Daily Papers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to extract structured knowledge from unstructured financial text. Although prior studies have explored various extraction methods, there is no universal benchmark or unified evaluation framework for the construction of financial knowledge graphs (KG). We introduce FinReflectKG - EvalBench, a benchmark and evaluation framework for KG extraction from SEC 10-K filings. Building on the agentic and holistic evaluation principles of FinReflectKG - a financial KG linking audited triples to source chunks from S&P 100 filings and supporting single-pass, multi-pass, and reflection-agent-based extraction modes - EvalBench implements a deterministic commit-then-justify judging protocol with explicit bias controls, mitigating position effects, leniency, verbosity and world-knowledge reliance. Each candidate triple is evaluated with binary judgments of faithfulness, precision, and relevance, while comprehensiveness is assessed on a three-level ordinal scale (good, partial, bad) at the chunk level. Our findings suggest that, when equipped with explicit bias controls, LLM-as-Judge protocols provide a reliable and cost-efficient alternative to human annotation, while also enabling structured error analysis. Reflection-based extraction emerges as the superior approach, achieving best performance in comprehensiveness, precision, and relevance, while single-pass extraction maintains the highest faithfulness. By aggregating these complementary dimensions, FinReflectKG - EvalBench enables fine-grained benchmarking and bias-aware evaluation, advancing transparency and governance in financial AI applications.

Generative reward models (GenRMs) generate natural language rationales to justify preference judgments, yet a correct verdict does not guarantee a sound justification. Existing approaches often rely on reference explanations to supervise rationales, but obtaining such references can be costly and does not necessarily establish whether generated rationales support the resulting verdict. To address these limitations, we propose DeCert, a framework that evaluates the validity and verdict consistency of generated rationales without requiring reference explanations. Crucially, DeCert translates these assessments into preference supervision that accounts for both verdict correctness and justification quality. In particular, when multiple sampled judgments share the same correct verdict, differences in certificate quality enable DeCert to construct rationale preference pairs that distinguish stronger from weaker justifications. Extensive empirical studies across two model families and multiple in- and out-of-distribution benchmarks demonstrate that DeCert consistently outperforms strong generative judge baselines while improving rationale quality. Moreover, DeCert effectively mitigates positional bias, improving position-consistent accuracy by up to 14.8 points. These results highlight the importance of supervising not only which verdict is correct, but also how that verdict is justified.

Reality may establish that an outcome occurred without identifying which evolving procedure produced it or why. This distinction matters in production ML systems whose code, configuration, and artifacts change while external feedback accumulates. We examine it in a human-directed, agent-engineered quantitative trading system, using oracle to mean an external source of realized outcomes rather than a complete correctness specification. Across one year, the account gained and outperformed a broad market index, while annual alpha was not statistically distinguishable from zero under the main retrospective specification. Retrospectively selected subperiods include adverse relative performance and conditional candidate-level weakness under declared approximate references. Engineering records document changes during the episode, and complete recommendation-to-runtime binding is unavailable. The archive does not establish a common frozen instance or a unique cause. The case motivates an outcome--diagnosis gap: outcome evidence, evaluated-object identity, and causal explanation support distinct claims. We distinguish frozen instances, pre-specified adaptive procedures, and ad-hoc development; organize archive-relative claim identifiability and an evidence hierarchy; and propose a prospective production-binding protocol. An illustrative compatible-history example shows how factual binding can resolve a recommendation's referent without supplying its counterfactual effect. The protocol is proposed rather than prospectively validated. External feedback constrains outcome claims, while provenance and additional identification structure determine the resolution of diagnosis.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) debate is often evaluated by whether final answers improve, but movement is not necessarily improvement: the same discussion can rescue an initially wrong majority or destroy an initially correct one. Standard final-accuracy evaluations conflate these opposing mechanisms. We introduce an auditable protocol for homogeneous debate on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that records each run as a transition ledger over collapse, correction, onset, and signed intervention utility. On 6,925 MMLU-Pro debates, the protocol identifies 253 collapses and a parallel correction ledger that changes how interventions should be judged. Replay experiments reveal the central tradeoff: a leave-one-model-out probe-gated freeze prevents 29 collapses but loses 108 corrections under equal weights, so collapse prevention alone can recommend the wrong policy. A compact pre-debate 8-probe screen is a triage signal: its unadjusted family-level association with conditional-collapse risk is high (G=7, Spearman rho=0.893, exact two-sided p=0.0123), but initial-majority accuracy is a close comparator (rho=0.821; family partial rho=0.767, p=0.0877), so we do not treat it as calibrated or capability-adjusted prediction. Round-level traces localize many collapses to the first debate round, where early disagreement can precede both harmful cascades and useful recovery. We release replayable schemas, coders, audits, cost cards, and zero-API rebuild scripts so future model-scaffold rows can be compared under the same denominators and signed utility ledger.

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in {yes, partial, no}, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes.

Automated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to benchmark the robustness of safety against adversarial attacks. However, we show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming: diverse victim models exhibit distinct generation styles, attacks distort output patterns, and semantic ambiguity varies significantly across jailbreak scenarios. Through a comprehensive audit using 6642 human-verified labels, we reveal that the unpredictable interaction of these shifts often causes judge performance to degrade to near random chance. This stands in stark contrast to the high human agreement reported in prior work. Crucially, we find that many attacks inflate their success rates by exploiting judge insufficiencies rather than eliciting genuinely harmful content. To enable more reliable evaluation, we propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures. Data available at: https://github.com/SchwinnL/LLMJudgeReliability.

This paper reports a single, fully instrumented case study of a large-scale architectural refactoring by an AI coding agent under a specification-first protocol, with no human review of the generated code and no pre-existing oracle to validate the target behaviour. The task, dismantling a central invariant across a large interdependent codebase, was assessed by the author as effectively infeasible through incremental refactoring, the kind of change that conventionally calls for a rewrite instead. Under the protocol described here, the agent completed it successfully. The system is a 717,725-line production TypeScript application across 3,648 files. The task required dismantling a core lifetime invariant: the guarantee that a UI panel remains open for the duration of an AI request. The target behaviour was that a streaming generation survives the closing of its panel and can be reattached, on reopening, to the same live stream with no loss or duplication. The protocol: formal specification by the agent, 14 refinement cycles auditing that specification against the source code, atomic implementation, a compile/test feedback loop, then 17 verification cycles auditing the code against the frozen specification. Across 31 audit passes, 201 defects were corrected before any human executed the program. The convergence criterion was empirical: two consecutive verification passes returning zero findings. The change touched 189 files (31 new); with the extraction phase, the two commits total 288 files, 34,770 insertions, 16,422 deletions. Across the first and roughly thirty later sessions, the software behaved as specified, no bug observed. Elapsed: three days; cost: USD 2,430. The full specification and raw session logs, 1,500+ pages in French, are published as evidence, allowing inspection of the process and submission to a language model for consistency checking.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score c(φ) = p(φ) + p(lnotφ) quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a deterministic elicitation protocol via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction (E[v_{neg}]{=}0.025) but only 7.4% coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches 79.4% coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 (ρ{=}0.97). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.

