Daily Papers

We introduce FailureSensorIQ, a novel Multi-Choice Question-Answering (MCQA) benchmarking system designed to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason and understand complex, domain-specific scenarios in Industry 4.0. Unlike traditional QA benchmarks, our system focuses on multiple aspects of reasoning through failure modes, sensor data, and the relationships between them across various industrial assets. Through this work, we envision a paradigm shift where modeling decisions are not only data-driven using statistical tools like correlation analysis and significance tests, but also domain-driven by specialized LLMs which can reason about the key contributors and useful patterns that can be captured with feature engineering. We evaluate the Industrial knowledge of over a dozen LLMs-including GPT-4, Llama, and Mistral-on FailureSensorIQ from different lens using Perturbation-Uncertainty-Complexity analysis, Expert Evaluation study, Asset-Specific Knowledge Gap analysis, ReAct agent using external knowledge-bases. Even though closed-source models with strong reasoning capabilities approach expert-level performance, the comprehensive benchmark reveals a significant drop in performance that is fragile to perturbations, distractions, and inherent knowledge gaps in the models. We also provide a real-world case study of how LLMs can drive the modeling decisions on 3 different failure prediction datasets related to various assets. We release: (a) expert-curated MCQA for various industrial assets, (b) FailureSensorIQ benchmark and Hugging Face leaderboard based on MCQA built from non-textual data found in ISO documents, and (c) LLMFeatureSelector, an LLM-based feature selection scikit-learn pipeline. The software is available at https://github.com/IBM/FailureSensorIQ.

Physicians now pose millions of clinical questions to AI tools each week, yet these tools are evaluated largely on hypothetical or exam-style questions, not those actually asked in practice. We report a blinded evaluation built on 620 Real-world Point-Of-Care Queries (Real-POCQi) submitted to the OpenEvidence (OE) platform by physicians spanning 30 specialties, as well as 187 questions from HealthBench. 149 practicing physicians across 36 states made head-to-head comparisons between answers from three frontier general-purpose models (Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5) and a specialized clinical tool (OE), with graders matched to each question's specialty. When comparing answers along five dimensions relevant to clinical decision support -- accuracy, clinical utility, source quality, verifiability, & completeness -- physicians scored the specialized tool highest on all axes; in the primary analysis on Real-POCQi, win differences (margins between win and loss rates) ranged from 25 to 39 percentage points (p<0.001). Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses stratifying by citation display, answer length, OE-user status, and Real-POCQi versus HealthBench. In parallel, LLM judges were found to systematically differ from expert judges, though both generally agreed on the best model. These findings underscore two conclusions: (i) AI tool evaluations should reflect real-world query distributions and use expert judges that mirror the specialization defining modern medicine and (ii) the consistent advantage of the specialized tool over general-purpose models does not necessarily mean that the latter cannot serve similar purposes, but that targeted engineering and customization can yield meaningful gains in performance for its users. We release Real-POCQi as a public benchmark, as well as the prespecified statistical analysis for reproducing results of this study.

As language models are adapted by a more sophisticated and diverse set of users, the importance of guaranteeing that they provide factually correct information supported by verifiable sources is critical across fields of study & professions. This is especially the case for high-stakes fields, such as medicine and law, where the risk of propagating false information is high and can lead to undesirable societal consequences. Previous work studying factuality and attribution has not focused on analyzing these characteristics of language model outputs in domain-specific scenarios. In this work, we present an evaluation study analyzing various axes of factuality and attribution provided in responses from a few systems, by bringing domain experts in the loop. Specifically, we first collect expert-curated questions from 484 participants across 32 fields of study, and then ask the same experts to evaluate generated responses to their own questions. We also ask experts to revise answers produced by language models, which leads to ExpertQA, a high-quality long-form QA dataset with 2177 questions spanning 32 fields, along with verified answers and attributions for claims in the answers.

We present a case study in semi-autonomous mathematics discovery, using Gemini to systematically evaluate 700 conjectures labeled 'Open' in Bloom's Erdős Problems database. We employ a hybrid methodology: AI-driven natural language verification to narrow the search space, followed by human expert evaluation to gauge correctness and novelty. We address 13 problems that were marked 'Open' in the database: 5 through seemingly novel autonomous solutions, and 8 through identification of previous solutions in the existing literature. Our findings suggest that the 'Open' status of the problems was through obscurity rather than difficulty. We also identify and discuss issues arising in applying AI to math conjectures at scale, highlighting the difficulty of literature identification and the risk of ''subconscious plagiarism'' by AI. We reflect on the takeaways from AI-assisted efforts on the Erdős Problems.

The adoption of AI-powered code completion tools in software development has increased substantially, yet the user interaction data produced by these systems remain proprietary within large corporations. This creates a barrier for the academic community, as researchers must often develop dedicated platforms to conduct studies on human--AI interaction, making reproducible research and large-scale data analysis impractical. In this work, we introduce Code4MeV2, a research-oriented, open-source code completion plugin for JetBrains IDEs, as a solution to this limitation. Code4MeV2 is designed using a client--server architecture and features inline code completion and a context-aware chat assistant. Its core contribution is a modular and transparent data collection framework that gives researchers fine-grained control over telemetry and context gathering. Code4MeV2 achieves industry-comparable performance in terms of code completion, with an average latency of 200~ms. We assess our tool through a combination of an expert evaluation and a user study with eight participants. Feedback from both researchers and daily users highlights its informativeness and usefulness. We invite the community to adopt and contribute to this tool. More information about the tool can be found at https://app.code4me.me.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

In large organisations, identifying experts on a given topic is crucial in leveraging the internal knowledge spread across teams and departments. So-called enterprise expert retrieval systems automatically discover and structure employees' expertise based on the vast amount of heterogeneous data available about them and the work they perform. Evaluating these systems requires comprehensive ground truth expert annotations, which are hard to obtain. Therefore, the annotation process typically relies on automated recommendations of knowledge areas to validate. This case study provides an analysis of how these recommendations can impact the evaluation of expert finding systems. We demonstrate on a popular benchmark that system-validated annotations lead to overestimated performance of traditional term-based retrieval models and even invalidate comparisons with more recent neural methods. We also augment knowledge areas with synonyms to uncover a strong bias towards literal mentions of their constituent words. Finally, we propose constraints to the annotation process to prevent these biased evaluations, and show that this still allows annotation suggestions of high utility. These findings should inform benchmark creation or selection for expert finding, to guarantee meaningful comparison of methods.

Mixture of Experts (MoE) models have enabled the scaling of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) by achieving massive parameter counts while maintaining computational efficiency. However, MoEs introduce several inference-time challenges, including load imbalance across experts and the additional routing computational overhead. To address these challenges and fully harness the benefits of MoE, a systematic evaluation of hardware acceleration techniques is essential. We present MoE-Inference-Bench, a comprehensive study to evaluate MoE performance across diverse scenarios. We analyze the impact of batch size, sequence length, and critical MoE hyperparameters such as FFN dimensions and number of experts on throughput. We evaluate several optimization techniques on Nvidia H100 GPUs, including pruning, Fused MoE operations, speculative decoding, quantization, and various parallelization strategies. Our evaluation includes MoEs from the Mixtral, DeepSeek, OLMoE and Qwen families. The results reveal performance differences across configurations and provide insights for the efficient deployment of MoEs.

We introduce AbGen, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in designing ablation studies for scientific research. AbGen consists of 1,500 expert-annotated examples derived from 807 NLP papers. In this benchmark, LLMs are tasked with generating detailed ablation study designs for a specified module or process based on the given research context. Our evaluation of leading LLMs, such as DeepSeek-R1-0528 and o4-mini, highlights a significant performance gap between these models and human experts in terms of the importance, faithfulness, and soundness of the ablation study designs. Moreover, we demonstrate that current automated evaluation methods are not reliable for our task, as they show a significant discrepancy when compared to human assessment. To better investigate this, we develop AbGen-Eval, a meta-evaluation benchmark designed to assess the reliability of commonly used automated evaluation systems in measuring LLM performance on our task. We investigate various LLM-as-Judge systems on AbGen-Eval, providing insights for future research on developing more effective and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for complex scientific tasks.

Agent evaluation requires assessing complex multi-step behaviors involving tool use and intermediate reasoning, making it costly and expertise-intensive. A natural question arises: can frontier coding assistants reliably automate this evaluation process? Our study shows that simply prompting coding assistants is insufficient for this task. Without domain-specific evaluation knowledge, frontier coding assistants achieve only a 30% execution success rate and produce over-engineered evaluations averaging 12+ metrics per agent, indicating that strong coding ability does not automatically translate to reliable agent evaluation. We introduce EvalAgent, an AI assistant that automates the end-to-end agent evaluation pipeline. EvalAgent encodes evaluation domain expertise as evaluation skills (procedural instructions, reusable code and templates, and dynamically retrieved API documentation) that compose into a trace-based pipeline producing complete evaluation artifacts including metrics, executable code, and reports. To systematically assess generated evaluations, we introduce a meta-evaluation framework alongside AgentEvalBench, a benchmark comprising 20 agents, each paired with evaluation requirements and test scenarios. We further propose the Eval@1 metric to measure whether generated evaluation code both executes and yields meaningful results on the first run. Our experiments show that EvalAgent produces focused evaluations, improving Eval@1 from 17.5% to 65%, and achieving 79.5% human expert preference over baseline approaches. Further ablation studies show that evaluation skills are critical for handling complex evaluation: removing them causes Eval@1 to drop significantly from 65% to 30%.

In the task of talking face generation, the objective is to generate a face video with lips synchronized to the corresponding audio while preserving visual details and identity information. Current methods face the challenge of learning accurate lip synchronization while avoiding detrimental effects on visual quality, as well as robustly evaluating such synchronization. To tackle these problems, we propose utilizing an audio-visual speech representation expert (AV-HuBERT) for calculating lip synchronization loss during training. Moreover, leveraging AV-HuBERT's features, we introduce three novel lip synchronization evaluation metrics, aiming to provide a comprehensive assessment of lip synchronization performance. Experimental results, along with a detailed ablation study, demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach and the utility of the proposed evaluation metrics.

Foundation models in video generation are demonstrating remarkable capabilities as potential world models for simulating the physical world. However, their application in high-stakes domains like surgery, which demand deep, specialized causal knowledge rather than general physical rules, remains a critical unexplored gap. To systematically address this challenge, we present SurgVeo, the first expert-curated benchmark for video generation model evaluation in surgery, and the Surgical Plausibility Pyramid (SPP), a novel, four-tiered framework tailored to assess model outputs from basic appearance to complex surgical strategy. On the basis of the SurgVeo benchmark, we task the advanced Veo-3 model with a zero-shot prediction task on surgical clips from laparoscopic and neurosurgical procedures. A panel of four board-certified surgeons evaluates the generated videos according to the SPP. Our results reveal a distinct "plausibility gap": while Veo-3 achieves exceptional Visual Perceptual Plausibility, it fails critically at higher levels of the SPP, including Instrument Operation Plausibility, Environment Feedback Plausibility, and Surgical Intent Plausibility. This work provides the first quantitative evidence of the chasm between visually convincing mimicry and causal understanding in surgical AI. Our findings from SurgVeo and the SPP establish a crucial foundation and roadmap for developing future models capable of navigating the complexities of specialized, real-world healthcare domains.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) for mathematical reasoning have largely focused on tasks with easily verifiable final answers; however, generating and verifying natural language math proofs remains an open challenge. We identify the absence of a reliable, fine-grained evaluator for LLM-generated math proofs as a critical gap. To address this, we propose a systematic methodology for developing and validating evaluators that assign fine-grained scores on a 0-7 scale to model-generated math proofs. To enable this study, we introduce ProofBench, the first expert-annotated dataset of fine-grained proof ratings, spanning 145 problems from six major math competitions (USAMO, IMO, Putnam, etc) and 435 LLM-generated solutions from Gemini-2.5-pro, o3, and DeepSeek-R1. %with expert gradings. Using ProofBench as a testbed, we systematically explore the evaluator design space across key axes: the backbone model, input context, instructions and evaluation workflow. Our analysis delivers ProofGrader, an evaluator that combines a strong reasoning backbone LM, rich context from reference solutions and marking schemes, and a simple ensembling method; it achieves a low Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.926 against expert scores, significantly outperforming naive baselines. Finally, we demonstrate its practical utility in a best-of-n selection task: at n=16, ProofGrader achieves an average score of 4.14 (out of 7), closing 78% of the gap between a naive binary evaluator (2.48) and the human oracle (4.62), highlighting its potential to advance downstream proof generation.

