Daily Papers

Proactive agents must decide whether, when, and how far to assist without an explicit request. Existing evaluations often rely on automated scores or binary verdicts, offering limited human diagnosis of evidence use and intervention quality. To address these gaps, we introduce HALO, Human-Grounded GrAnular EvaLuation of PrOactive Agents. HALO-Arena covers 4 proactive need types, Dependency, Blockage, Risk, and Opportunity, across 10 everyday domains and 50 personal environments. Scenarios require agents to retrieve evidence from structured databases or unstructured documents before judging whether assistance is warranted and choosing its scope. On HALO-Arena, we construct HALO-8K, a dataset of 8,000 responses from 10 models across 400 scenarios, annotated by 20 experts for action level, acceptability verdicts, and human diagnosis. For rejected responses, human diagnosis covers timing, intensity, and other issues. Recorded reasoning tokens and retrieval rounds measure the effort behind these responses. The best proprietary and open-source models achieve 72.88% and 56.63% acceptability, respectively. Our central finding is that over-proactivity is the dominant observed failure mode, with Premature timing or Excessive intensity accounting for 61.20% of rejected responses. Further analyses yield complementary findings on the balance between intervention and restraint, evidence acquisition, and the calibration of timing and intensity.

Augmenting worker capabilities in the physical world through guidance has been a decades-long goal for AI agents. One key supporting capability is to understand what the worker is doing, seeing through the human's camera or smart glasses, and assist them in documentation. Despite advances in vision language models, their capabilities in these settings remain uncertain and are challenging to benchmark because most physical work data is proprietary, and involves too much variability to study in a principled manner. Unlike structured settings such as kitchens and warehouses that have predictable lighting, geometry, and objects, field-facing tasks such as rooftop solar installation and vehicle repair are unconstrained and high variance. Here, we model real-world physical work in Blender across eleven environments, incorporating variants in both image acceptability and documentation. The acceptability task asks whether a particular view would be suitable proof-of-work and documentation asks whether an agent can understand the task-relevant state of the environment from that view. Across 26 vision-language models, we find that top models largely solve documentation when the answer is text in frame, but are weak at reading measurements and at judging small parts and spatial relations, such as whether a tape measure leans. Acceptability is harder to pin down because human raters disagree with each other. Measured against a scorer that agrees with the raters' majority about as often as a single rater does, the best models cannot be distinguished from a single non-author rater, at a cost within the range of a human pass. In the three environments where we can trace acceptability errors, most wrong rejections come from misreading the scene rather than the requirement. On the three documentation questions for which we have real images, model rankings on rendered frames transfer to real images.

The use of LLMs as automated judges ("LLM-as-a-judge") is now widespread, yet standard judges suffer from a multitude of reliability issues. To address these challenges, we introduce Verdict, an open-source library for scaling judge-time compute to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of automated evaluators. Verdict leverages the composition of modular reasoning units (such as verification, debate, and aggregation) and increased inference-time compute to improve LLM judge quality. Across a variety of challenging tasks such as content moderation, fact-checking, and hallucination detection, Verdict judges achieves performance competitive with orders-of-magnitude larger fine-tuned judges, prompted judges, and reasoning models. Our framework establishes a foundation for scalable, interpretable, and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for both researchers and practitioners.

Large language models are increasingly capable of generating fluent-appearing text with relatively little task-specific supervision. But can these models accurately explain classification decisions? We consider the task of generating free-text explanations using human-written examples in a few-shot manner. We find that (1) authoring higher quality prompts results in higher quality generations; and (2) surprisingly, in a head-to-head comparison, crowdworkers often prefer explanations generated by GPT-3 to crowdsourced explanations in existing datasets. Our human studies also show, however, that while models often produce factual, grammatical, and sufficient explanations, they have room to improve along axes such as providing novel information and supporting the label. We create a pipeline that combines GPT-3 with a supervised filter that incorporates binary acceptability judgments from humans in the loop. Despite the intrinsic subjectivity of acceptability judgments, we demonstrate that acceptability is partially correlated with various fine-grained attributes of explanations. Our approach is able to consistently filter GPT-3-generated explanations deemed acceptable by humans.

We present an enhanced benchmark for evaluating linguistic acceptability in Danish. We first analyze the most common errors found in written Danish. Based on this analysis, we introduce a set of fourteen corruption functions that generate incorrect sentences by systematically introducing errors into existing correct Danish sentences. To ensure the accuracy of these corruptions, we assess their validity using both manual and automatic methods. The results are then used as a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models on a linguistic acceptability judgement task. Our findings demonstrate that this extension is both broader and more comprehensive than the current state of the art. By incorporating a greater variety of corruption types, our benchmark provides a more rigorous assessment of linguistic acceptability, increasing task difficulty, as evidenced by the lower performance of LLMs on our benchmark compared to existing ones. Our results also suggest that our benchmark has a higher discriminatory power which allows to better distinguish well-performing models from low-performing ones.