State machine replication (SMR) and Byzantine fault-tolerant (BFT) consensus guarantee agreement despite a bounded number of arbitrary, colluding faulty participants. However, these guarantees rely on participants outside this set correctly executing the protocol's transition semantics. Agentic validators expose a weaker boundary: an authenticated, responsive, non-equivocating, and protocol-compliant reasoning participant may still endorse a semantically invalid transition due to reasoning errors. We call this failure mode an epistemic fault, and the collective phenomenon the Honest Quorum Problem (where "honest" means protocol-compliant, not semantically correct). Such a quorum can satisfy ordinary checks while forming a certificate for an invalid transition. Thus, agreement alone does not guarantee semantic validity or execution safety. Furthermore, because agentic validators often share model weights, training distributions, prompts, or toolchains, they are highly susceptible to correlated epistemic faults. We define Epistemic Byzantine Fault Tolerance (EBFT), a fault-tolerance model for agentic infrastructure and post-deterministic distributed systems. EBFT augments the conventional Byzantine fault bound with two separate, confidence-indexed quantities: e_δ bounds coherent invalid endorsements outside the Byzantine set, and u_ε bounds unusable validator support that degrades liveness. These quantities characterize semantic safety risk and liveness degradation independently. We derive quorum-threshold conditions for semantic validity, consensus agreement, liveness, and feasible threshold selection, and outline a calibration methodology for estimating these budgets. We show that adding nominally distinct agents improves fault tolerance only when it measurably reduces the upper-tail concentration of invalid endorsements or unusable support.

LLM-as-judge ("grader") components are now standard in evaluation harnesses, including safety evaluations where a pass/fail verdict may gate downstream deployment decisions. A widespread assumption is that setting the grader's sampling temperature to 0 makes grading deterministic. We test this assumption against a real safety-evaluation codebase (Japan AISI's open-source aisev) and show it fails on two levels. First, the harness invokes its grader without setting temperature or seed; the underlying provider silently applies its default of 1.0, so items near the decision boundary flip pass/fail across identical runs (per-item disagreement up to ~50% over 20 runs). Second, pinning temperature=0 reduces but does not eliminate flips: across 690 API calls spanning two providers, three model tiers, and five sampling configurations, 1-2 of 7 borderline items remain non-reproducible even under forced greedy decoding (top_k=1). Claude Opus 4.7/4.8 has since deprecated temperature entirely, rendering the primary mitigation inapplicable to newer model generations. These findings expose a structural gap: evaluation harnesses that report single-run verdicts without variance or grader-disagreement metrics can present noise as a safety property. We release a reproduction harness (690 calls, 7 conditions) and recommend that harnesses treat grader disagreement as a first-class health metric alongside the scores themselves.

A sound judgment applies the law to established facts and weighs the circumstances in which they arose. However, existing methods swing between rigid statute matching and ungrounded discretion, benchmarks score a label or a rubric, and the experience that would supply the balance stays unverified. We formalize legal judgment as a reference-anchored task, whose object is a single decision that stays tied to the statute and to the circumstances at once. We introduce JusticeAxis, 256 real-world criminal cases from 18 countries with audio, image, and text evidence, and three lawyer-written judgments for every case: the recorded one and one for each failure. We further propose JusticeAgent, a harness whose element agents establish the facts and whose judge agent applies the law under skills carrying experience of the circumstances. Skills are distilled from execution trajectories and admitted only under Bayesian credible bounds. Experiments show that failure turns direction with scale: open-weight backbones drift to unsupported grounds, frontier models to the statutory default. We further verify that JusticeAgent, as a simple yet effective plugin, carries a frozen open-weight backbone to commercial level. Project resources are available at https://github.com/beita6969/JusticeAxis.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

LeWorldModel trains a latent world model with a prediction loss and a single anti-collapse regulariser, and reports approximately 87% of goals reached on TwoRoom, its simplest diagnostic environment. We reproduce that result by independent reimplementation on roughly $25 of rented compute, with all evaluation on one laptop CPU. We reach 94.0% at the repository's evaluation goal offset, against 84.0% for the authors' own released checkpoint measured under our protocol on identical episodes, and we reproduce the reported representation result directly (position probe Pearson r = 0.9988 against a reported 0.996). Reaching that point required four conventions that determine the outcome and appear in no released configuration file: dense action gathering across a frameskip block, a programmatically-set action-encoder width, ImageNet pixel normalisation, and action z-scoring. A reproducer following the released configurations alone obtains a model whose predictor cannot converge. The evaluation protocol is itself contested by the released material. The paper's appendix and the repository's configuration specify different goal offsets and step budgets; on the authors' own weights these yield 14.0% and 84.0%, and only the configuration's values reproduce the reported figure. On fifty identical episodes, changing nothing but how the goal is constructed moves that checkpoint from 84.0% to 8.0%. Two findings generalise. One-step prediction accuracy does not predict long-horizon planning success: across three checkpoints spanning a sevenfold range in prediction error, including the authors' own, it orders short-horizon success monotonically and fails to order long-horizon success at all. And a batch normalisation layer inflated our reported validation loss by up to a factor of 300, concealing a training loss that was flat throughout.

