showing that for most questions, when users are aware of the energy consumption, they favor smaller and more energy efficient models. This suggests that for most user interactions, the extra cost and energy incurred by the more complex and top-performing models do not provide an increase in the perceived quality of the responses that justifies their use.

Machine learning (ML) models hold the promise of transforming atomic simulations by delivering quantum chemical accuracy at a fraction of the computational cost. Realization of this potential would enable high-throughout, high-accuracy molecular screening campaigns to explore vast regions of chemical space and facilitate ab initio simulations at sizes and time scales that were previously inaccessible. However, a fundamental challenge to creating ML models that perform well across molecular chemistry is the lack of comprehensive data for training. Despite substantial efforts in data generation, no large-scale molecular dataset exists that combines broad chemical diversity with a high level of accuracy. To address this gap, Meta FAIR introduces Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25), a large-scale dataset composed of more than 100 million density functional theory (DFT) calculations at the omegaB97M-V/def2-TZVPD level of theory, representing billions of CPU core-hours of compute. OMol25 uniquely blends elemental, chemical, and structural diversity including: 83 elements, a wide-range of intra- and intermolecular interactions, explicit solvation, variable charge/spin, conformers, and reactive structures. There are ~83M unique molecular systems in OMol25 covering small molecules, biomolecules, metal complexes, and electrolytes, including structures obtained from existing datasets. OMol25 also greatly expands on the size of systems typically included in DFT datasets, with systems of up to 350 atoms. In addition to the public release of the data, we provide baseline models and a comprehensive set of model evaluations to encourage community engagement in developing the next-generation ML models for molecular chemistry.

Measuring social bias in large language models (LLMs) is crucial, but existing bias evaluation methods struggle to assess bias in long-form generation. We propose a Bias Benchmark for Generation (BBG), an adaptation of the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), designed to evaluate social bias in long-form generation by having LLMs generate continuations of story prompts. Building our benchmark in English and Korean, we measure the probability of neutral and biased generations across ten LLMs. We also compare our long-form story generation evaluation results with multiple-choice BBQ evaluation, showing that the two approaches produce inconsistent results.

With the rapid advancement of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), ensuring their safety has emerged as a crucial area of research. This survey provides a comprehensive analysis of LVLM safety, covering key aspects such as attacks, defenses, and evaluation methods. We introduce a unified framework that integrates these interrelated components, offering a holistic perspective on the vulnerabilities of LVLMs and the corresponding mitigation strategies. Through an analysis of the LVLM lifecycle, we introduce a classification framework that distinguishes between inference and training phases, with further subcategories to provide deeper insights. Furthermore, we highlight limitations in existing research and outline future directions aimed at strengthening the robustness of LVLMs. As part of our research, we conduct a set of safety evaluations on the latest LVLM, Deepseek Janus-Pro, and provide a theoretical analysis of the results. Our findings provide strategic recommendations for advancing LVLM safety and ensuring their secure and reliable deployment in high-stakes, real-world applications. This survey aims to serve as a cornerstone for future research, facilitating the development of models that not only push the boundaries of multimodal intelligence but also adhere to the highest standards of security and ethical integrity. Furthermore, to aid the growing research in this field, we have created a public repository to continuously compile and update the latest work on LVLM safety: https://github.com/XuankunRong/Awesome-LVLM-Safety .

In the field of sequential recommendation, deep learning (DL)-based methods have received a lot of attention in the past few years and surpassed traditional models such as Markov chain-based and factorization-based ones. However, there is little systematic study on DL-based methods, especially regarding to how to design an effective DL model for sequential recommendation. In this view, this survey focuses on DL-based sequential recommender systems by taking the aforementioned issues into consideration. Specifically,we illustrate the concept of sequential recommendation, propose a categorization of existing algorithms in terms of three types of behavioral sequence, summarize the key factors affecting the performance of DL-based models, and conduct corresponding evaluations to demonstrate the effects of these factors. We conclude this survey by systematically outlining future directions and challenges in this field.

Multimodal Vision Language Models (VLMs) have emerged as a transformative topic at the intersection of computer vision and natural language processing, enabling machines to perceive and reason about the world through both visual and textual modalities. For example, models such as CLIP, Claude, and GPT-4V demonstrate strong reasoning and understanding abilities on visual and textual data and beat classical single modality vision models on zero-shot classification [93]. With their rapid advancements in research and growing popularity in various applications, we provide a comprehensive survey of VLMs. Specifically, we provide a systematic overview of VLMs in the following aspects: [1] model information of the major VLMs developed up to 2025; [2] the transition of VLM architectures and the newest VLM alignment methods; [3] summary and categorization of the popular benchmarks and evaluation metrics of VLMs; [4] the challenges and issues faced by current VLMs such as hallucination, alignment, fairness, and safety. Detailed collections including papers and model repository links are listed in https://github.com/zli12321/Vision-Language-Models-Overview.