As frontier language models advance, policymakers and model developers need methods for assessing whether model access materially increases a non-expert actor's ability to plan high-consequence Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear (CBRN) misuse relative to public tools alone. Existing CBRN evaluations differ in non-expert definitions, threat scope, baselines, scoring rubrics, and decision rules, making results difficult to compare across studies. We introduce a Threshold Exceedance Criteria (TEC) framework that decomposes an uplift study into independently executable components: determining non-expert participant eligibility, defining the CBRN threat scope for the study, and statistically estimating material uplift. We then operationalize the TEC framework in a large-scale empirical study using a design that determines two forms of uplift: generative (where a model assists plan creation from scratch) and revisionist (where a model assists refinement of an existing plan). The study produced attack plans across the CBRN domains, which we evaluated through subject-matter-expert review to estimate generative and revisionist uplift. Applying the framework, our empirical study revealed domain heterogeneity: under this controlled pre-release evaluation, model-assisted plans sometimes received expert-equivalent instructional ratings, but confirmed material uplift was limited to the radiological domain. These findings informed mitigation and deployment-governance decisions rather than characterizing deployed model behavior. We conclude with methodological lessons for future CBRN uplift evaluations, emphasizing prespecified criteria, explicit baselines, separation of generative and revisionist estimates, and careful distinction between preliminary screening signals and confirmed risk determinations.

In high-stakes settings such as brand compliance, clinical care, and content moderation, machine learning cannot be deployed as opaque oracles: practitioners inspect the features driving model decisions, and models must leverage the expert documentation governing these domains. In practice, the data arrives as unstructured content, and features extracted from it must be interpretable, discriminative, and aligned with what experts consider important. Existing methods fall short: they target tabular inputs, lack demonstrated expert alignment, and cannot operationalize qualitative criteria such as 'maintain professional tone' into precise features. We present FEST (Feature Engineering with Self-evolving Trees), combining dual-stream feature generation (semantic and deterministic), semantic deduplication, and tree-guided iterative evolution to discover auditable features from raw text and images. FEST leads in 17 of 20 classifier-task combinations across brand classification, content authenticity detection, and stress detection, with a mean gain of 4.2 pp over the strongest baseline across five classifiers. An LLM-as-judge evaluation shows FEST achieves 60-80% coverage of expert-designed brand features at strict semantic-alignment thresholds, corroborated by a human expert study rating features highly on relevance, clarity, and actionability. When seeded with expert guidelines, FEST refines qualitative criteria into operational features, improving accuracy by 6-12 pp on average across brands. To enable systematic evaluation of expert alignment in automated feature engineering, we release BrandGuide, the first dataset pairing expert-designed features with 1M+ assets across 2,683 brands. By grounding feature engineering in expert knowledge, FEST opens a practical pathway for interpretable ML in domains demanding human oversight.

Machine translation is indispensable in healthcare for enabling the global dissemination of medical knowledge across languages. However, complex medical terminology poses unique challenges to achieving adequate translation quality and accuracy. This study introduces a novel "LLMs-in-the-loop" approach to develop supervised neural machine translation models optimized specifically for medical texts. While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated powerful capabilities, this research shows that small, specialized models trained on high-quality in-domain (mostly synthetic) data can outperform even vastly larger LLMs. Custom parallel corpora in six languages were compiled from scientific articles, synthetically generated clinical documents, and medical texts. Our LLMs-in-the-loop methodology employs synthetic data generation, rigorous evaluation, and agent orchestration to enhance performance. We developed small medical translation models using the MarianMT base model. We introduce a new medical translation test dataset to standardize evaluation in this domain. Assessed using BLEU, METEOR, ROUGE, and BERT scores on this test set, our MarianMT-based models outperform Google Translate, DeepL, and GPT-4-Turbo. Results demonstrate that our LLMs-in-the-loop approach, combined with fine-tuning high-quality, domain-specific data, enables specialized models to outperform general-purpose and some larger systems. This research, part of a broader series on expert small models, paves the way for future healthcare-related AI developments, including deidentification and bio-medical entity extraction models. Our study underscores the potential of tailored neural translation models and the LLMs-in-the-loop methodology to advance the field through improved data generation, evaluation, agent, and modeling techniques.

Agentic AI tools offer a promising path to automating software development bottlenecks in scientific research pipelines, particularly for stages that take domain experts days to months to build, where scientists care about correctness and robustness, not implementation details. We present an empirical study of general-purpose coding agents on a fly optogenetics data-to-discovery pipeline. We assess agents on tasks substantially larger than existing benchmarks, datasets orders of magnitude bigger, and evaluation criteria grounded in domain expert standards. We show that agents can solve several individual pipeline stages, suggesting stage-level automation is tractable. By analyzing agents' code iterations, we show that they struggle most when there is not a pre-defined criterion to iterate on, and they must instead use their scientific judgment to assess their current solution, a key open challenge. Mirroring scientific practice, they sometimes attempt visual inspection of intermediate outputs for self-evaluation, but largely fail to interpret what they see or act on it appropriately. Solving the end-to-end pipeline correctly requires stringing together successes across all pipeline stages, and this is beyond agents' current abilities. We identify challenges largely absent from existing benchmarks, including computational resource management and generalization to large held-out data collections. Finally, we distill principles for constructing scientific tasks and rigorous evaluation criteria for open-ended problems.

We introduce HAMLET, a holistic and automated framework for evaluating the long-context comprehension of large language models (LLMs). HAMLET structures source texts into a three-level key-fact hierarchy at root-, branch-, and leaf-levels, and employs query-focused summarization to evaluate how well models recall and faithfully represent information at each level. To validate the reliability of our fully automated pipeline, we conduct a systematic human study, showing that our automatic evaluation achieves over 90% agreement with expert human judgments, while reducing the cost by up to 25 times. HAMLET reveals that LLMs struggle with fine-grained comprehension, especially at the leaf level, and are sensitive to positional effects like the lost-in-the-middle. Analytical queries pose greater challenges than narrative ones, and consistent performance gaps emerge between open-source and proprietary models, as well as across model scales. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/DISL-Lab/HAMLET.

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) in clinical dialogue systems, existing evaluations focus on task completion or fluency, offering little insight into the behavioral and risk management requirements essential for safety-critical systems. This paper presents MATRIX (Multi-Agent simulaTion fRamework for safe Interactions and conteXtual clinical conversational evaluation), a structured, extensible framework for safety-oriented evaluation of clinical dialogue agents. MATRIX integrates three components: (1) a safety-aligned taxonomy of clinical scenarios, expected system behaviors and failure modes derived through structured safety engineering methods; (2) BehvJudge, an LLM-based evaluator for detecting safety-relevant dialogue failures, validated against expert clinician annotations; and (3) PatBot, a simulated patient agent capable of producing diverse, scenario-conditioned responses, evaluated for realism and behavioral fidelity with human factors expertise, and a patient-preference study. Across three experiments, we show that MATRIX enables systematic, scalable safety evaluation. BehvJudge with Gemini 2.5-Pro achieves expert-level hazard detection (F1 0.96, sensitivity 0.999), outperforming clinicians in a blinded assessment of 240 dialogues. We also conducted one of the first realism analyses of LLM-based patient simulation, showing that PatBot reliably simulates realistic patient behavior in quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Using MATRIX, we demonstrate its effectiveness in benchmarking five LLM agents across 2,100 simulated dialogues spanning 14 hazard scenarios and 10 clinical domains. MATRIX is the first framework to unify structured safety engineering with scalable, validated conversational AI evaluation, enabling regulator-aligned safety auditing. We release all evaluation tools, prompts, structured scenarios, and datasets.

Synthesis planning aiming to find pathways of reactions for a target molecule is one of the most important and challenging tasks in drug discovery. Recent progress has produced both specialized deep-learning retrosynthesis systems and general-purpose large language models, but objective comparison remains difficult due to the lack of flexible, chemically interpretable benchmarking protocols. In the current study, we are introducing the URSA (Utilitarian RetroSynthesis Assessment) evaluation framework that provides the opportunity to benchmark the synthetic routes not only from a formal perspective, such as convergence to commercially available starting materials, but also from a chemical plausibility perspective, mimicking the way expert chemists evaluate the reactions and routes. The study covers a comprehensive evaluation of both conventional end-to-end retrosynthesis solutions and LLMs for the synthesis planning task on a set of novel, diverse target molecules with undisclosed synthetic routes, which represent realistic tasks in the daily drug design routine. We find that while LLMs can support high-level strategic planning, they currently underperform specialized retrosynthesis models in reliably solving synthesis planning tasks.

We introduce Augmented Physics, a machine learning-integrated authoring tool designed for creating embedded interactive physics simulations from static textbook diagrams. Leveraging recent advancements in computer vision, such as Segment Anything and Multi-modal LLMs, our web-based system enables users to semi-automatically extract diagrams from physics textbooks and generate interactive simulations based on the extracted content. These interactive diagrams are seamlessly integrated into scanned textbook pages, facilitating interactive and personalized learning experiences across various physics concepts, such as optics, circuits, and kinematics. Drawing from an elicitation study with seven physics instructors, we explore four key augmentation strategies: 1) augmented experiments, 2) animated diagrams, 3) bi-directional binding, and 4) parameter visualization. We evaluate our system through technical evaluation, a usability study (N=12), and expert interviews (N=12). Study findings suggest that our system can facilitate more engaging and personalized learning experiences in physics education.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical diagnosis, but real-world deployment remains challenging due to high-stakes clinical decisions and imperfect reasoning reliability. As a result, careful inspection of model behavior is essential for assessing whether diagnostic reasoning is reliable and clinically grounded. However, debugging medical LLMs remains difficult. First, developers often lack sufficient medical domain expertise to interpret model errors in clinically meaningful terms. Second, models can fail across a large and diverse set of instances involving different input types, tasks, and reasoning steps, making it challenging for developers to prioritize which errors deserve focused inspection. Third, developers struggle to identify recurring error patterns across cases, as existing debugging practices are largely instance-centric and rely on manual inspection of isolated failures. To address these challenges, we present VeriLLMed, a visual analytics system that integrates external biomedical knowledge to audit and debug medical LLM diagnostic reasoning. VeriLLMed transforms model outputs into comparable reasoning paths, constructs knowledge graph-grounded reference paths, and identifies three recurring classes of diagnosis errors: relation errors, branch errors, and missing errors. Case studies and expert evaluation demonstrate that VeriLLMed helps developers identify clinically implausible reasoning and generate actionable insights that can inform the improvement of medical LLMs.

We develop graph-based methods for semi-supervised learning based on label propagation on a data similarity graph. When data is abundant or arrive in a stream, the problems of computation and data storage arise for any graph-based method. We propose a fast approximate online algorithm that solves for the harmonic solution on an approximate graph. We show, both empirically and theoretically, that good behavior can be achieved by collapsing nearby points into a set of local representative points that minimize distortion. Moreover, we regularize the harmonic solution to achieve better stability properties. We also present graph-based methods for detecting conditional anomalies and apply them to the identification of unusual clinical actions in hospitals. Our hypothesis is that patient-management actions that are unusual with respect to the past patients may be due to errors and that it is worthwhile to raise an alert if such a condition is encountered. Conditional anomaly detection extends standard unconditional anomaly framework but also faces new problems known as fringe and isolated points. We devise novel nonparametric graph-based methods to tackle these problems. Our methods rely on graph connectivity analysis and soft harmonic solution. Finally, we conduct an extensive human evaluation study of our conditional anomaly methods by 15 experts in critical care.

We introduce FinCriticalED (Financial Critical Error Detection), a visual benchmark for evaluating OCR and vision language models on financial documents at the fact level. Financial documents contain visually dense and table heavy layouts where numerical and temporal information is tightly coupled with structure. In high stakes settings, small OCR mistakes such as sign inversion or shifted dates can lead to materially different interpretations, while traditional OCR metrics like ROUGE and edit distance capture only surface level text similarity. \ficriticaled provides 500 image-HTML pairs with expert annotated financial facts covering over seven hundred numerical and temporal facts. It introduces three key contributions. First, it establishes the first fact level evaluation benchmark for financial document understanding, shifting evaluation from lexical overlap to domain critical factual correctness. Second, all annotations are created and verified by financial experts with strict quality control over signs, magnitudes, and temporal expressions. Third, we develop an LLM-as-Judge evaluation pipeline that performs structured fact extraction and contextual verification for visually complex financial documents. We benchmark OCR systems, open source vision language models, and proprietary models on FinCriticalED. Results show that although the strongest proprietary models achieve the highest factual accuracy, substantial errors remain in visually intricate numerical and temporal contexts. Through quantitative evaluation and expert case studies, FinCriticalED provides a rigorous foundation for advancing visual factual precision in financial and other precision critical domains.