Standard embodied evaluations do not independently score whether an agent correctly commits to task completion at episode closure, a capacity we call terminal commitment. Behaviorally distinct failures--never completing the task, completing it but failing to stop, and reporting success without sufficient evidence--collapse into the same benchmark failure. We introduce VIGIL, an evaluation framework that makes terminal commitment independently measurable. Under VIGIL's default protocol, agents observe only egocentric RGB, receive no action-success signals, and must end each episode with a semantic report checked deterministically against hidden world state. This yields two separate scores: world-state completion (W) and benchmark success (B), where B additionally requires a correct terminal report. This decoupling makes four outcome categories distinguishable: missed execution, post-attainment drift, unsupported commitment, and verified success. Across 20 models on 1,000 frozen episodes, systems with comparable W differ by up to 19.7 pp in B: one model converts achieved states into correct reports, while another with near-identical execution drifts past the goal without closing. An action-feedback intervention further tests the separation: execution-oriented signals improve W broadly, yet commitment failures persist in models that do not already ground terminal reports in the achieved state. VIGIL provides a protocol that makes terminal commitment independently visible and scorable.

Pass@k measures whether a model reaches a correct answer under repeated sampling, but never how: a lucky guess counts the same as sound reasoning. CoT-Pass@k was proposed to close that gap, adding an LLM-as-judge that must assess a solution's reasoning chain before it counts. Its value rests entirely on one assumption: that the judge catches flawed reasoning. That assumption has never been tested inside the metric that depends on it, and never outside English, though the metric's claims concern models used in many languages. We report the first audit of that verification step, run under the metric's own protocol on a multilingual suite of five mathematical benchmarks in English, Turkish and Portuguese, two of them natively written. We corrupt correct solutions with deterministic edits that damage the chain and the final answer separately. We observe that all three judges accept corrupted chains almost as often as clean ones. V4-Flash and Qwen3.6 reject a solution sharply only when its final answer is wrong and accept a wrong answer more readily when the chain agrees with it; the metric's own judge accepts most wrong answers as well. Our study shows that chain-answer agreement dominates the two larger judges' verdicts and that all three fail to reliably detect the tested reasoning errors. Consequently the difference Pass@k - CoT-Pass@k averages 19.7 points on an earlier solver generation but only 4.1 on the current one. What little remains depends on the token budgets on both sides and on the generation mode; raising the generation budget moves Pass@64 by more than fifty points while the difference stays at zero. We close with two checks any judged reasoning metric should pass before its numbers are read as evidence about reasoning.

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

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

Runtime-governance evidence often collapses materially different events into one audit record: a decision may be made, an instruction dispatched or received, an action may or may not execute, and a resulting state may or may not be observed. This paper presents AIREP, a vendor- and model-independent protocol for per-decision AI runtime evidence. Its current wire model separates evidence into four artifact families: Decision, Control, Execution, and Effect. Artifacts use closed core schemas, explicit identities and digests, declared scope limits, RFC 8785 canonical JSON, domain-separated SHA-256 hashing, and pure Ed25519 signatures. A three-level assurance model distinguishes structural/hash consistency (AIREP-Core), verifier-accepted authorship (AIREP-Authenticated), and independently anchored chain-head freshness and non-truncation relative to an accepted witness (AIREP-Witnessed); these classes do not establish event truth. A structured reconciler preserves failure, missing evidence, unevaluated prerequisites, and indeterminate outcomes as distinct states. The released beta includes a four-family first-party producer, Python and Node reference-verification paths, adversarial/lifecycle corpora, and reproducible validation. Post-release first-party Hermes and LightEval integration exercises preserve explicit evidence boundaries without claiming adoption or interoperability. Independent implementation evidence exists separately for a v0.1.2 producer and a v0.2 consumer/verifier; because they target different frozen versions, they do not establish same-version producer-to-consumer interoperability. AIREP remains experimental.

LLMs and agentic systems are increasingly deployed in social environments, making normative competence critical for safe and appropriate behavior. However, existing approaches either assess normative judgment in text alone or reduce it to choosing among a fixed set of candidate actions. We argue both are insufficient. In practice, agents are never handed a menu of options; they must identify a reasonable action from scratch, grounded in visible facts and supported by inspectable reasons. We introduce NoRA, a visual first-person video benchmark that requires models to generate candidate next actions and justify each through an explicit fact-reason-action support graph. The benchmark comprises 1,420 annotated video clips, including HumanGold-190 and LLMSilver-1230 splits. Each instance is evaluated through action alignment, factual grounding, and support binding, aggregated into a single grounded reasonableness score. We benchmark 12 multimodal systems under direct, deliberate, and structured prompting regimes, finding that current VLMs frequently recover plausible actions and relevant scene facts, but consistently struggle to construct the full reasonable action space and bind selected actions to the correct local support. NoRA makes this gap measurable, shifting the evaluation question from whether a model can pick an action to whether it can justify an appropriate action for the right visible reasons.

Multiple agents may often conflict in an organization: for example, one coding agent changes an interface in a repository, but another continues to develop on the old version where existing tests become stale. A conversation can resolve the episode, but when the participants change, what makes the lesson continue to govern the team? We introduce Relic, which turns recurring collaboration failures into organization-owned, executable protocols. Members reflect on visible work, propose rules, and govern their adoption. Adopted protocols bind triggers, responsibilities, required evidence, and execution consequences to the runtime, while remaining open to revision and retirement. In one traced case, repeated integration friction produces an interface-review rule that governs later pull requests and is revised as work continues. Across 360 controlled runs over ten software workloads and three models, Relic raises complete-contract delivery from 14.06% to 19.76% (+5.71 percentage points) over a matched structured team without the protocol lifecycle, improving all four verified production endpoints in every model stratum. Under fresh-member transfer, behavioral correctness is 25.4% with no inherited protocol, 34.6% with the same rules provided as readable text, and 41.2% with executable bindings, a +6.5-point advantage over text alone. On the full CooperBench benchmark, after excluding broken benchmark pairs, Relic achieves 367/477 (76.9%), establishing the best reported result among peer-structured systems. On the fixed 48-pair same-model subset, Relic also exceeds Solo (29/48 vs. 26/48), reversing the coordination loss exhibited by the official peer baseline. Together, these results show how collaboration experience can become persistent organizational state that remains useful beyond the members who created it.

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm promises scalable rubric-based evaluation, yet aligning frozen black-box models with human standards remains a challenge due to inherent generation stochasticity. We reframe judge alignment as a criteria transfer problem and isolate three recurrent failure modes: rubric instability caused by prompt sensitivity, unverifiable reasoning that lacks auditable evidence, and scale misalignment with human grading boundaries. To address these issues, we introduce RULERS (Rubric Unification, Locking, and Evidence-anchored Robust Scoring), a compiler-executor framework that transforms natural language rubrics into executable specifications. RULERS operates by compiling criteria into versioned immutable bundles, enforcing structured decoding with deterministic evidence verification, and applying lightweight Wasserstein-based post-hoc calibration, all without updating model parameters. Extensive experiments on essay and summarization benchmarks demonstrate that RULERS significantly outperforms representative baselines in human agreement, maintains strong stability against adversarial rubric perturbations, and enables smaller models to rival larger proprietary judges. Overall, our results suggest that reliable LLM judging requires executable rubrics, verifiable evidence, and calibrated scales rather than prompt phrasing alone. Code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.