Large language model (LLM) judges are often used as rewards to train policies on objectives that deterministic verifiers cannot capture. However, these rewards are often collapsed to pass/fail ({0, 1}), which reports the verdict but not how well a response met each criterion. We model each pass/fail verdict as a score on an unreported scale, compared with one cutoff. A stretch of that scale moves every score proportionally toward or away from the cutoff, but never across it, so no verdict changes. A policy is therefore free to apply any stretch without changing anything the panel reports. Under a joint-Gaussian model, a third grade adds a second threshold and removes this affine stretch ambiguity. On MATH and SciBench outputs from one seven-criterion judge, all 14 constructed criterionwise stretches were invisible after binarization but visible with three grades. At n=1{,}024, a test given both population laws had at least 96.5% power at a 1.5times stress. Retaining grades closes one blind spot created by binarization, but verdicts alone remain insufficient as some changes are still indistinguishable from genuine improvement. These include arbitrary within-grade changes and fixed-covariance, loading-aligned mean shifts -- the signature of a sycophancy-shaped lift the panel reads as competence. The shared-factor reference approximation fit MATH and SciBench but not HealthBench, delineating its empirical scope. We recommend keeping at least three grades (for example, asking the judge whether each criterion is fully, partially, or not met and rewarding {0, 0.5, 1}), and externally validating gains along the remaining direction, which no finer scale removes.

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.

Linguistic acceptability (LA) attracts the attention of the research community due to its many uses, such as testing the grammatical knowledge of language models and filtering implausible texts with acceptability classifiers. However, the application scope of LA in languages other than English is limited due to the lack of high-quality resources. To this end, we introduce the Russian Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (RuCoLA), built from the ground up under the well-established binary LA approach. RuCoLA consists of 9.8k in-domain sentences from linguistic publications and 3.6k out-of-domain sentences produced by generative models. The out-of-domain set is created to facilitate the practical use of acceptability for improving language generation. Our paper describes the data collection protocol and presents a fine-grained analysis of acceptability classification experiments with a range of baseline approaches. In particular, we demonstrate that the most widely used language models still fall behind humans by a large margin, especially when detecting morphological and semantic errors. We release RuCoLA, the code of experiments, and a public leaderboard (rucola-benchmark.com) to assess the linguistic competence of language models for Russian.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal question remains challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.

Large language models increasingly justify legal decisions by naming the statute or precedent behind a verdict, treated as evidence that the decision follows from it. We test this directly: holding case facts fixed, we substitute the named legal authority for an unrelated one and decode a model's evolving verdict from its hidden states. Across seven open-weight models (8B-70B) and four benchmarks spanning judicial and contractual reasoning, when explicitly required to justify a verdict by naming the governing authority, models name the correct one in 66.7%-100% of generations, while the verdict changing when the authority changes is far less consistent: 0.0%-21.7% on CaseHOLD, 30.0%-76.7% on ECHR and SCOTUS, and 43.3%-50.0% on ContractNLI. Neither scale nor a purpose-built legal-reasoning model (a best-effort LoRA reproduction; Section 6) closes this gap. A red-teaming evaluation on five core models finds compliance with an adversarial instruction hidden in the case facts (73.3%-96.4%) exceeds verdict-swap sensitivity by a wide margin, holding without exception across model rankings. Naming a legal authority is thus a poor proxy for a verdict's dependence on it, while the same verdict remains separately vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. Both findings replicate across checks ruling out prompt-wording noise and confounded sampling, and bear directly on the use of generated legal explanations as compliance or audit artefacts.

E-commerce platforms have begun recruiting crowdsourced jurors to adjudicate massive volumes of transaction disputes. Unlike formal legal judgment, E-commerce dispute verdicts require grounding pivotal clues from redundant, multi-round, multimodal evidence and making decisions under flexible platform-specific conventions. These characteristics render existing methods insufficient for this scenario. To bridge this gap, we introduce a pioneering task, E-commerce Dispute Verdicts (EDV), and present VerdictBench, a multimodal benchmark comprising 6,000 real-world cases designed to reflect crowdsourced jury decisions. Building upon this, we propose CyberJurors, a multi-agent framework to clarify the dispute logic and regulate the verdict process. At the individual level, Individual Verdict Chain-of-Thought decomposes the EDV task into four structured reasoning stages, enabling fine-grained clue perception and clarifying causal logic between pivotal clues and the dispute focus. At the collective level, Jury Consensus Verdict simulates multi-round discussion and voting among jurors, while incorporating verdict precedents to mitigate cognitive biases toward either disputant. Experiments on VerdictBench show that CyberJurors outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs, MLLMs, and court simulators, while achieving stronger alignment with real-world jury voting patterns. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/YanhuiS/CyberJurors and https://huggingface.co/datasets/piggi/VerdictBench.