Radiology is a vital and complex component of modern clinical workflow and covers many tasks. Recently, vision-language (VL) foundation models in medicine have shown potential in processing multimodal information, offering a unified solution for various radiology tasks. However, existing studies either pre-trained VL models on natural data or did not fully integrate vision-language architecture and pretraining, often neglecting the unique multimodal complexity in radiology images and their textual contexts. Additionally, their practical applicability in real-world scenarios remains underexplored. Here, we present RadFound, a large and open-source vision-language foundation model tailored for radiology, that is trained on the most extensive dataset of over 8.1 million images and 250,000 image-text pairs, covering 19 major organ systems and 10 imaging modalities. To establish expert-level multimodal perception and generation capabilities, RadFound introduces an enhanced vision encoder to capture intra-image local features and inter-image contextual information, and a unified cross-modal learning design tailored to radiology. To fully assess the models' capability, we construct a benchmark, RadVLBench, including radiology interpretation tasks like medical vision-language question-answering, as well as text generation tasks ranging from captioning to report generation. We also propose a human evaluation framework. When evaluated on the real-world benchmark involving three representative modalities, 2D images (chest X-rays), multi-view images (mammograms), and 3D images (thyroid CT scans), RadFound significantly outperforms other VL foundation models on both quantitative metrics and human evaluation. In summary, the development of RadFound represents an advancement in radiology generalists, demonstrating broad applicability potential for integration into clinical workflows.

Accurate transcription of handwritten mathematics is crucial for educational AI systems, yet current benchmarks fail to evaluate this capability properly. Most prior studies focus on single-line expressions and rely on lexical metrics such as BLEU, which fail to assess the semantic reasoning across multi-line student solutions. In this paper, we present the first systematic study of multi-line handwritten math Optical Character Recognition (OCR), revealing a critical failure mode of Vision-Language Models (VLMs): over-correction. Instead of faithfully transcribing a student's work, these models often "fix" errors, thereby hiding the very mistakes an educational assessment aims to detect. To address this, we propose PINK (Penalized INK-based score), a semantic evaluation metric that leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) for rubric-based grading and explicitly penalizes over-correction. Our comprehensive evaluation of 15 state-of-the-art VLMs on the FERMAT dataset reveals substantial ranking reversals compared to BLEU: models like GPT-4o are heavily penalized for aggressive over-correction, whereas Gemini 2.5 Flash emerges as the most faithful transcriber. Furthermore, human expert studies show that PINK aligns significantly better with human judgment (55.0% preference over BLEU's 39.5%), providing a more reliable evaluation framework for handwritten math OCR in educational settings.

We investigate the usefulness of generative Large Language Models (LLMs) in generating training data for cross-encoder re-rankers in a novel direction: generating synthetic documents instead of synthetic queries. We introduce a new dataset, ChatGPT-RetrievalQA, and compare the effectiveness of models fine-tuned on LLM-generated and human-generated data. Data generated with generative LLMs can be used to augment training data, especially in domains with smaller amounts of labeled data. We build ChatGPT-RetrievalQA based on an existing dataset, human ChatGPT Comparison Corpus (HC3), consisting of public question collections with human responses and answers from ChatGPT. We fine-tune a range of cross-encoder re-rankers on either human-generated or ChatGPT-generated data. Our evaluation on MS MARCO DEV, TREC DL'19, and TREC DL'20 demonstrates that cross-encoder re-ranking models trained on ChatGPT responses are statistically significantly more effective zero-shot re-rankers than those trained on human responses. In a supervised setting, the human-trained re-rankers outperform the LLM-trained re-rankers. Our novel findings suggest that generative LLMs have high potential in generating training data for neural retrieval models. Further work is needed to determine the effect of factually wrong information in the generated responses and test our findings' generalizability with open-source LLMs. We release our data, code, and cross-encoders checkpoints for future work.

The introduction of ChatGPT has garnered widespread attention in both academic and industrial communities. ChatGPT is able to respond effectively to a wide range of human questions, providing fluent and comprehensive answers that significantly surpass previous public chatbots in terms of security and usefulness. On one hand, people are curious about how ChatGPT is able to achieve such strength and how far it is from human experts. On the other hand, people are starting to worry about the potential negative impacts that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT could have on society, such as fake news, plagiarism, and social security issues. In this work, we collected tens of thousands of comparison responses from both human experts and ChatGPT, with questions ranging from open-domain, financial, medical, legal, and psychological areas. We call the collected dataset the Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpus (HC3). Based on the HC3 dataset, we study the characteristics of ChatGPT's responses, the differences and gaps from human experts, and future directions for LLMs. We conducted comprehensive human evaluations and linguistic analyses of ChatGPT-generated content compared with that of humans, where many interesting results are revealed. After that, we conduct extensive experiments on how to effectively detect whether a certain text is generated by ChatGPT or humans. We build three different detection systems, explore several key factors that influence their effectiveness, and evaluate them in different scenarios. The dataset, code, and models are all publicly available at https://github.com/Hello-SimpleAI/chatgpt-comparison-detection.

Existing evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on static benchmarks is vulnerable to data contamination and leaderboard overfitting, critical issues that obscure true model capabilities. To address this, we introduce LLMEval-Fair, a framework for dynamic evaluation of LLMs. LLMEval-Fair is built on a proprietary bank of 220k graduate-level questions, from which it dynamically samples unseen test sets for each evaluation run. Its automated pipeline ensures integrity via contamination-resistant data curation, a novel anti-cheating architecture, and a calibrated LLM-as-a-judge process achieving 90% agreement with human experts, complemented by a relative ranking system for fair comparison. A 30-month longitudinal study of nearly 60 leading models reveals a performance ceiling on knowledge memorization and exposes data contamination vulnerabilities undetectable by static benchmarks. The framework demonstrates exceptional robustness in ranking stability and consistency, providing strong empirical validation for the dynamic evaluation paradigm. LLMEval-Fair offers a robust and credible methodology for assessing the true capabilities of LLMs beyond leaderboard scores, promoting the development of more trustworthy evaluation standards.

This paper explores the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the generation and evaluation of analytical reports derived from Earnings Calls (ECs). Addressing a current gap in research, we explore the generation of analytical reports with LLMs in a multi-agent framework, designing specialized agents that introduce diverse viewpoints and desirable topics of analysis into the report generation process. Through multiple analyses, we examine the alignment between generated and human-written reports and the impact of both individual and collective agents. Our findings suggest that the introduction of additional agents results in more insightful reports, although reports generated by human experts remain preferred in the majority of cases. Finally, we address the challenging issue of report evaluation, we examine the limitations and strengths of LLMs in assessing the quality of generated reports in different settings, revealing a significant correlation with human experts across multiple dimensions.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, has revolutionized general natural language preprocessing (NLP) tasks. However, their expertise in the financial domain lacks a comprehensive evaluation. To assess the ability of LLMs to solve financial NLP tasks, we present FinLMEval, a framework for Financial Language Model Evaluation, comprising nine datasets designed to evaluate the performance of language models. This study compares the performance of encoder-only language models and the decoder-only language models. Our findings reveal that while some decoder-only LLMs demonstrate notable performance across most financial tasks via zero-shot prompting, they generally lag behind the fine-tuned expert models, especially when dealing with proprietary datasets. We hope this study provides foundation evaluations for continuing efforts to build more advanced LLMs in the financial domain.

Radiological imaging is central to diagnosis, treatment planning, and clinical decision-making. Vision-language foundation models have spurred interest in automated radiology report generation (RRG), but safe deployment requires reliable clinical evaluation of generated reports. Existing metrics often rely on surface-level similarity or behave as black boxes, lacking interpretability. We introduce ICARE (Interpretable and Clinically-grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation), an interpretable evaluation framework leveraging large language model agents and dynamic multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Two agents, each with either the ground-truth or generated report, generate clinically meaningful questions and quiz each other. Agreement on answers captures preservation and consistency of findings, serving as interpretable proxies for clinical precision and recall. By linking scores to question-answer pairs, ICARE enables transparent, and interpretable assessment. Clinician studies show ICARE aligns significantly more with expert judgment than prior metrics. Perturbation analyses confirm sensitivity to clinical content and reproducibility, while model comparisons reveal interpretable error patterns.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) with Mixture of Experts (MoE) layers have gained significant attention. Currently, state-of-the-art LLMs utilize this architecture. There is a substantial amount of research on how to train such models and how to select hyperparameters for this architecture. However, there is a lack of studies focusing on post-evaluation analysis of MoE layer properties. In this paper, we take a first step toward closing this gap by evaluating expert contributions on the quiz-based MMLU benchmark. We show that most experts were never activated during inference on this benchmark. Additionally, the output distribution of gating networks is much closer to uniform than sparse. Finally, we demonstrate that the average performance of some experts within the same layer varies significantly.

Traditional metrics for Medical Report Generation (MRG) predominantly rely on surface-level n-gram overlap, which fails to capture clinical factual accuracy and often overlooks catastrophic diagnostic errors. We address this fundamental limitation by proposing AtomiMed, a universal, modality-agnostic evaluation framework that decomposes complex medical narratives into a standardized, multi-level hierarchy of Atomic Clinical Facts, encompassing Disease-level entities and Attribute-level descriptors, including location, morphology, and severity. By implementing an Agentic Cross-Verification loop between ground-truth and predicted reports, AtomiMed simulates a multi-radiologist peer-review process to verify clinical consistency, thus enabling the decoupled assessment of diagnostic detection and descriptive accuracy. To facilitate standardized evaluation, we introduce MRGEvalKit, an open-source toolkit for automated hierarchical extraction, and curate OmniMRG-Bench, a comprehensive multi-modal benchmark covering X-ray, CT, MRI, and Ultrasound. Extensive experiments on multiple expert-annotated reader studies demonstrate that AtomiMed achieves significantly higher correlation with human radiologist judgment compared to traditional and model-based metrics. Our code are release at https://github.com/Venn2336/MRGEvalkit

Evaluating web usability typically requires time-consuming user studies and expert reviews, which often limits iteration speed during product development, especially for small teams and agile workflows. We present Avenir-UX, a user-experience evaluation agent that simulates user behavior on websites and produces standardized usability. Unlike traditional tools that rely on DOM parsing, Avenir-UX grounds actions and observations, enabling it to interact with real web pages end-to-end while maintaining a coherent trace of the user journey. Building on Avenir-Web, our system pairs this robust interaction with simulated user behavior profiles and a structured evaluation protocol that integrates the System Usability Scale (SUS), step-wise Single Ease Questions (SEQ), and concurrent Think Aloud. Subsequently, a comprehensive User Experience (UX) report will be generated. We discuss the architecture of Avenir-UX and illustrate how its multimodal grounding improves robustness for web-based interaction and UX evaluation scenarios, paving the way for a new era of continuous, scalable, and data-driven usability testing that empowers every developer to build web interfaces that are usable. Code is available at: https://github.com/Onflow-AI/Avenir-UX

Patent claims define the scope of protection and establish the legal boundaries of an invention. Drafting these claims is a complex and time-consuming process that usually requires the expertise of skilled patent attorneys, which can form a large access barrier for many small enterprises. To solve these challenges, researchers have investigated the use of large language models (LLMs) for automating patent claim generation. However, existing studies highlight inconsistencies between automated evaluation metrics and human expert assessments. To bridge this gap, we introduce Patent-CE, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating patent claims. Patent-CE includes comparative claim evaluations annotated by patent experts, focusing on five key criteria: feature completeness, conceptual clarity, terminology consistency, logical linkage, and overall quality. Additionally, we propose PatClaimEval, a novel multi-dimensional evaluation method specifically designed for patent claims. Our experiments demonstrate that PatClaimEval achieves the highest correlation with human expert evaluations across all assessment criteria among all tested metrics. This research provides the groundwork for more accurate evaluations of automated patent claim generation systems.

Developing an educational test can be expensive and time-consuming, as each item must be written by experts and then evaluated by collecting hundreds of student responses. Moreover, many tests require multiple distinct sets of questions administered throughout the school year to closely monitor students' progress, known as parallel tests. In this study, we focus on tests of silent sentence reading efficiency, used to assess students' reading ability over time. To generate high-quality parallel tests, we propose to fine-tune large language models (LLMs) to simulate how previous students would have responded to unseen items. With these simulated responses, we can estimate each item's difficulty and ambiguity. We first use GPT-4 to generate new test items following a list of expert-developed rules and then apply a fine-tuned LLM to filter the items based on criteria from psychological measurements. We also propose an optimal-transport-inspired technique for generating parallel tests and show the generated tests closely correspond to the original test's difficulty and reliability based on crowdworker responses. Our evaluation of a generated test with 234 students from grades 2 to 8 produces test scores highly correlated (r=0.93) to those of a standard test form written by human experts and evaluated across thousands of K-12 students.