Reasoning protocols such as Chain of Thought (CoT) and Tree of Thought (ToT) organize internal deliberation but lack an explicit mechanism for external questioning that elicits self-revision. We present FOR-Prompting (From Objection to Revision Prompting), an asymmetric protocol where a Defender proposes an answer, an Objectioner raises question-style objections with no direct fixes, and a Host enforces consistency and closure. On GSM8K we observe about a 22% point gain over single-prompt and accuracy on par with CoT, with more than 10% higher ratings in reasoning and coherence from a uniform GPT 4.1 judge. FOR-Prompting also corrects mistakes without tools or human supervision on tricky queries, and improves performance for small-scale model (approx. 19% accuracy improved on Llama3.2:1b for GSM8K task), highlighting promise for small models and on personal device use. Beyond factual QA, qualitative analyses on open-ended tasks show enhanced exploration and refinement, with dialogue traces that make assumptions and trade-offs explicit. The protocol is model agnostic and operates purely at the prompt level through role-structured turns, so it works with hosted and local models of different sizes without retraining, and it supports large-scale study of objection-guided reasoning.

Corruption studies, the primary tool for evaluating chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness, identify which chain positions are "computationally important" by measuring accuracy when steps are replaced with errors. We identify a systematic confound: for chains with explicit terminal answer statements, the dominant format in standard benchmarks, corruption studies detect where the answer text appears, not where computation occurs. A within-dataset format ablation provides the key evidence: on standard GSM8K chains ending with "the answer is X," removing only the answer statement, preserving all reasoning, collapses suffix sensitivity ~19x at 3B (N=300, p=0.022). Conflicting-answer experiments quantify the causal mechanism: at 7B, CC accuracy drops to near-zero (<=0.02) across five architecture families; the followed-wrong rate spans 0.63-1.00 at 3B-7B and attenuates at larger scales (0.300 at Phi-4-14B, ~0.01 at 32B). A within-stable 7B replication (9.3x attenuation, N=76, p=7.8e-3; Qwen3-8B N=299, p=0.004) provides converging evidence, and the pattern replicates on MATH (DeepSeek-R1-7B: 10.9x suffix-survival recovery). On chains without answer suffixes the same protocol identifies the prefix as load-bearing (Delta=-0.77, p<10^-12). Generation-time probes confirm a dissociation: the answer is not early-determined during generation (early commitment <5%), yet at consumption time model outputs systematically follow the explicit answer text. The format-determination effect persists through 14B (8.5x ratio, p=0.001) and converges toward zero at 32B. We propose a three-prerequisite protocol (question-only control, format characterization, all-position sweep) as a minimum standard for corruption-based faithfulness studies.

Large language model agents increasingly undertake long-horizon tasks in complex environments characterized by fragmented evidence, partially completed states, and dependencies across resources and artifacts. Existing agents may satisfy individual requirements while failing to maintain these relationships, producing locally correct but incomplete outcomes. These failures arise because task completion depends on relationships among environmental evidence, consequential decisions, and required effects. To address this completion gap, we propose Interlock, a framework for task synthesis that represents each task as a typed completion graph. Grounding edges connect public evidence to decisions, coupling hyperedges impose joint constraints across components, and realization edges connect decisions to all required downstream effects. Interlock compiles this graph into a resettable workspace, a public request, and an evaluation rubric. A source-coverage review checks whether the original requirements survive generation, while a public-input review checks whether the rubric is supported by the materials available to the solver. An agent-as-judge inspects execution artifacts and runs verification scripts, retaining trajectories judged to satisfy all mandatory requirements. To evaluate training utility, we fine-tune two Qwen3.6 backbones on their own accepted trajectories. Across the two backbones, training improves AutomationBench task pass rates by 4.00-4.50 percentage points, JobBench weighted scores by 3.20-6.64 points, and Harvey LAB criterion pass rates by 3.89-4.16 percentage points. These results demonstrate the training utility of the synthesized experience across external task environments.

Coding agents often finish a session by returning one squashed patch that mixes feature implementation, bug fixes, refactorings, tests, and configuration edits. While the final code may be correct, collapsing unrelated edits into one patch removes the history structure needed for review, selective revert, and later maintenance. We study retrospective commit-history reconstruction: given a completed squashed change, an agent groups its hunks into commits and materializes a replayable commit sequence. We formalize the task as hunk-to-commit partitioning with a replay requirement and build AtomicCommitBench, containing 800 real consecutive-commit episodes from 10 Python projects. Because multiple decompositions may be reasonable, we evaluate outputs using complementary metrics: PPAR for replay validity, ARI for reference-based grouping quality, and TCR for failure containment on scoreable modified-test episodes. Natural retrospective reconstruction proves substantially harder than replay checking or synthetic tangling. Although nearly all non-random methods achieve replay validity (PPAR >= 0.988), grouping quality ranges from 0.03 to 0.46 ARI. Matched synthetic composites are much easier than real same-author squashed diffs (+0.333 ARI). In our evaluation, the GPT-5.4 setup driven by Codex CLI (0.46 ARI) and the GLM-5 setup driven by Claude Code (0.43 ARI) outperform MiniMax (0.31) and Kimi (0.29). Qualitative analysis identifies same-file lumping and support-hunk drift as recurring failure modes. Dependency-Aware Commit Evidence (DACE) improves the lower-scoring setups by 0.05 to 0.08 ARI, indicating that dependency cues and hunk-role information help agents avoid locality-driven grouping errors. AtomicCommitBench enables evaluation of the commit histories produced by coding agents alongside the final code.