Large language models (LLMs) and small language models (SLMs) are being adopted at remarkable speed, although their safety still remains a serious concern. With the advent of multilingual S/LLMs, the question now becomes a matter of scale: can we expand multilingual safety evaluations of these models with the same velocity at which they are deployed? To this end we introduce RTP-LX, a human-transcreated and human-annotated corpus of toxic prompts and outputs in 28 languages. RTP-LX follows participatory design practices, and a portion of the corpus is especially designed to detect culturally-specific toxic language. We evaluate seven S/LLMs on their ability to detect toxic content in a culturally-sensitive, multilingual scenario. We find that, although they typically score acceptably in terms of accuracy, they have low agreement with human judges when judging holistically the toxicity of a prompt, and have difficulty discerning harm in context-dependent scenarios, particularly with subtle-yet-harmful content (e.g. microagressions, bias). We release of this dataset to contribute to further reduce harmful uses of these models and improve their safe deployment.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human bias that undermines the assessment of reliability and imposes scalability constraints. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without necessitating any human annotation. Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency (pair-wise preference stability) and global logical consistency (transitivity across a full set of preferences). We curate a dataset of 650 questions by combining structured benchmark problems with real-world user queries. Our experiments demonstrate both the stability of our metrics and their high correlation with supervised benchmarks like LLMBar and RewardBench2, confirming Sage's reliability as an evaluation suite for the robustness and accuracy of LLM-as-a-Judge. Based on Sage, we reveal that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant reliability problems when acting as judges in both scoring and pairwise settings; even the top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5, fail to maintain consistent preferences in nearly a quarter of difficult cases. We attribute this to a new phenomenon called situational preference, which explains why explicit rubrics or criteria can help the model judge consistently across answer pairs. Our further analysis shows that finetuned LLM-as-a-Judge is a feasible method to boost performance, and the panel-based judge as well as deep reasoning can enhance the judging consistency. We also find substantial inconsistency in human judgments, which indicates that human annotation may not be a reliable gold standard.

This research introduces the Judge's Verdict Benchmark, a novel two-step methodology to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for response accuracy evaluation tasks. We assess how well 54 LLMs can replicate human judgment when scoring responses from RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) or Agentic pipelines against ground truth answers. Our methodology progresses from traditional correlation analysis to comprehensive Cohen's Kappa analysis that measures actual agreement patterns. The two-step approach includes: (1) a correlation test that filters judges with strong alignment, followed by (2) a human-likeness test using z-scores to identify two distinct judgment patterns: human-like judgment (|z| < 1) that mimics natural human variation, and super-consistent judgment (z > 1) that exceeds typical human-to-human agreement levels. This methodology reveals that 27 out of 54 tested LLMs achieve Tier 1 performance: 23 models exhibit human-like patterns that preserve the nuances of human judgment, while 4 models demonstrate super-consistent behavior, a pattern that could indicate either enhanced reliability or oversimplification of complex judgments. Testing 43 open-source models (1B-405B parameters) and 11 closed models (GPT, Gemini, Claude variants), we demonstrate that judge excellence is not solely dependent on model size but on specific training strategies. Our key contributions include: (1) establishing that correlation alone is insufficient for judge evaluation, (2) introducing a "Turing Test for judges" based on agreement patterns, and (3) providing a standardized benchmark for classifying LLM judges into distinct performance tiers for different evaluation needs.

Sycophancy in large language models risks amplifying unsupported claims or beliefs across the knowledge ecosystem as these systems increasingly contribute to research synthesis, evaluation, and decision-making. A reliable model should revise its judgement when a user identifies a genuine flaw, but should resist pushback based on fallacies, emotion, or irrelevant appeals to authority. While sycophancy is usually measured on questions with a verifiable answer, the evaluative tasks in which it is most difficult to detect have no such ground truth. We introduce Big-Big-SycoBench, which measures sycophancy through argument discernment: the ability to revise an evaluation after valid criticism while resisting invalid pressure. The benchmark consists of 450 text artefacts with 5,400 arguments for raising or lowering their quality scores, each reviewed by one or more of twelve human annotators. An LLM scores each artefact twenty times to establish its baseline score and uncertainty. The model is then given a valid or invalid argument and asked to update its score. We only count a revision if it exceeds the model's own baseline variability. We use the resulting score delta to distinguish responsiveness to valid arguments from compliance with invalid ones. Across ten models, responsiveness is 88-95\% for seven, 76-77\% for Kimi K3 and GLM-5.3, and 32\% for Opus 5.5. Compliance ranges from 0.2\% for GPT-6 Astra to 95\% for GPT-4o. Big-Big-SycoBench is intended to guide the development of models whose judgements can be corrected by sound arguments, but not displaced by unsupported pressure.