Approaching new data can be quite deterrent; you do not know how your categories of interest are realized in it, commonly, there is no labeled data at hand, and the performance of domain adaptation methods is unsatisfactory. Aiming to assist domain experts in their first steps into a new task over a new corpus, we present an unsupervised approach to reveal complex rules which cluster the unexplored corpus by its prominent categories (or facets). These rules are human-readable, thus providing an important ingredient which has become in short supply lately - explainability. Each rule provides an explanation for the commonality of all the texts it clusters together. We present an extensive evaluation of the usefulness of these rules in identifying target categories, as well as a user study which assesses their interpretability.

Model merging combines multiple fine-tuned checkpoints into a single model without additional training, offering an attractive approach to reusing models and efficiently improving performance. However, it remains unclear whether the advantages reported for settings where all merged experts have distinct roles and are tuned on clearly separated tasks also hold in settings where the merged experts do not have clearly distinct roles, but are trained on overlapping or even conflicting objectives. To evaluate this setting, we present a large-scale, systematic evaluation of "in-the-wild" model merging of heterogeneous experts, that may have been trained on overlapping or conflicting objectives. Concretely, we evaluate six state-of-the-art merging methods, including recent subspace methods, across four open-weight LLMs, twelve fine-tuned checkpoints per base model, and sixteen standard LLM benchmarks. Evaluating through standardized benchmarks, we measure both the probability that a model merged from a heterogeneous set of experts outperforms the base model and we measure relative gains over the best individual checkpoint. Our results show that the oldest and simplest method, Task Arithmetic, is the only approach that reliably yields performance gains on LLMs in this "in-the-wild" setting. Other interference-aware and subspace merging methods typically do not result in notable improvements over the base model. Our findings indicate that current merging techniques mostly do not enable extracting useful weight updates from heterogeneous and potentially conflicting versions. This motivates the design of LLM-specific merging algorithms and merging-aware fine-tuning methods.

Courts must justify their decisions, but systematically analyzing judicial reasoning at scale remains difficult. This study tests claims about formalistic judging in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by developing automated methods to detect and classify judicial reasoning in decisions of Czech Supreme Courts using state-of-the-art natural language processing methods. We create the MADON dataset of 272 decisions from two Czech Supreme Courts with expert annotations of 9,183 paragraphs with eight argument types and holistic formalism labels for supervised training and evaluation. Using a corpus of 300,511 Czech court decisions, we adapt transformer LLMs to Czech legal domain through continued pretraining and we experiment with methods to address dataset imbalance including asymmetric loss and class weighting. The best models can detect argumentative paragraphs (82.6% Bal-F1), classify traditional types of legal argument (77.5% Bal-F1), and classify decisions as formalistic/non-formalistic (83.8% Bal-F1). Our three-stage pipeline combining ModernBERT, Llama 3.1, and traditional feature-based machine learning achieves promising results for decision classification while reducing computational costs and increasing explainability. Empirically, we challenge prevailing narratives about CEE formalism. We demonstrate that legal argument mining enables promising judicial philosophy classification and highlight its potential for other important tasks in computational legal studies. Our methodology can be used across jurisdictions, and our entire pipeline, datasets, guidelines, models, and source codes are available at https://github.com/trusthlt/madon.

Solar activity is one of the main drivers of variability in our solar system and the key source of space weather phenomena that affect Earth and near Earth space. The extensive record of high resolution extreme ultraviolet (EUV) observations from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) offers an unprecedented, very large dataset of solar images. In this work, we make use of this comprehensive dataset to investigate capabilities of current state-of-the-art generative models to accurately capture the data distribution behind the observed solar activity states. Starting from StyleGAN-based methods, we uncover severe deficits of this model family in handling fine-scale details of solar images when training on high resolution samples, contrary to training on natural face images. When switching to the diffusion based generative model family, we observe strong improvements of fine-scale detail generation. For the GAN family, we are able to achieve similar improvements in fine-scale generation when turning to ProjectedGANs, which uses multi-scale discriminators with a pre-trained frozen feature extractor. We conduct ablation studies to clarify mechanisms responsible for proper fine-scale handling. Using distributed training on supercomputers, we are able to train generative models for up to 1024x1024 resolution that produce high quality samples indistinguishable to human experts, as suggested by the evaluation we conduct. We make all code, models and workflows used in this study publicly available at https://github.com/SLAMPAI/generative-models-for-highres-solar-images.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery, with a growing number of works proposing research agents that autonomously generate and validate new ideas. Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas, let alone perform the entire research process. We address this by establishing an experimental design that evaluates research idea generation while controlling for confounders and performs the first head-to-head comparison between expert NLP researchers and an LLM ideation agent. By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility. Studying our agent baselines closely, we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation. Finally, we acknowledge that human judgements of novelty can be difficult, even by experts, and propose an end-to-end study design which recruits researchers to execute these ideas into full projects, enabling us to study whether these novelty and feasibility judgements result in meaningful differences in research outcome.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone of modern medical imaging. However, long image acquisition times, the need for qualitative expert analysis, and the lack of (and difficulty extracting) quantitative indicators that are sensitive to tissue health have curtailed widespread clinical and research studies. While recent machine learning methods for MRI reconstruction and analysis have shown promise for reducing this burden, these techniques are primarily validated with imperfect image quality metrics, which are discordant with clinically-relevant measures that ultimately hamper clinical deployment and clinician trust. To mitigate this challenge, we present the Stanford Knee MRI with Multi-Task Evaluation (SKM-TEA) dataset, a collection of quantitative knee MRI (qMRI) scans that enables end-to-end, clinically-relevant evaluation of MRI reconstruction and analysis tools. This 1.6TB dataset consists of raw-data measurements of ~25,000 slices (155 patients) of anonymized patient MRI scans, the corresponding scanner-generated DICOM images, manual segmentations of four tissues, and bounding box annotations for sixteen clinically relevant pathologies. We provide a framework for using qMRI parameter maps, along with image reconstructions and dense image labels, for measuring the quality of qMRI biomarker estimates extracted from MRI reconstruction, segmentation, and detection techniques. Finally, we use this framework to benchmark state-of-the-art baselines on this dataset. We hope our SKM-TEA dataset and code can enable a broad spectrum of research for modular image reconstruction and image analysis in a clinically informed manner. Dataset access, code, and benchmarks are available at https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/skm-tea.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress in multimodal reasoning. However, existing benchmarks remain limited in terms of high-quality, human-verified examples. Many current datasets rely on synthetically generated content by large language models (LLMs). Furthermore, most datasets are limited to English, as manual quality assurance of translated samples is time-consuming and costly. To fill this gap, we introduce PISA-Bench, a multilingual benchmark derived from English examples of the expert-created PISA tests, a unified framework for the assessment of student competencies in over eighty countries. Each example consists of human-extracted instructions, questions, answer options, and images, enriched with question type categories, and has been translated from English into five additional languages (Spanish, German, Chinese, French, and Italian), resulting in a fully parallel corpus covering six languages. We evaluate state-of-the-art vision-language models on PISA-Bench and find that especially small models (<20B parameters) fail to achieve high test scores. We further find substantial performance degradation on non-English splits as well as high error-rates when models are tasked with spatial and geometric reasoning. By releasing the dataset and evaluation framework, we provide a resource for advancing research on multilingual multimodal reasoning.

Large language models excel at instruction-following in English, but their performance in low-resource languages like Thai remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often rely on translations, missing cultural and domain-specific nuances needed for real-world use. We present WangchanThaiInstruct, a human-authored Thai dataset for evaluation and instruction tuning, covering four professional domains and seven task types. Created through a multi-stage quality control process with annotators, domain experts, and AI researchers, WangchanThaiInstruct supports two studies: (1) a zero-shot evaluation showing performance gaps on culturally and professionally specific tasks, and (2) an instruction tuning study with ablations isolating the effect of native supervision. Models fine-tuned on WangchanThaiInstruct outperform those using translated data in both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks. These findings underscore the need for culturally and professionally grounded instruction data to improve LLM alignment in low-resource, linguistically diverse settings.

We present Claw AI Lab, a lab-native autonomous research platform that advances automated research from a hidden prompt-to-paper pipeline into an interactive AI laboratory. Rather than centering the system around a single agent or a fixed serial workflow, we allow users to instantiate a full research team from one prompt, with customizable roles, collaborative workflows, real-time monitoring, artifact inspection, and rollback/resume control through a unified dashboard. The platform also supports distinct research modes for exploration, multi-agent discussion, and reproduction, making autonomous research substantially more steerable and laboratory-like in practice. A key practical contribution of Claw AI Lab lies in its Claw-Code Harness, which connects local codebases, datasets, and checkpoints to runnable experiments and feeds execution artifacts back into the research loop. As a result, the harness improves not only execution integration, but also experimental completion and result integrity: experiments are easier to inspect, iterate on, and faithfully transfer into final papers, reducing common failure modes such as partial runs and malformed result reporting. In our internal evaluation on five AI research case studies, using AutoResearchClaw as the baseline, Claw AI Lab is consistently preferred by AI expert judges on idea novelty, experiment completeness, and paper presentation quality. We view Claw AI Lab as an early step toward a new paradigm: autonomous research as usable, interactive, and reliability-aware scientific infrastructure.

This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultra model advances the state of the art in 30 of 32 of these benchmarks - notably being the first model to achieve human-expert performance on the well-studied exam benchmark MMLU, and improving the state of the art in every one of the 20 multimodal benchmarks we examined. We believe that the new capabilities of Gemini models in cross-modal reasoning and language understanding will enable a wide variety of use cases and we discuss our approach toward deploying them responsibly to users.

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.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and by what criteria; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. Alongside rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that while current deep research systems can produce structurally plausible reports that cite external evidence, there is room for improvement in fulfilling expert-level user requests and achieving logical completeness. Beyond simple performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

Evaluating long-form responses to research queries heavily relies on expert annotators, restricting attention to areas like AI where researchers can conveniently enlist colleagues. Yet, research expertise is widespread: survey articles synthesize knowledge distributed across the literature. We introduce ResearchQA, a resource for evaluating LLM systems by distilling survey articles from 75 research fields into 21K queries and 160K rubric items. Each rubric, derived jointly with queries from survey sections, lists query-specific answer evaluation criteria, i.e., citing papers, making explanations, and describing limitations. Assessments by 31 Ph.D. annotators in 8 fields indicate 96% of queries support Ph.D. information needs and 87% of rubric items should be addressed in system responses by a sentence or more. Using our rubrics, we are able to construct an automatic pairwise judge obtaining 74% agreement with expert judgments. We leverage ResearchQA to analyze competency gaps in 18 systems in over 7.6K pairwise evaluations. No parametric or retrieval-augmented system we evaluate exceeds 70% on covering rubric items, and the highest-ranking agentic system shows 75% coverage. Error analysis reveals that the highest-ranking system fully addresses less than 11% of citation rubric items, 48% of limitation items, and 49% of comparison items. We release our data to facilitate more comprehensive multi-field evaluations.

Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

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.

As AI tools become increasingly common for research ideation, robust evaluation is critical to ensure the validity and usefulness of generated ideas. We introduce ScholarEval, a retrieval augmented evaluation framework that assesses research ideas based on two fundamental criteria: soundness - the empirical validity of proposed methods based on existing literature, and contribution - the degree of advancement made by the idea across different dimensions relative to prior research. To evaluate ScholarEval, we introduce ScholarIdeas, the first expert-annotated dataset of multi-domain research ideas and reviews, comprised of 117 ideas across four disciplines: artificial intelligence, neuroscience, biochemistry, and ecology. Our evaluation shows that ScholarEval achieves significantly higher coverage of points mentioned in the human expert annotated rubrics in ScholarIdeas compared to all baselines. Furthermore, ScholarEval is consistently preferred over our strongest baseline o4-mini-deep-research, a reasoning and search-enabled agentic system by OpenAI, in terms of evaluation actionability, depth, and evidence support. Our large-scale user study also shows that ScholarEval significantly outperforms deep research in literature engagement, idea refinement, and usefulness. We openly release our code, dataset, and ScholarEval tool for the community to use and build on.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in Deep Research or Wide Search, their capacity to solve highly complex questions-those requiring long-horizon planning, massive evidence gathering, and synthesis across heterogeneous sources-remains largely unexplored. We introduce Super Research, a task for complex autonomous research tasks that integrates (i) structured decomposition into a research plan, (ii) super wide retrieval for diverse perspectives, and (iii) super deep investigation to resolve uncertainties through iterative queries. To evaluate this capability, we curated a benchmark of 300 expert-written questions across diverse domains, each requiring up to 100+ retrieval steps and 1,000+ web pages to reconcile conflicting evidence. Super Research produces verifiable reports with fine-grained citations and intermediate artifacts (e.g., outlines and tables) to ensure traceable reasoning. Furthermore, we present a graph-anchored auditing protocol that evaluates Super Research along five dimensions: Coverage, Logical Consistency, Report Utility, Objectivity and Citation Health. While super-complex questions may be infrequent in standard applications, Super Research serves as a critical ceiling evaluation and stress test for LLM capabilities. A model's proficiency within Super Research acts as a powerful proxy for its general research competence; success here suggests the robustness necessary to navigate nearly any subordinate research task. Leaderboard is available at: https://cnsdqd-dyb.github.io/Super-Research-Benchmark/

This paper introduces LegalRikai: Open Benchmark, a new benchmark comprising four complex tasks that emulate Japanese corporate legal practices. The benchmark was created by legal professionals under the supervision of an attorney. This benchmark has 100 samples that require long-form, structured outputs, and we evaluated them against multiple practical criteria. We conducted both human and automated evaluations using leading LLMs, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.1. Our human evaluation revealed that abstract instructions prompted unnecessary modifications, highlighting model weaknesses in document-level editing that were missed by conventional short-text tasks. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that automated evaluation aligns well with human judgment on criteria with clear linguistic grounding, and assessing structural consistency remains a challenge. The result demonstrates the utility of automated evaluation as a screening tool when expert availability is limited. We propose a dataset evaluation framework to promote more practice-oriented research in the legal domain.