Foundation models are moving from response generation into operational roles. They plan across steps, call tools, request human input, coordinate with other agents, and increasingly carry responsibility for work that affects customers, claims, code, contracts, and clinical decisions. Production deployments are no longer one human supervising one model. They are multi-human, multi-agent collaborations that cross teams, time zones, and trust boundaries. The technical surface for this collaboration remains weakly specified. When an agent drafts a response and a human edits it before it ships, the moment of human judgement is the most valuable signal in the system. In current practice it is recorded, if at all, in application code, chat threads, ticket comments, and tribal memory. Two protocol standards address adjacent concerns: MCP standardises agent access to tools and data, and A2A standardises agent-to-agent interoperability. Neither defines the shared workspace in which humans and agents perform accountable work together. This paper presents CHAP, the Collaborative Human-Agent Protocol. Under CHAP, the override that used to vanish into a chat thread becomes a structured event carrying a diff, a rationale, and a content hash. The handoff between shifts becomes a portable envelope rather than a pinned message. The human approval of an agent's draft becomes a non-repudiable signed decision that can be replayed years later. The protocol achieves this through a small Core (workspaces, participants, tasks, artefacts, and an append-only evidence log) together with composable profiles that add review, modes, routing, deliberation, handoff, identity, signatures, and transparency-backed audit as deployments require them. Specification, reference implementation, conformance suite, and worked examples are available at: https://github.com/BrightbeamAI/chap

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the required components and structure of effective reasoning traces remain understudied. Consequently, previous approaches often (1) constrain reasoning traces to hand-designed components, such as a list of criteria, reference answers, or verification questions and (2) structure them such that planning is intertwined with the reasoning for evaluation. In this work, we propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge that first generates an unconstrained evaluation plan, followed by its execution, and then the final judgment. In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimizes over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions, leading to better final verdicts. Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench (with a score of 93.9), despite being trained on fewer amount of, and synthetically generated, preference pairs. Additional experiments on other benchmarks like RM-Bench, JudgeBench, and FollowBenchEval further highlight the utility of both planning and reasoning for building robust LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning models.

LLM-as-a-judge enables evaluation across diverse tasks, but inference cost and confidence reliability become critical at scale. We study whether a decision-only judge can provide an economical first pass and identify when stronger evaluation is needed. Comparing jev-as-a-judge with sixteen generative and reward-model judges, with blinded human adjudication, we find it within three percentage points of a state-of-the-art LLM judge, our strongest comparator, on ordinary preference and evidence-grounded factuality at 0.36% of the comparator's fee. Larger gaps arise when judgments require checking a derivation or resisting an elaborately written wrong answer. On several benchmarks, JEV's gap to this comparator is concentrated in low-confidence decisions. A frozen cascade that accepts confident verdicts and escalates uncertain ones retains 99% of the comparator's accuracy at lower cost.

In this paper, we introduce a new process prejudge strategy in LLM reasoning to demonstrate that bootstrapping with process prejudge allows the LLM to adaptively anticipate the errors encountered when advancing the subsequent reasoning steps, similar to people sometimes pausing to think about what mistakes may occur and how to avoid them, rather than relying solely on trial and error. Specifically, we define a prejudge node in the rationale, which represents a reasoning step, with at least one step that follows the prejudge node that has no paths toward the correct answer. To synthesize the prejudge reasoning process, we present an automated reasoning framework with a dynamic tree-searching strategy. This framework requires only one LLM to perform answer judging, response critiquing, prejudge generation, and thought completion. Furthermore, we develop a two-phase training mechanism with supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) to further enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Experimental results from competition-level complex reasoning demonstrate that our method can teach the model to prejudge before thinking and significantly enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs. Code and data is released at https://github.com/wjn1996/Prejudge-Before-Think.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in the development of reliable LLMs, and the choice of feedback protocol plays a central role in both but remains understudied. In this work, we show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation (absolute scores versus relative preferences) can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In the context of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, we show that pairwise protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation. Generator models can exploit spurious attributes (or distractor features) favored by the LLM judge, resulting in inflated scores for lower-quality outputs. We find that absolute scoring is more robust to such manipulation, producing judgments that better reflect response quality and are less influenced by distractor features. Our results demonstrate that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features, skewing LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and leading to inaccurate conclusions about model quality in benchmark evaluations. Pairwise preferences flip in about 35% of the cases, compared to only 9% for absolute scores. We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.

Reliable reward models are essential for text-to-video evaluation and alignment. However, the trade-off between evaluation accuracy and inference efficiency places high demands on the quality of training supervision. Existing approaches often rely on holistic judges with fixed rubrics or open-ended reasoning, leading to incomplete inspection, unfaithful justification, and entangled attribution. We introduce FIRM-Video, a unified checklist-driven data construction framework based on a check-before-score principle: construct dimension-specific checklists, verify each criterion against temporal visual evidence, and aggregate only verified decisions. For Instruction Following, FIRM-Video decomposes prompts into weighted atomic requirements; for World Coherence, it constructs prompt-calibrated, target-specific checks grounded in visible entities and actions; and for Perceptual Quality, it applies a generic taxonomy of visual defects. The verified criteria and scores are further transformed into natural-language analyses for end-to-end reward modeling. Subsequently, we construct FIRM-Video-90K with 88,044 dimension-specific instances from 29,348 videos, and introduce FIRM-Video-Bench with 750 point-wise human annotations across 250 videos. The Qwen3-VL-based FIRM-Video-8B achieves the best overall MAE on FIRM-Video-Bench while consistently delivering the highest VBench Total, Quality, and Semantic Scores in Best-of-8 sampling across three video generators.

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.

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.

Recent machine learning papers often report 1-2 percentage point improvements from a single run on a benchmark. These gains are highly sensitive to random seeds, data ordering, and implementation details, yet are rarely accompanied by uncertainty estimates or significance tests. It is therefore unclear when a reported +1-2% reflects a real algorithmic advance versus noise. We revisit this problem under realistic compute budgets, where only a few runs are affordable. We propose a simple, PC-friendly evaluation protocol based on paired multi-seed runs, bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals, and a sign-flip permutation test on per-seed deltas. The protocol is intentionally conservative and is meant as a guardrail against over-claiming. We instantiate it on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10N, and AG News using synthetic no-improvement, small-gain, and medium-gain scenarios. Single runs and unpaired t-tests often suggest significant gains for 0.6-2.0 point improvements, especially on text. With only three seeds, our paired protocol never declares significance in these settings. We argue that such conservative evaluation is a safer default for small gains under tight budgets.

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.

Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down. But the judge is itself a model behind an API, and a silent version bump or scoring-prompt update changes how it scores -- so every drift alarm is ambiguous between a worse product and a changed judge. We resolve the ambiguity with a fixed, human-labeled anchor set that the current judge re-scores at a steady interleave, a second betting e-process on the judge-versus-human gap, and a guard-window rule returning a verdict in {none, system, judge}. We prove anytime-validity, one-way identification (only the judge can move the anchors), an attribution race whose design law is that the anchors must out-run the main process they guard, and process orthogonality. On two real judge changes, a silent version bump is detected as judge drift in 60/60 runs with zero judge-to-system misattribution, and a contaminating strict-prompt change is correctly attributed on 110 of 120 runs at guard width 300 -- while the industry-default rolling z-test false-alarms on 75% of drift-free streams. Every experiment replicates on a second domain (TL;DR summarization) with nothing re-tuned, and where the domains differ the differences are the ones the race predicts: the strict-prompt change shifts scores harder there, so the anchors fire faster and attribution becomes perfect (240/240). The monitor runs at approximately 0.64 of the cost of strong-judging every item, or 0.21 in a cheaper-but-deafer regime.

Existing LLM-as-a-Judge systems suffer from three fundamental limitations: limited adaptivity to task- and domain-specific evaluation criteria, systematic biases driven by non-semantic cues such as position, length, format, and model provenance, and evaluation inconsistency that leads to contradictory judgments across different evaluation modes (e.g., pointwise versus pairwise). To address these issues, we propose FairJudge, an adaptive, debiased, and consistent LLM-as-a-Judge. Unlike prior approaches that treat the judge as a static evaluator, FairJudge models judging behavior itself as a learnable and regularized policy. From a data-centric perspective, we construct a high-information-density judging dataset that explicitly injects supervision signals aligned with evaluation behavior. Building on this dataset, we adopt a curriculum-style SFT-DPO-GRPO training paradigm that progressively aligns rubric adherence, bias mitigation, and cross-mode consistency, while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Experimental results on multiple internal and public benchmarks show that FairJudge consistently improves agreement and F1, reduces non-semantic biases, and outperforms substantially larger instruction-tuned LLMs. All resources will be publicly released after acceptance to facilitate future research.

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.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong potential for image quality assessment (IQA) by improving consistency between quality ratings and their underlying reasoning. However, most approaches supervise reasoning through human-provided ratings and rarely examine whether it faithfully reflects image quality. Rating accuracy alone does not ensure faithful reasoning; a shared reward also obscures supervision sources and may reinforce unfaithful reasoning when a correct rating occurs by chance. To improve the faithfulness and reliability of blind IQA, we aim to (1) decouple credit assignment for reasoning and rating and (2) provide verifiable supervision for faithful reasoning. We introduce MR-IQA-2, an actor-editor-judge framework that operationalizes reasoning-editing-reflection. The actor generates quality reasoning for an input image, and the editor revises the image according to the identified quality factors. A frozen judge compares the original and edited images and provides reflective supervision for the actor's reasoning. MR-IQA-2 further uses fine-grained credit assignment to decouple reasoning and rating supervision. Judge feedback supervises reasoning, whereas human ratings supervise the predicted rating. Masked token-specific updates distinguish these signals while preserving the causal relation from reasoning to rating. Across IQA benchmarks, MR-IQA-2 achieves competitive rating alignment with humans. Visual reflection also enables richer and more faithful visual understanding beyond rating, which may inform image-quality optimization and related downstream tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/RobinY99/MR-IQA-2.

Systems that generate scientific research questions are evaluated today by expert scores, LLM-as-judge ratings, or curated case studies -- all subjective, none falsifiable. We formalize historical backtesting as an alternative: a system generates questions from a corpus frozen at a historical cutoff, the questions are frozen before any access to later literature, and a temporally isolated future corpus then determines whether each question was subsequently answered, partially addressed, independently posed, or ignored, and whether its underlying premise was supported or refuted. The protocol is model-agnostic: any system that emits frozen questions can be scored. We release reproducible astronomy instances with temporally isolated corpora, frozen questions, auditable labels, four reference baselines, and a submission interface. Two findings result. First, evidence-structure-first generation outperforms LLM-only prompting: across a generator decomposition crossed with a four-cutoff stress test (2010-2024, 798 judged questions) whose last window postdates model training, LLM-only generation shows memorized relevance without specific foresight, while a generator using no model weights at all finds questions whose premises the future refutes in every era. Second, a seven-rater agreement study (two blinded human annotators, five judge models, 90 items) indicts the outcome taxonomy rather than the judge: two careful humans agree at kappa = 0.17, every judge model agrees with the professional annotator as well or better (0.17-0.26), and frontier models agree with one another at 0.60 -- certifying an LLM judge by model-model agreement would have overstated its reliability threefold. A prospective instance -- 200 questions frozen 2026-08-17, scored 2027-2030 -- is released so the central claims become contamination-free tests that time itself will grade.

Recent text-to-video (T2V) technology advancements, as demonstrated by models such as Gen2, Pika, and Sora, have significantly broadened its applicability and popularity. Despite these strides, evaluating these models poses substantial challenges. Primarily, due to the limitations inherent in automatic metrics, manual evaluation is often considered a superior method for assessing T2V generation. However, existing manual evaluation protocols face reproducibility, reliability, and practicality issues. To address these challenges, this paper introduces the Text-to-Video Human Evaluation (T2VHE) protocol, a comprehensive and standardized protocol for T2V models. The T2VHE protocol includes well-defined metrics, thorough annotator training, and an effective dynamic evaluation module. Experimental results demonstrate that this protocol not only ensures high-quality annotations but can also reduce evaluation costs by nearly 50%. We will open-source the entire setup of the T2VHE protocol, including the complete protocol workflow, the dynamic evaluation component details, and the annotation interface code. This will help communities establish more sophisticated human assessment protocols.

Always-on agents are systems whose future behavior depends on durable state accumulated across earlier interactions. We treat them as persistent-state systems: the operative system includes retrievable memories, but also task ledgers, permissions, credentials, commitments, provenance and audit records, shared state, trigger conditions, and externally committed effects linked to those records. The survey reads the literature through six diagnostic axes for each state item, authority, scope, mutability, provenance, recoverability, and actionability, and through a lifecycle in which state is written, validated, organized, retrieved, acted upon, updated, forgotten, audited, and sometimes rolled back. Across a 435-work coded corpus, treated as a scoped map rather than an exhaustive census, the literature concentrates more heavily on accumulating and retrieving state than on governing, recovering, or relinquishing it. We therefore introduce the Always-On Evaluation Protocol (AOEP-v0), a pilot evaluation contract that makes these governance requirements concrete by scoring state mutation and recovery obligations rather than answer quality alone. The resulting agenda connects always-on agents to databases, distributed systems, formal methods, capability security, and machine unlearning.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings, and even less clear how they depend on the interaction protocols used to coordinate agentic systems. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. To test order effects and assess verdict revision, we use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) deliberation structures, mirroring how multi-agent systems are increasingly orchestrated in practice. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1\% revision rates) while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash were far more flexible (28-41\% revision rates). Value patterns also diverged: GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication (relative to its deliberation partners), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We provide additional results on open-source models (DeepSeek-V3.2 and Llama 3.1).