Deep Research Systems (DRS) aim to help users search the web, synthesize information, and deliver comprehensive investigative reports. However, how to rigorously evaluate these systems remains under-explored. Existing deep-research benchmarks often fall into two failure modes. Some do not adequately test a system's ability to analyze evidence and write coherent reports. Others rely on evaluation criteria that are either overly coarse or directly defined by LLMs (or both), leading to scores that can be biased relative to human experts and are hard to verify or interpret. To address these issues, we introduce Deep Research Bench II, a new benchmark for evaluating DRS-generated reports. It contains 132 grounded research tasks across 22 domains; for each task, a system must produce a long-form research report that is evaluated by a set of 9430 fine-grained binary rubrics in total, covering three dimensions: information recall, analysis, and presentation. All rubrics are derived from carefully selected expert-written investigative articles and are constructed through a four-stage LLM+human pipeline that combines automatic extraction with over 400 human-hours of expert review, ensuring that the criteria are atomic, verifiable, and aligned with human expert judgment. We evaluate several state-of-the-art deep-research systems on Deep Research Bench II and find that even the strongest models satisfy fewer than 50% of the rubrics, revealing a substantial gap between current DRSs and human experts.

Fake news detection becomes particularly challenging in real-time scenarios, where emerging events often lack sufficient supporting evidence. Existing approaches often rely heavily on external evidence and therefore struggle to generalize under evidence scarcity. To address this issue, we propose Evaluation-Aware Selection of Experts (EASE), a novel framework for real-time fake news detection that dynamically adapts its decision-making process according to the assessed sufficiency of available evidence. EASE introduces a sequential evaluation mechanism comprising three independent perspectives: (1) Evidence-based evaluation, which assesses evidence and incorporates it into decision-making only when the evidence is sufficiently supportive; (2) Reasoning-based evaluation, which leverages the world knowledge of large language models (LLMs) and applies them only when their reliability is adequately established; and (3) Sentiment-based fallback, which integrates sentiment cues when neither evidence nor reasoning is reliable. To enhance the accuracy of evaluation processes, EASE employs instruction tuning with pseudo labels to guide each evaluator in justifying its perspective-specific knowledge through interpretable reasoning. Furthermore, the expert modules integrate the evaluators' justified assessments with the news content to enable evaluation-aware decision-making, thereby enhancing overall detection accuracy. Moreover, we introduce RealTimeNews-25, a new benchmark comprising recent news for evaluating model generalization on emerging news with limited evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EASE not only achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, but also significantly improves generalization to real-time news. The code and dataset are available: https://github.com/wgyhhhh/EASE.

Decision-makers are often experts of their domain and take actions based on their domain knowledge. Doctors, for instance, may prescribe treatments by predicting the likely outcome of each available treatment. Actions of an expert thus naturally encode part of their domain knowledge, and can help make inferences within the same domain: Knowing doctors try to prescribe the best treatment for their patients, we can tell treatments prescribed more frequently are likely to be more effective. Yet in machine learning, the fact that most decision-makers are experts is often overlooked, and "expertise" is seldom leveraged as an inductive bias. This is especially true for the literature on treatment effect estimation, where often the only assumption made about actions is that of overlap. In this paper, we argue that expertise - particularly the type of expertise the decision-makers of a domain are likely to have - can be informative in designing and selecting methods for treatment effect estimation. We formally define two types of expertise, predictive and prognostic, and demonstrate empirically that: (i) the prominent type of expertise in a domain significantly influences the performance of different methods in treatment effect estimation, and (ii) it is possible to predict the type of expertise present in a dataset, which can provide a quantitative basis for model selection.

Data-driven social science research is inherently slow, relying on iterative cycles of observation, hypothesis generation, and experimental validation. While recent data-driven methods promise to accelerate parts of this process, they largely fail to support end-to-end scientific discovery. To address this gap, we introduce EXPERIGEN, an agentic framework that operationalizes end-to-end discovery through a Bayesian optimization inspired two-phase search, in which a Generator proposes candidate hypotheses and an Experimenter evaluates them empirically. Across multiple domains, EXPERIGEN consistently discovers 2-4x more statistically significant hypotheses that are 7-17 percent more predictive than prior approaches, and naturally extends to complex data regimes including multimodal and relational datasets. Beyond statistical performance, hypotheses must be novel, empirically grounded, and actionable to drive real scientific progress. To evaluate these qualities, we conduct an expert review of machine-generated hypotheses, collecting feedback from senior faculty. Among 25 reviewed hypotheses, 88 percent were rated moderately or strongly novel, 70 percent were deemed impactful and worth pursuing, and most demonstrated rigor comparable to senior graduate-level research. Finally, recognizing that ultimate validation requires real-world evidence, we conduct the first A/B test of LLM-generated hypotheses, observing statistically significant results with p less than 1e-6 and a large effect size of 344 percent.

Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable. To address this, we investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction. We parse all papers of OpenReview and augment each submission with its citation count, reference, and research hypothesis. Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper. Furthermore, we show that a simple prediction model based solely on title and abstract outperforms LLM-based reviewers, though it still falls short of human-level consistency.

We consider the problem of ranking n experts based on their performances on d tasks. We make a monotonicity assumption stating that for each pair of experts, one outperforms the other on all tasks. We consider the sequential setting where in each round, the learner has access to noisy evaluations of actively chosen pair of expert-task, given the information available up to the actual round. Given a confidence parameter delta in (0, 1), we provide strategies allowing to recover the correct ranking of experts and develop a bound on the total number of queries made by our algorithm that hold with probability at least 1 -- delta. We show that our strategy is adaptive to the complexity of the problem (our bounds are instance dependent), and develop matching lower bounds up to a poly-logarithmic factor. Finally, we adapt our strategy to the relaxed problem of best expert identification and provide numerical simulation consistent with our theoretical results.

Human evaluation is critical for validating the performance of text-to-image generative models, as this highly cognitive process requires deep comprehension of text and images. However, our survey of 37 recent papers reveals that many works rely solely on automatic measures (e.g., FID) or perform poorly described human evaluations that are not reliable or repeatable. This paper proposes a standardized and well-defined human evaluation protocol to facilitate verifiable and reproducible human evaluation in future works. In our pilot data collection, we experimentally show that the current automatic measures are incompatible with human perception in evaluating the performance of the text-to-image generation results. Furthermore, we provide insights for designing human evaluation experiments reliably and conclusively. Finally, we make several resources publicly available to the community to facilitate easy and fast implementations.

This study investigates GPT-4's assessment of its performance in healthcare applications. A simple prompting technique was used to prompt the LLM with questions taken from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questionnaire and it was tasked to evaluate its confidence score before posing the question and after asking the question. The questionnaire was categorized into two groups-questions with feedback (WF) and questions with no feedback(NF) post-question. The model was asked to provide absolute and relative confidence scores before and after each question. The experimental findings were analyzed using statistical tools to study the variability of confidence in WF and NF groups. Additionally, a sequential analysis was conducted to observe the performance variation for the WF and NF groups. Results indicate that feedback influences relative confidence but doesn't consistently increase or decrease it. Understanding the performance of LLM is paramount in exploring its utility in sensitive areas like healthcare. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the reliability of AI, particularly of LLMs like GPT-4, within healthcare, offering insights into how feedback mechanisms might be optimized to enhance AI-assisted medical education and decision support.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

This study investigates the consistency of feedback ratings generated by OpenAI's GPT-4, a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence language model, across multiple iterations, time spans and stylistic variations. The model rated responses to tasks within the Higher Education (HE) subject domain of macroeconomics in terms of their content and style. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to learn more about the interrater reliability, consistency of the ratings across iterations and the correlation between ratings in terms of content and style. The results revealed a high interrater reliability with ICC scores ranging between 0.94 and 0.99 for different timespans, suggesting that GPT-4 is capable of generating consistent ratings across repetitions with a clear prompt. Style and content ratings show a high correlation of 0.87. When applying a non-adequate style the average content ratings remained constant, while style ratings decreased, which indicates that the large language model (LLM) effectively distinguishes between these two criteria during evaluation. The prompt used in this study is furthermore presented and explained. Further research is necessary to assess the robustness and reliability of AI models in various use cases.

Large Language Models have found application in various mundane and repetitive tasks including Human Resource (HR) support. We worked with the domain experts of SAP SE to develop an HR support chatbot as an efficient and effective tool for addressing employee inquiries. We inserted a human-in-the-loop in various parts of the development cycles such as dataset collection, prompt optimization, and evaluation of generated output. By enhancing the LLM-driven chatbot's response quality and exploring alternative retrieval methods, we have created an efficient, scalable, and flexible tool for HR professionals to address employee inquiries effectively. Our experiments and evaluation conclude that GPT-4 outperforms other models and can overcome inconsistencies in data through internal reasoning capabilities. Additionally, through expert analysis, we infer that reference-free evaluation metrics such as G-Eval and Prometheus demonstrate reliability closely aligned with that of human evaluation.

The problem of personalization in Information Retrieval has been under study for a long time. A well-known issue related to this task is the lack of publicly available datasets that can support a comparative evaluation of personalized search systems. To contribute in this respect, this paper introduces SE-PEF (StackExchange - Personalized Expert Finding), a resource useful for designing and evaluating personalized models related to the task of Expert Finding (EF). The contributed dataset includes more than 250k queries and 565k answers from 3 306 experts, which are annotated with a rich set of features modeling the social interactions among the users of a popular cQA platform. The results of the preliminary experiments conducted show the appropriateness of SE-PEF to evaluate and to train effective EF models.

Large language models excel on objectively verifiable tasks such as math and programming, where evaluation reduces to unit tests or a single correct answer. In contrast, real-world enterprise work is often subjective and context-dependent: success hinges on organizational goals, user intent, and the quality of intermediate artifacts produced across long, multi-tool workflows. We introduce LH-Bench, a three-pillar evaluation design that moves beyond binary correctness to score autonomous, long-horizon execution on subjective enterprise tasks. The pillars are: (i) expert-grounded rubrics that give LLM judges the domain context needed to score subjective work, (ii) curated ground-truth artifacts that enable stepwise reward signals (e.g., chapter-level annotation for content tasks), and (iii) pairwise human preference evaluation for convergent validation. We show that domain-authored rubrics provide substantially more reliable evaluation signals than LLM-authored rubrics (kappa = 0.60 vs. 0.46), and that human preference judgments confirm the same top-tier separation (p < 0.05), evidence that expert-grounded evaluation can scale without sacrificing reliability. We release public datasets and report results on two environments: Figma-to-code (33 real .fig tasks against the Figma API via MCP) and Programmatic content (41 courses comprising 183 individually-evaluated chapters on a course platform serving 30+ daily users).

In response to the pressing need for advanced clinical problem-solving tools in healthcare, we introduce BooksMed, a novel framework based on a Large Language Model (LLM). BooksMed uniquely emulates human cognitive processes to deliver evidence-based and reliable responses, utilizing the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework to effectively quantify evidence strength. For clinical decision-making to be appropriately assessed, an evaluation metric that is clinically aligned and validated is required. As a solution, we present ExpertMedQA, a multispecialty clinical benchmark comprised of open-ended, expert-level clinical questions, and validated by a diverse group of medical professionals. By demanding an in-depth understanding and critical appraisal of up-to-date clinical literature, ExpertMedQA rigorously evaluates LLM performance. BooksMed outperforms existing state-of-the-art models Med-PaLM 2, Almanac, and ChatGPT in a variety of medical scenarios. Therefore, a framework that mimics human cognitive stages could be a useful tool for providing reliable and evidence-based responses to clinical inquiries.