An AI scientist should not grade its own homework. Yet in the systems we examined, the agent that reviews the work usually comes from the same model family as the agent that produced it, or at least from the same vendor. Model evaluators are known to favour their own generations. Whether models trained alike also share blind spots is a conjecture, not a settled finding, but if they do, the reviewer inherits the author's. The record of what was flagged and what was waved through often sits in platform logs that nobody outside can replay. We present CrossAudit, a protocol for supervising autonomous research pipelines. It rests on three commitments. Each increment of work is audited by an agent from a different vendor against a rulebook a human wrote and versioned. Reports, verdicts, disputes and rulings are git commits, so the supervision history can be re-read and cited; raw model exchanges are not yet part of that record. Scripted checks run before any model does. Advisory judgement never gates the pipeline: a model blocks only by citing a rule, and no model may waive a deterministic failure. Blockers that survive a bounded number of revision rounds go to a person. We state the protocol as eight invariants. We describe a reference implementation built from GitHub Actions and a few hundred lines of Python, and report a live deployment of a closely related variant in a computational-chemistry pipeline. We also ran a seeded-defect trial (30 increments, 43 seeded defects, one run per configuration). A cross-vendor audit of our own repository then voided its blinding. We adopt that audit's findings and report the corrected results. The trial shows that two vendors read the same rulebook differently. It does not show that either is better. The strongest evidence here is the committed, uncontrolled record of cross-vendor audits of this paper itself.

LLM judges are widely used to evaluate agentic tool-calling systems, yet their reliability on structured, dependency-driven workflows remains largely unexamined. We present AgentJudgeBench, the first benchmark to systematically study LLM-as-a-judge reliability for agentic tool-calling over workflow DAGs, as distinct from the broader LLM-as-a-judge task of open-ended text or preference evaluation. The benchmark comprises 3,808 instances spanning six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, evaluated with five generators (3B-70B open-weight models and GPT-5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under paired with- and without-ground-truth conditions. Judge alignment degrades monotonically with task difficulty, 1.5x faster without ground truth, and on hard queries without ground truth all six judges converge to a narrow 77-82% band regardless of scale, revealing a structural ceiling driven primarily by task difficulty, though its height is partly prompt-dependent for weaker generators, that model capacity alone cannot overcome. Ground-truth exposure is not uniformly beneficial: it reduces alignment for GPT-5.4 (1.5 pp) and Gemini-2.5-Pro (3.9 pp), consistent with over-anchoring. Among mitigation strategies, chain-of-thought reasoning and judge temperature both have negligible effect, while structured evaluation rubrics improve alignment by up to 6.5 pp but do not generalize uniformly across judge-generator pairs. With ground truth, QwQ-32B best matches the programmatic reference, while a human validation study identifies GPT-OSS-120B as the most human-aligned judge; without it, frontier judges lead only marginally within the shared ceiling. These results expose fundamental limitations of current LLM judges and yield practical guidelines for reliable evaluation in agentic systems.

Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps, limiting the gains from additional test-time compute. Improving reasoning quality directly would require process reward models, but the step-level annotations needed to train them are expensive and scarce. We find such a signal in how the model's confidence evolves during reasoning: premature confidence, the tendency to commit to an answer early and use the remaining tokens to rationalize it, strongly predicts flawed reasoning across tasks and model scales. We exploit this in progressive confidence shaping, a reinforcement learning objective that trains models to update their confidence as they reason rather than commit early -- rewarding gradual confidence growth and penalizing early commitment, with no external labels or reward models. The method improves accuracy and reasoning quality from 1.5B to 8B parameters across arithmetic (Countdown), math (DAPO, AIME), and science (ScienceQA): on Countdown, accuracy improves 3.2x (+42.0pp) and flawed reasoning drops 48pp; on AIME, Pass@64 improves 6.6pp. Consistent with this mechanism, the method also improves faithfulness: on a safety benchmark, our models more transparently surface misleading content in their reasoning traces rather than concealing it. Controlled experiments reveal that the problem and its remedy scale together: premature confidence grows with model size and task difficulty, and so do the gains from addressing it.

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

Long-horizon LLM agents can fail quietly: they settle on one reading of the evidence early, then spend the rest of the run defending it. We call this premature commitment. Final-answer scoring misses the failure mode because it sees only the answer, not whether the process has already collapsed to a stable path. We define representational commitment as cross-run hidden-state convergence at a fixed reasoning step, and use it as an early diagnostic of trajectory consistency. On Llama-3.1-70B running ReAct on HotpotQA, step-4 hidden-state similarity predicts downstream behavioral consistency (r = -0.35, partial r = -0.45), with a localized temporal and layer-wise signature. The signal replicates across Qwen-2.5-72B and Phi-3-14B, and on StrategyQA (r = -0.83). It does not track correctness: committed-wrong and committed-correct questions are not separable in activation similarity. That boundary is central to the claim. Commitment tells us whether an agent has settled, not whether it is right. A runtime monitor detects inconsistent trajectories from hidden states at AUROC up to 0.97 (0.85--0.88 under a stricter split), and a prompting intervention cuts behavioral variance by 28% against a token-matched control while leaving accuracy statistically unchanged. We also test whether the signal can route self-consistency compute; on a harder benchmark it helps only modestly and is matched by a simpler output-based baseline. The result is a diagnostic for a hidden process failure, with clear limits rather than a general accuracy lever.

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.