Deep learning models for natural language processing (NLP) are increasingly adopted and deployed by analysts without formal training in NLP or machine learning (ML). However, the documentation intended to convey the model's details and appropriate use is tailored primarily to individuals with ML or NLP expertise. To address this gap, we conduct a design inquiry into interactive model cards, which augment traditionally static model cards with affordances for exploring model documentation and interacting with the models themselves. Our investigation consists of an initial conceptual study with experts in ML, NLP, and AI Ethics, followed by a separate evaluative study with non-expert analysts who use ML models in their work. Using a semi-structured interview format coupled with a think-aloud protocol, we collected feedback from a total of 30 participants who engaged with different versions of standard and interactive model cards. Through a thematic analysis of the collected data, we identified several conceptual dimensions that summarize the strengths and limitations of standard and interactive model cards, including: stakeholders; design; guidance; understandability & interpretability; sensemaking & skepticism; and trust & safety. Our findings demonstrate the importance of carefully considered design and interactivity for orienting and supporting non-expert analysts using deep learning models, along with a need for consideration of broader sociotechnical contexts and organizational dynamics. We have also identified design elements, such as language, visual cues, and warnings, among others, that support interactivity and make non-interactive content accessible. We summarize our findings as design guidelines and discuss their implications for a human-centered approach towards AI/ML documentation.

Helpful reviews have been essential for the success of e-commerce services, as they help customers make quick purchase decisions and benefit the merchants in their sales. While many reviews are informative, others provide little value and may contain spam, excessive appraisal, or unexpected biases. With the large volume of reviews and their uneven quality, the problem of detecting helpful reviews has drawn much attention lately. Existing methods for identifying helpful reviews primarily focus on review text and ignore the two key factors of (1) who post the reviews and (2) when the reviews are posted. Moreover, the helpfulness votes suffer from scarcity for less popular products and recently submitted (a.k.a., cold-start) reviews. To address these challenges, we introduce a dataset and develop a model that integrates the reviewer's expertise, derived from the past review history of the reviewers, and the temporal dynamics of the reviews to automatically assess review helpfulness. We conduct experiments on our dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating these factors and report improved results compared to several well-established baselines.

Literature research, vital for scientific work, faces the challenge of the surging torrent of information in the vast ocean of literature exceeding researchers' processing capabilities. To address this issue, we present an automated review generation method based on Large Language Models (LLMs), aimed at overcoming efficiency bottlenecks in literature processing and reducing cognitive load. Our statistically validated evaluation framework demonstrates that the generated reviews match or exceed manual quality, offering broad applicability across research fields due to minimal domain knowledge requirements. In a case study on propane dehydrogenation (PDH) catalysts, our method swiftly analyzed 343 articles, averaging seconds per article per LLM account, producing comprehensive reviews spanning 35 topics. Extended analysis of 1041 articles provided deep insights into catalysts' composition, structure, and performance. Recognizing LLMs' hallucinations, we implemented a multi-layered quality control strategy, effectively mitigating risks and ensuring reliability, as quantitatively demonstrated through manual verification. Expert verification confirms the accuracy and citation integrity of generated reviews, demonstrating LLM hallucination risks reduced to below 0.5\% with over 95\% confidence. Released Windows application enables one-click review generation, aiding researchers in tracking advancements and recommending literature. This approach showcases LLMs' role in enhancing scientific research productivity and sets the stage for further exploration.

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is debate, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48% and 60%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

Evaluation has traditionally focused on ranking candidates for a specific skill. Modern generalist models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), decidedly outpace this paradigm. Open-ended evaluation systems, where candidate models are compared on user-submitted prompts, have emerged as a popular solution. Despite their many advantages, we show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental, due to their sensitivity to redundancies. To address this issue, we propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy. We show that our method leads to intuitive ratings and provide insights into the competitive landscape of LLM development.

The unprecedented performance of large language models (LLMs) necessitates improvements in evaluations. Rather than merely exploring the breadth of LLM abilities, we believe meticulous and thoughtful designs are essential to thorough, unbiased, and applicable evaluations. Given the importance of world knowledge to LLMs, we construct a Knowledge-oriented LLM Assessment benchmark (KoLA), in which we carefully design three crucial factors: (1) For ability modeling, we mimic human cognition to form a four-level taxonomy of knowledge-related abilities, covering 19 tasks. (2) For data, to ensure fair comparisons, we use both Wikipedia, a corpus prevalently pre-trained by LLMs, along with continuously collected emerging corpora, aiming to evaluate the capacity to handle unseen data and evolving knowledge. (3) For evaluation criteria, we adopt a contrastive system, including overall standard scores for better numerical comparability across tasks and models and a unique self-contrast metric for automatically evaluating knowledge hallucination. We evaluate 21 open-source and commercial LLMs and obtain some intriguing findings. The KoLA dataset and open-participation leaderboard are publicly released at https://kola.xlore.cn and will be continuously updated to provide references for developing LLMs and knowledge-related systems.

Recently, the evaluation of Large Language Models has emerged as a popular area of research. The three crucial questions for LLM evaluation are ``what, where, and how to evaluate''. However, the existing research mainly focuses on the first two questions, which are basically what tasks to give the LLM during testing and what kind of knowledge it should deal with. As for the third question, which is about what standards to use, the types of evaluators, how to score, and how to rank, there hasn't been much discussion. In this paper, we analyze evaluation methods by comparing various criteria with both manual and automatic evaluation, utilizing onsite, crowd-sourcing, public annotators and GPT-4, with different scoring methods and ranking systems. We propose a new dataset, LLMEval and conduct evaluations on 20 LLMs. A total of 2,186 individuals participated, leading to the generation of 243,337 manual annotations and 57,511 automatic evaluation results. We perform comparisons and analyses of different settings and conduct 10 conclusions that can provide some insights for evaluating LLM in the future. The dataset and the results are publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval .

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Systematic literature review is essential for evidence-based medicine, requiring comprehensive analysis of clinical trial publications. However, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) models for medical literature mining has been limited by insufficient training and evaluation across broad therapeutic areas and diverse tasks. Here, we present LEADS, an AI foundation model for study search, screening, and data extraction from medical literature. The model is trained on 633,759 instruction data points in LEADSInstruct, curated from 21,335 systematic reviews, 453,625 clinical trial publications, and 27,015 clinical trial registries. We showed that LEADS demonstrates consistent improvements over four cutting-edge generic large language models (LLMs) on six tasks. Furthermore, LEADS enhances expert workflows by providing supportive references following expert requests, streamlining processes while maintaining high-quality results. A study with 16 clinicians and medical researchers from 14 different institutions revealed that experts collaborating with LEADS achieved a recall of 0.81 compared to 0.77 experts working alone in study selection, with a time savings of 22.6%. In data extraction tasks, experts using LEADS achieved an accuracy of 0.85 versus 0.80 without using LEADS, alongside a 26.9% time savings. These findings highlight the potential of specialized medical literature foundation models to outperform generic models, delivering significant quality and efficiency benefits when integrated into expert workflows for medical literature mining.

The automation of scientific discovery has been a long-standing goal within the research community, driven by the potential to accelerate knowledge creation. While significant progress has been made using commercial large language models (LLMs) as research assistants or idea generators, the possibility of automating the entire research process with open-source LLMs remains largely unexplored. This paper explores the feasibility of using open-source post-trained LLMs as autonomous agents capable of performing the full cycle of automated research and review, from literature review and manuscript preparation to peer review and paper revision. Our iterative preference training framework consists of CycleResearcher, which conducts research tasks, and CycleReviewer, which simulates the peer review process, providing iterative feedback via reinforcement learning. To train these models, we develop two new datasets, Review-5k and Research-14k, reflecting real-world machine learning research and peer review dynamics. Our results demonstrate that CycleReviewer achieves a 26.89\% improvement in mean absolute error (MAE) over individual human reviewers in predicting paper scores, indicating that LLMs can surpass expert-level performance in research evaluation. In research, the papers generated by the CycleResearcher model achieved a score of 5.36 in simulated peer reviews, surpassing the preprint level of 5.24 from human experts and approaching the accepted paper level of 5.69. This work represents a significant step toward fully automated scientific inquiry, providing ethical safeguards and advancing AI-driven research capabilities. The code, dataset and model weight are released at http://github/minjun-zhu/Researcher.

Evaluation efforts such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR and FIRE, alongside public leaderboard such as MS MARCO, are intended to encourage research and track our progress, addressing big questions in our field. However, the goal is not simply to identify which run is "best", achieving the top score. The goal is to move the field forward by developing new robust techniques, that work in many different settings, and are adopted in research and practice. This paper uses the MS MARCO and TREC Deep Learning Track as our case study, comparing it to the case of TREC ad hoc ranking in the 1990s. We show how the design of the evaluation effort can encourage or discourage certain outcomes, and raising questions about internal and external validity of results. We provide some analysis of certain pitfalls, and a statement of best practices for avoiding such pitfalls. We summarize the progress of the effort so far, and describe our desired end state of "robust usefulness", along with steps that might be required to get us there.

We present Welzijn.AI as new digital solution for monitoring (mental) well-being in elderly populations, and illustrate how development of systems like Welzijn.AI can align with guidelines on responsible AI development. Three evaluations with different stakeholders were designed to disclose new perspectives on the strengths, weaknesses, design characteristics, and value requirements of Welzijn.AI. Evaluations concerned expert panels and involved patient federations, general practitioners, researchers, and the elderly themselves. Panels concerned interviews, a co-creation session, and feedback on a proof-of-concept implementation. Interview results were summarized in terms of Welzijn.AI's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The co-creation session ranked a variety of value requirements of Welzijn.AI with the Hundred Dollar Method. User evaluation comprised analysing proportions of (dis)agreement on statements targeting Welzijn.AI's design characteristics, and ranking desired social characteristics. Experts in the panel interviews acknowledged Welzijn.AI's potential to combat loneliness and extract patterns from elderly behaviour. The proof-of-concept evaluation complemented the design characteristics most appealing to the elderly to potentially achieve this: empathetic and varying interactions. Stakeholders also link the technology to the implementation context: it could help activate an individual's social network, but support should also be available to empower users. Yet, non-elderly and elderly experts also disclose challenges in properly understanding the application; non-elderly experts also highlight issues concerning privacy. In sum, incorporating all stakeholder perspectives in system development remains challenging. Still, our results benefit researchers, policy makers, and health professionals that aim to improve elderly care with technology.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in autonomous information retrieval and report generation, showing great potential to assist humans in complex research tasks. Current evaluation frameworks primarily rely on LLM-generated references or LLM-derived evaluation dimensions. While these approaches offer scalability, they often lack the reliability of expert-verified content and struggle to provide objective, fine-grained assessments of critical dimensions. To bridge this gap, we introduce Wiki Live Challenge (WLC), a live benchmark that leverages the newest Wikipedia Good Articles (GAs) as expert-level references. Wikipedia's strict standards for neutrality, comprehensiveness, and verifiability serve as a great challenge for DRAs, with GAs representing the pinnacle of which. We curate a dataset of 100 recent Good Articles and propose Wiki Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising a fine-grained evaluation method with 39 criteria for writing quality and rigorous metrics for factual verifiability. Extensive experiments on various DRA systems demonstrate a significant gap between current DRAs and human expert-level Wikipedia articles, validating the effectiveness of WLC in advancing agent research. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/WangShao2000/Wiki_Live_Challenge

ExpertRAG is a novel theoretical framework that integrates Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures with Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) to advance the efficiency and accuracy of knowledge-intensive language modeling. We propose a dynamic retrieval gating mechanism coupled with expert routing, enabling the model to selectively consult an external knowledge store or rely on specialized internal experts based on the query's needs. The paper lays out the theoretical foundations of ExpertRAG, including a probabilistic formulation that treats retrieval and expert selection as latent decisions, and mathematical justifications for its efficiency in both computation and knowledge utilization. We derive formulae to quantify the expected computational cost savings from selective retrieval and the capacity gains from sparse expert utilization. A comparative analysis positions ExpertRAG against standard RAG (with always-on retrieval) and pure MoE models (e.g., Switch Transformer, Mixtral) to highlight its unique balance between parametric knowledge and non-parametric retrieval. We also outline an experimental validation strategy, proposing benchmarks and evaluation protocols to test ExpertRAG's performance on factual recall, generalization, and inference efficiency. The proposed framework, although presented theoretically, is supported by insights from prior work in RAG and MoE, and is poised to provide more factual, efficient, and adaptive generation by leveraging the best of both paradigms. In summary, ExpertRAG contributes a new perspective on scaling and augmenting language models, backed by a thorough analysis and a roadmap for empirical validation.

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing is the de facto tool for assessing effectiveness differences between Information Retrieval systems. Researchers use statistical tests to check whether those differences will generalise to online settings or are just due to the samples observed in the laboratory. Much work has been devoted to studying which test is the most reliable when comparing a pair of systems, but most of the IR real-world experiments involve more than two. In the multiple comparisons scenario, testing several systems simultaneously may inflate the errors committed by the tests. In this paper, we use a new approach to assess the reliability of multiple comparison procedures using simulated and real TREC data. Experiments show that Wilcoxon plus the Benjamini-Hochberg correction yields Type I error rates according to the significance level for typical sample sizes while being the best test in terms of statistical power.

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.

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Expert persona prompting -- assigning roles such as expert in math to language models -- is widely used for task improvement. However, prior work shows mixed results on its effectiveness, and does not consider when and why personas should improve performance. We analyze the literature on persona prompting for task improvement and distill three desiderata: 1) performance advantage of expert personas, 2) robustness to irrelevant persona attributes, and 3) fidelity to persona attributes. We then evaluate 9 state-of-the-art LLMs across 27 tasks with respect to these desiderata. We find that expert personas usually lead to positive or non-significant performance changes. Surprisingly, models are highly sensitive to irrelevant persona details, with performance drops of almost 30 percentage points. In terms of fidelity, we find that while higher education, specialization, and domain-relatedness can boost performance, their effects are often inconsistent or negligible across tasks. We propose mitigation strategies to improve robustness -- but find they only work for the largest, most capable models. Our findings underscore the need for more careful persona design and for evaluation schemes that reflect the intended effects of persona usage.

We test the robustness of debate as a method of scalable oversight by training models to debate with data generated via self-play. In a long-context reading comprehension task, we find that language model based evaluators answer questions more accurately when judging models optimized to win debates. By contrast, we find no such relationship for consultancy models trained to persuade a judge without an opposing debater present. In quantitative and qualitative comparisons between our debate models and novel consultancy baselines, we find evidence that debate training encourages stronger and more informative arguments, showing promise that it can help provide high-quality supervision for tasks that are difficult to directly evaluate.

Prior benchmarks for evaluating the domain-specific knowledge of large language models (LLMs) lack the scalability to handle complex academic tasks. To address this, we introduce ScholarBench, a benchmark centered on deep expert knowledge and complex academic problem-solving, which evaluates the academic reasoning ability of LLMs and is constructed through a three-step process. ScholarBench targets more specialized and logically complex contexts derived from academic literature, encompassing five distinct problem types. Unlike prior benchmarks, ScholarBench evaluates the abstraction, comprehension, and reasoning capabilities of LLMs across eight distinct research domains. To ensure high-quality evaluation data, we define category-specific example attributes and design questions that are aligned with the characteristic research methodologies and discourse structures of each domain. Additionally, this benchmark operates as an English-Korean bilingual dataset, facilitating simultaneous evaluation for linguistic capabilities of LLMs in both languages. The benchmark comprises 5,031 examples in Korean and 5,309 in English, with even state-of-the-art models like o3-mini achieving an average evaluation score of only 0.543, demonstrating the challenging nature of this benchmark.

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.

The emergence of deep research systems presents significant capabilities in problem-solving, extending from basic queries to sophisticated research tasks. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate these systems as agents for web retrieval and report generation, overlooking their potential to discover novel insights on the frontiers of scientific research. To address this gap, we introduce ResearcherBench, the first benchmark focused on evaluating the capabilities of these advanced, agentic systems - which we refer to as Deep AI Research Systems (DARS) - on frontier AI scientific questions. We compiled a dataset of 65 research questions expertly selected from real-world scientific scenarios such as laboratory discussions and interviews, spanning 35 different AI subjects and categorized into three types: technical details, literature review, and open consulting. Our dual evaluation framework combines rubric assessment, which uses expert-designed criteria to evaluate insight quality, with factual assessment, which measures citation accuracy (faithfulness) and coverage (groundedness). We evaluated several leading commercial DARS and baseline systems. Results show that OpenAI Deep Research and Gemini Deep Research significantly outperform other systems, with particular strength in open-ended consulting questions. Such capabilities represent a meaningful step toward AI self-improvement, aligning with the vision of ASI for AI. We open-source ResearcherBench to provide a standardized platform for promoting the development of next-generation AI research assistants, hoping to foster a new perspective in AI research evaluation for a novel pattern of scientific collaboration: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/ResearcherBench.

Despite rapid AI adoption in education, rigorous evaluation of AI-powered educational (AIED) systems remains critically underdeveloped, particularly in second language (L2) education, one of the most common yet least evaluated AI applications. We introduce L2-Bench, an open-source benchmark of 1,000+ task-response pairs to aid the pedagogy-led evaluation of LLM capabilities relating to language learning and assessment. Crucially, L2-Bench measures model performativity on the application of learning experience design principles rather than mere knowledge of those principles or broad learning outcomes. Our contributions include: (1) a validated taxonomy of 12 competencies and 31 subcompetencies validated by 200+ expert practitioners (task authenticity: 4.42/5.00, criteria adequacy: 4.18/5.00); (2) a rubric-based evaluation methodology that we believe can, if adapted, generalize to similar (open-ended, qualitative) disciplines; (3) an evaluation dataset that produces reliable signal about model strengths, weaknesses, and contextual robustness across diverse L2 education scenarios. We find that, among large models, Claude Opus 4.7 performs best overall (85.5%), though is marginally outperformed on several constituent tasks. We also find that performance drops notably on harder tasks (69.9% to 73.4%). L2-Bench provides education stakeholders better methods to make more informed decisions about real-world AIED adoption, use, and governance, while advancing the maturing science of AI evaluations for education.

Numerous studies have assessed the proficiency of AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), in facilitating everyday tasks such as email writing, question answering, and creative content generation. However, researchers face unique challenges and opportunities in leveraging LLMs for their own work, such as brainstorming research ideas, designing experiments, and writing or reviewing papers. In this study, we introduce AAAR-1.0, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate LLM performance in three fundamental, expertise-intensive research tasks: (i) EquationInference, assessing the correctness of equations based on the contextual information in paper submissions; (ii) ExperimentDesign, designing experiments to validate research ideas and solutions; (iii) PaperWeakness, identifying weaknesses in paper submissions; and (iv) REVIEWCRITIQUE, identifying each segment in human reviews is deficient or not. AAAR-1.0 differs from prior benchmarks in two key ways: first, it is explicitly research-oriented, with tasks requiring deep domain expertise; second, it is researcher-oriented, mirroring the primary activities that researchers engage in on a daily basis. An evaluation of both open-source and proprietary LLMs reveals their potential as well as limitations in conducting sophisticated research tasks. We will keep iterating AAAR-1.0 to new versions.

Evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in following instructions has heavily relied on a powerful LLM as the judge, introducing unresolved biases that deviate the judgments from human judges. In this work, we reevaluate various choices for automatic evaluation on a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We experiment with methods that leverage human-written responses and observe that they enhance the reliability of automatic evaluations across a wide range of tasks, resulting in up to a 3.2% improvement in agreement with human judges. We also discovered that human-written responses offer an orthogonal perspective to model-generated responses in following instructions and should be used as an additional context when comparing model responses. Based on these observations, we develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF), comprising 4,258 samples across 11 task categories with a composite evaluation setup, employing a composite evaluation setup that selects the most reliable method for each category. In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. Finally, we study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template. We host a live leaderboard that evaluates LLMs on the private evaluation set of HREF.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models offer inference speedups via selective activation but impose substantial memory requirements because the whole network must remain loaded. Structured expert pruning is a practical approach for reducing deployment costs in resource-constrained settings. However, prior studies primarily evaluate benchmark utility, leaving the effect of pruning on factual reliability underexplored, particularly in high-stakes domains such as biomedicine. In this paper, we investigate how domain-specific expert pruning affects both utility and reliability. We assess four MoE models, six pruning methods, and multiple pruning ratios across generation and classification tasks under in-domain (biomedical) and cross-domain settings. Results reveal that moderate pruning preserves in-domain utility without immediate reliability decline, although hallucination risks increase at extreme pruning ratios. When shifting to the general domain, both utility and reliability degrade rapidly. These findings indicate that safe compression depends heavily on the task and domain. Evaluating pruned MoE models solely on utility is inadequate for high-stakes deployment without reliability assessment.

Despite recent advances in text-to-3D generative methods, there is a notable absence of reliable evaluation metrics. Existing metrics usually focus on a single criterion each, such as how well the asset aligned with the input text. These metrics lack the flexibility to generalize to different evaluation criteria and might not align well with human preferences. Conducting user preference studies is an alternative that offers both adaptability and human-aligned results. User studies, however, can be very expensive to scale. This paper presents an automatic, versatile, and human-aligned evaluation metric for text-to-3D generative models. To this end, we first develop a prompt generator using GPT-4V to generate evaluating prompts, which serve as input to compare text-to-3D models. We further design a method instructing GPT-4V to compare two 3D assets according to user-defined criteria. Finally, we use these pairwise comparison results to assign these models Elo ratings. Experimental results suggest our metric strongly align with human preference across different evaluation criteria.

This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals that arise from corpus construction, case distribution, and confounding factors. To mitigate this, we use domain expertise to strategically identify statistically predictive but legally irrelevant information. We adopt adversarial training to prevent the system from relying on it. We evaluate our deconfounded models by employing interpretability techniques and comparing to expert annotations. Quantitative experiments and qualitative analysis show that our deconfounded model consistently aligns better with expert rationales than baselines trained for prediction only. We further contribute a set of reference expert annotations to the validation and testing partitions of an existing benchmark dataset of European Court of Human Rights cases.

Large language models have made research ideation increasingly accessible, yet effective idea development requires more than generating candidate directions. Researchers must ground a problem in current literature, identify meaningful bottlenecks, differentiate from existing solutions, and evaluate risks before committing to implementation. We present ResearchStudio-Idea as a reusable skill suite for this first mile of research ideation. The suite includes Paper-Search, a standalone multi-source literature search skill; Scoop-Check, a standalone prior-art collision checker for novelty claims; and IdeaSpark, the end-to-end skill that composes evidence grounding, pattern-guided generation, collision retrieval, audit, and idea-card rendering into one workflow. IdeaSpark is constructed from a corpus of 1,947 machine learning conference papers collected from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS between 2021 and 2025, including Oral papers, a separately tracked high-citation subset, and rejected submissions. Analysis of these outcomes reveals 31 recurring ideation sub-patterns, consolidated into 15 reusable ideation patterns. Each pattern is operationalized as a structured card containing research contexts, bottleneck types, differentiation strategies, supporting precedents, and common failure modes. Given a research problem and an evidence bundle, IdeaSpark evaluates evidence readiness, reconstructs the surrounding research context, identifies unresolved bottlenecks, selects relevant patterns, instantiates one candidate direction, retrieves potentially conflicting prior work, and performs outcome-informed auditing. This workflow transforms reusable ideation patterns into traceable research proposals. Blind automated-judge evaluations show that IdeaSpark consistently produces stronger research proposals than no-skill and generic-skill baselines while maintaining competitive novelty.

We present Multi-expert Prompting, a novel enhancement of ExpertPrompting (Xu et al., 2023), designed to improve the large language model (LLM) generation. Specifically, it guides an LLM to fulfill an input instruction by simulating multiple experts, aggregating their responses, and selecting the best among individual and aggregated responses. This process is performed in a single chain of thoughts through our seven carefully designed subtasks derived from the Nominal Group Technique (Ven and Delbecq, 1974), a well-established decision-making framework. Our evaluations demonstrate that Multi-expert Prompting significantly outperforms ExpertPrompting and comparable baselines in enhancing the truthfulness, factuality, informativeness, and usefulness of responses while reducing toxicity and hurtfulness. It further achieves state-of-the-art truthfulness by outperforming the best baseline by 8.69% with ChatGPT. Multi-expert Prompting is efficient, explainable, and highly adaptable to diverse scenarios, eliminating the need for manual prompt construction.

High-quality expert chain-of-thought (CoT) data is one of the core bottlenecks in large language model (LLM) post-training. Existing data production methods each have structural limitations: crowdsourced annotation lacks deep reasoning paths; expert solo writing is constrained by the "expert blind spot" -- experts structurally skip reasoning steps they consider obvious; RLHF only produces preference signals rather than reasoning chains. This paper proposes the BC Protocol -- a structured dual-expert elicitation method for LLM post-training data production. The method carefully pairs a domain expert (crystallized intelligence) with a knowledge engineer (fluid intelligence), systematically externalizing the expert's implicit judgments as natural language reasoning chains. We introduce the Participant Aptitude Model, which defines six participant characteristic dimensions that affect elicitation quality. "Calibrated Ignorance" is an original concept proposed in this paper. We further propose "Selection-over-Prescription" as a methodological principle: for implicit knowledge elicitation tasks, investing quality-control resources in personnel selection yields a higher return than investing the same resources in process design. In a controlled experiment in the narrative fiction domain, we directly compared CoT produced by BC Protocol dual dialogue (Group A, (n=20)) against CoT written independently by the same domain expert (Group B, (n=20)). Three cross-vendor judge models -- GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro -- conducted blind evaluation across five dimensions (600 ratings total). Results show that the BC Protocol achieves an overwhelming advantage in "naturalness of reasoning process" (Group A mean 4.80 vs. Group B mean 1.30, (p=2.4\times10^{-8}), Cliff's (δ=1.0)).

In this position paper, we argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking that draws upon insights from disciplines such as user experience research and human behavioral psychology to ensure that the experimental design and results are reliable. The conclusions from these evaluations, thus, must consider factors such as usability, aesthetics, and cognitive biases. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. Furthermore, the evaluation should differentiate the capabilities and weaknesses of increasingly powerful large language models -- which requires effective test sets. The scalability of human evaluation is also crucial to wider adoption. Hence, to design an effective human evaluation system in the age of generative NLP, we propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.

Psychological defenses are strategies, often automatic, that people use to manage distress. Rigid or overuse of defenses is negatively linked to mental health and shapes what speakers disclose and how they accept or resist help. However, defenses are complex and difficult to reliably measure, particularly in clinical dialogues. We introduce PsyDefConv, a dialogue corpus with help seeker utterances labeled for defense level, and DMRS Co-Pilot, a four-stage pipeline that provides evidence-based pre-annotations. The corpus contains 200 dialogues and 4709 utterances, including 2336 help seeker turns, with labeling and Cohen's kappa 0.639. In a counterbalanced study, the co-pilot reduced average annotation time by 22.4%. In expert review, it averaged 4.62 for evidence, 4.44 for clinical plausibility, and 4.40 for insight on a seven-point scale. Benchmarks with strong language models in zero-shot and fine-tuning settings demonstrate clear headroom, with the best macro F1-score around 30% and a tendency to overpredict mature defenses. Corpus analyses confirm that mature defenses are most common and reveal emotion-specific deviations. We will release the corpus, annotations, code, and prompts to support research on defensive functioning in language.

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

Stylistic personalization - making LLMs write in a specific individual's style, rather than merely adapting to task preferences - lacks evaluation grounded in authorship science. We show that grounding evaluation in authorship verification theory transforms what benchmarks can measure. Drawing on three measurement traditions - LUAR, a trained authorship verification model; an LLM-as-judge with decoupled trait matching; and classical function-word stylometrics - we evaluate four inference-time personalization methods across 50 authors and 1,000 generations. The theory-grounded metric, LUAR, provides what ad hoc alternatives cannot: calibrated baselines, with a human ceiling of 0.756 and a cross-author floor of 0.626, that give scores absolute meaning. All methods score below this floor, from 0.484 to 0.508, exposing an authorship gap invisible to uncalibrated metrics. The three metrics produce near-zero pairwise correlations, with absolute r less than 0.07, confirming that without theoretical grounding, metric choice determines conclusions: an LLM judge declares a clear winner while LUAR finds no meaningful differentiation. These findings demonstrate the theory-benchmark cycle in action: authorship theory exposes evaluation failures that ad hoc benchmarks miss.

Can humans tell whether a news article was written by a person or a large language model (LLM)? We investigate this question using JudgeGPT, a study platform that independently measures source attribution (human vs. machine) and authenticity judgment (legitimate vs. fake) on continuous scales. From 2,318 judgments collected from 1,054 participants across content generated by six LLMs, we report five findings: (1) participants cannot reliably distinguish machine-generated from human-written text (p > .05, Welch's t-test); (2) this inability holds across all tested models, including open-weight models with as few as 7B parameters; (3) self-reported domain expertise predicts judgment accuracy (r = .35, p < .001) whereas political orientation does not (r = -.10, n.s.); (4) clustering reveals distinct response strategies ("Skeptics" vs. "Believers"); and (5) accuracy degrades after approximately 30 sequential evaluations due to cognitive fatigue. The answer, in short, is no: humans cannot reliably tell. These results indicate that user-side detection is not a viable defense and motivate system-level countermeasures such as cryptographic content provenance.

Scientific progress depends on researchers' ability to synthesize the growing body of literature. Can large language models (LMs) assist scientists in this task? We introduce OpenScholar, a specialized retrieval-augmented LM that answers scientific queries by identifying relevant passages from 45 million open-access papers and synthesizing citation-backed responses. To evaluate OpenScholar, we develop ScholarQABench, the first large-scale multi-domain benchmark for literature search, comprising 2,967 expert-written queries and 208 long-form answers across computer science, physics, neuroscience, and biomedicine. On ScholarQABench, OpenScholar-8B outperforms GPT-4o by 5% and PaperQA2 by 7% in correctness, despite being a smaller, open model. While GPT4o hallucinates citations 78 to 90% of the time, OpenScholar achieves citation accuracy on par with human experts. OpenScholar's datastore, retriever, and self-feedback inference loop also improves off-the-shelf LMs: for instance, OpenScholar-GPT4o improves GPT-4o's correctness by 12%. In human evaluations, experts preferred OpenScholar-8B and OpenScholar-GPT4o responses over expert-written ones 51% and 70% of the time, respectively, compared to GPT4o's 32%. We open-source all of our code, models, datastore, data and a public demo.

Human evaluation is the gold-standard for evaluating text generation models. It is also expensive, and to fit budgetary constraints, a random subset of the test data is often chosen in practice. The randomly selected data may not accurately represent test performance, making this approach economically inefficient for model comparison. Thus, in this work, we develop a suite of selectors to get the most informative datapoints for human evaluation while taking the evaluation costs into account. We show that selectors based on variance in automated metric scores, diversity in model outputs, or Item Response Theory outperform random selection. We further develop an approach to distill these selectors to the scenario where the model outputs are not yet available. In particular, we introduce source-based estimators, which predict item usefulness for human evaluation just based on the source texts. We demonstrate the efficacy of our selectors in two common NLG tasks, machine translation and summarization, and show that up to only ~50% of the test data is needed to produce the same evaluation result as the entire data. Our implementations are published in the subset2evaluate package.

Although much research has focused on AI explanations to support decisions in complex information-seeking tasks such as fact-checking, the role of evidence is surprisingly under-researched. In our study, we systematically varied explanation type, AI prediction certainty, and correctness of AI system advice for non-expert participants, who evaluated the veracity of claims and AI system predictions. Participants were provided the option of easily inspecting the underlying evidence. We found that participants consistently relied on evidence to validate AI claims across all experimental conditions. When participants were presented with natural language explanations, evidence was used less frequently although they relied on it when these explanations seemed insufficient or flawed. Qualitative data suggests that participants attempted to infer evidence source reliability, despite source identities being deliberately omitted. Our results demonstrate that evidence is a key ingredient in how people evaluate the reliability of information presented by an AI system and, in combination with natural language explanations, offers valuable support for decision-making. Further research is urgently needed to understand how evidence ought to be presented and how people engage with it in practice.

Recent advancements have positioned AI, and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), as transformative tools for scientific research, capable of addressing complex tasks that require reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Their exceptional capabilities suggest their potential as scientific research assistants but also highlight the need for holistic, rigorous, and domain-specific evaluation to assess effectiveness in real-world scientific applications. This paper describes a multifaceted methodology for Evaluating AI models as scientific Research Assistants (EAIRA) developed at Argonne National Laboratory. This methodology incorporates four primary classes of evaluations. 1) Multiple Choice Questions to assess factual recall; 2) Open Response to evaluate advanced reasoning and problem-solving skills; 3) Lab-Style Experiments involving detailed analysis of capabilities as research assistants in controlled environments; and 4) Field-Style Experiments to capture researcher-LLM interactions at scale in a wide range of scientific domains and applications. These complementary methods enable a comprehensive analysis of LLM strengths and weaknesses with respect to their scientific knowledge, reasoning abilities, and adaptability. Recognizing the rapid pace of LLM advancements, we designed the methodology to evolve and adapt so as to ensure its continued relevance and applicability. This paper describes the methodology state at the end of February 2025. Although developed within a subset of scientific domains, the methodology is designed to be generalizable to a wide range of scientific domains.

Literature review requires researchers to synthesize a large amount of information and is increasingly challenging as the scientific literature expands. In this work, we investigate the potential of LLMs for producing hierarchical organizations of scientific studies to assist researchers with literature review. We define hierarchical organizations as tree structures where nodes refer to topical categories and every node is linked to the studies assigned to that category. Our naive LLM-based pipeline for hierarchy generation from a set of studies produces promising yet imperfect hierarchies, motivating us to collect CHIME, an expert-curated dataset for this task focused on biomedicine. Given the challenging and time-consuming nature of building hierarchies from scratch, we use a human-in-the-loop process in which experts correct errors (both links between categories and study assignment) in LLM-generated hierarchies. CHIME contains 2,174 LLM-generated hierarchies covering 472 topics, and expert-corrected hierarchies for a subset of 100 topics. Expert corrections allow us to quantify LLM performance, and we find that while they are quite good at generating and organizing categories, their assignment of studies to categories could be improved. We attempt to train a corrector model with human feedback which improves study assignment by 12.6 F1 points. We release our dataset and models to encourage research on developing better assistive tools for literature review.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

As LLM benchmarks saturate, the evaluation community has pursued two strategies to increase difficulty: escalating knowledge demands (GPQA, HLE) or removing knowledge entirely in favor of abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI). The first conflates memorization with capability; the second divorces reasoning from the practical contexts in which it matters. We take a different approach. The Grounded Integration Measure (GIM) is a benchmark of 820 original problems (615 public, 205 private) where difficulty comes from integration; individual problems require coordinating multiple cognitive operations (constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, audience calibration) over broadly accessible knowledge, so that reasoning stays grounded in realistic tasks without being gated on specialized expertise. Each problem is an original expert-authored composition, majority with rubric-decomposed scoring (median 6 independently judged criteria). A balanced public--private split provides built-in contamination diagnostic. We calibrate a continuous response 2-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model over >200k prompt-response pairs across 28 models, producing robust ability estimates that correctly order test-configurations even when raw accuracy is distorted by errors or missing data, addressing a common challenge in benchmark reporting. Using this framework, we present a comprehensive leaderboard spanning 22 models and 47 test-configurations (unique model, thinking-level pairs), and conduct what is to our knowledge the most extensive published study of how test-time compute trades off against model capability on a fixed benchmark: 11 models swept across 35 test-configurations. We observe that within-family configuration choices, such as thinking budget and quantization, matter as much as model selection. We release the evaluation framework, calibrated IRT parameters, and all public problems.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to a medical-domain benchmark, validating JADE across professional domains. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

Peer review is a cornerstone of quality control in scientific publishing. With the increasing workload, the unintended use of `quick' heuristics, referred to as lazy thinking, has emerged as a recurring issue compromising review quality. Automated methods to detect such heuristics can help improve the peer-reviewing process. However, there is limited NLP research on this issue, and no real-world dataset exists to support the development of detection tools. This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories. Our analysis reveals that Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting. However, instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points, highlighting the importance of high-quality training data. Furthermore, a controlled experiment demonstrates that reviews revised with lazy thinking feedback are more comprehensive and actionable than those written without such feedback. We will release our dataset and the enhanced guidelines that can be used to train junior reviewers in the community. (Code available here: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2025-lazy-review)

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Political scientists are rapidly adopting large language models (LLMs) for text annotation, yet the sensitivity of annotation results to implementation choices remains poorly understood. Most evaluations test a single model or configuration; how model choice, model size, learning approach, and prompt style interact, and whether popular "best practices" survive controlled comparison, are largely unexplored. We present a controlled evaluation of these pipeline choices, testing six open-weight models across four political science annotation tasks under identical quantisation, hardware, and prompt-template conditions. Our central finding is methodological: interaction effects dominate main effects, so seemingly reasonable pipeline choices can become consequential researcher degrees of freedom. No single model, prompt style, or learning approach is uniformly superior, and the best-performing model varies across tasks. Two corollaries follow. First, model size is an unreliable guide both to cost and to performance: cross-family efficiency differences are so large that some larger models are less resource-intensive than much smaller alternatives, while within model families mid-range variants often match or exceed larger counterparts. Second, widely recommended prompt engineering techniques yield inconsistent and sometimes negative effects on annotation performance. We use these benchmark results to develop a validation-first framework - with a principled ordering of pipeline decisions, guidance on prompt freezing and held-out evaluation, reporting standards, and open-source tools - to help researchers navigate this decision space transparently.