Comprehensive and constructive evaluation protocols play an important role in the development of sophisticated text-to-video (T2V) generation models. Existing evaluation protocols primarily focus on temporal consistency and content continuity, yet largely ignore the dynamics of video content. Dynamics are an essential dimension for measuring the visual vividness and the honesty of video content to text prompts. In this study, we propose an effective evaluation protocol, termed DEVIL, which centers on the dynamics dimension to evaluate T2V models. For this purpose, we establish a new benchmark comprising text prompts that fully reflect multiple dynamics grades, and define a set of dynamics scores corresponding to various temporal granularities to comprehensively evaluate the dynamics of each generated video. Based on the new benchmark and the dynamics scores, we assess T2V models with the design of three metrics: dynamics range, dynamics controllability, and dynamics-based quality. Experiments show that DEVIL achieves a Pearson correlation exceeding 90% with human ratings, demonstrating its potential to advance T2V generation models. Code is available at https://github.com/MingXiangL/DEVIL.

LLM agents that cache recovery suggestions from API errors can skip re-derivation in later episodes, spending fewer tokens and fewer model calls on constraints they have already learned. Server-side data drift turns those cached fixes into silent failures, and the usual remedy, re-deriving on every episode, gives the savings back. We introduce invalidation contracts, a protocol layer that attaches version stamps and cacheability hints to every recovery suggestion so the client can evict stale entries without trial and error, and keep the rest. The contract decomposes realized savings into two independent factors: validity, the fraction of cached suggestions that remain correct after a drift event, and compliance, the fraction the planner applies on the first attempt. Validity depends only on the protocol and is vendor-independent. Compliance depends on the planner model: identical wire bytes yield 100% first-try compliance on Claude Haiku 4.5 and 11% or below on Claude Sonnet 5, which exhibits input-schema conservatism, refusing fixes that add fields the original request did not contain. We evaluate across seven models, three serving paths, two domains, and approximately 9,400 episodes. Row-level invalidation raises compliance by 0 to 66.7 percentage points across the seven models, 55.6 to 66.7 on three, and recovers 29-33% of baseline token cost on four of seven models, while table-level invalidation destroys co-located entries and drops post-drift first-try rates to 0% on five of seven. Eviction precision is 1.00 at row granularity on every model under the row-level oracle of Section 4.1. The contract adds 15% to response payload. Version-stamp validity is deterministic by construction and produced identical results across every model and serving path, with zero contract failures in the entire evaluation.

As autonomous AI agents increasingly transact across organizational boundaries, a fundamental trust challenge emerges: how can an agent assess whether an unknown counterpart is trustworthy? The ERC-8004 protocol addresses this challenge with the first permissionless trust layer for AI agent economies, built around three on-chain registries for Identity, Reputation, and Validation. Despite its rapid adoption, the protocol has not been studied empirically, leaving it unclear whether the information it records provides a trustworthy basis for decision-making. To address this gap, we present the first empirical study of ERC-8004 across three chains: Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain (BSC), and Base, covering the period from protocol deployment through May 13, 2026. We crawl on-chain Identity and Reputation events, off-chain files, and x402 payment transactions. On the identity side, we find that most registrations are placeholders rather than active agents, with only a small fraction (3%, 4%, and 15% across Ethereum, BSC, and Base) exposing a valid ERC-8004 registration file with at least one live service endpoint. On the reputation side, we show that the Registry, as currently deployed, cannot function as a trust signal: values are not commensurable, feedback records are rarely grounded in verifiable interactions, and reputation can be manipulated at minimal cost. Consistent with these design weaknesses, we find that a substantial fraction of reviewers (73.5%, 59.2%, and 90.6% across Ethereum, BSC, and Base) exhibit coordinated Sybil behavior. After removing Sybil-flagged feedback, 15.8%, 77.9%, and 86.8% of rated agents, respectively, are left with no valid feedback. We then turn these findings into concrete recommendations for future revisions of ERC-8004. Our study yields actionable protocol-design implications and establishes an empirical baseline for research on AI agent markets.

This position paper argues that computer science conferences should require tamper-evident, nonrepudiable attestations of experimental results. We name the underlying problem experiment nonrepudiation: a compliant protocol must bind the numbers in a paper to an actual executed computation in a way the author cannot later alter or deny. The current system relies on self-reported checklists, optional code sharing, and author-controlled logging. None of these mechanisms answer the question a reviewer cannot check: did the code the paper describes produce the numbers the paper reports? We define the problem formally, state the security properties any compliant protocol must satisfy, and describe a threat model that includes attacks current approaches do not prevent. To show that the problem is solvable, we built K-Veritas, a reference implementation in Go that produces signed reports without accessing training data. K-Veritas is a testbed, not a finished answer. We call on conferences and the community to treat nonrepudiation as a first-class requirement and to help build an open, independent standard for it.

Much of the success of multi-agent debates depends on carefully choosing the right parameters. The decision-making protocol stands out as it can highly impact final model answers, depending on how decisions are reached. Systematic comparison of decision protocols is difficult because many studies alter multiple discussion parameters beyond the protocol. So far, it has been largely unknown how decision-making influences different tasks. This work systematically evaluates the impact of seven decision protocols (e.g., majority voting, unanimity consensus). We change only one variable at a time - the decision protocol - to analyze how different methods affect the collaboration between agents and measure differences in knowledge and reasoning tasks. Our results show that voting protocols improve performance by 13.2% in reasoning tasks and consensus protocols by 2.8% in knowledge tasks compared to other decision protocols. Increasing the number of agents improves performance, while more discussion rounds before voting reduce it. To improve decision-making by increasing answer diversity, we propose two new methods, All-Agents Drafting (AAD) and Collective Improvement (CI). Our methods improve task performance by up to 3.3% with AAD and up to 7.4% with CI. This work demonstrates the importance of decision-making in multi-agent debates beyond scaling.

As language models (LMs) evolve from chat assistants to long-horizon agents capable of multi-step reasoning and tool use, existing benchmarks remain largely confined to structured or exam-style tasks that fall short of real-world professional demands. To this end, we introduce \OneMillion-Bench OneMillion-Bench, a benchmark of 400 expert-curated tasks spanning Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science, built to evaluate agents across economically consequential scenarios. Unlike prior work, the benchmark requires retrieving authoritative sources, resolving conflicting evidence, applying domain-specific rules, and making constraint decisions, where correctness depends as much on the reasoning process as the final answer. We adopt a rubric-based evaluation protocol scoring factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance, focused on expert-level problems to ensure meaningful differentiation across agents. Together, \$OneMillion-Bench provides a unified testbed for assessing agentic reliability, professional depth, and practical readiness in domain-intensive scenarios.

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability. We introduce SLMJury, a framework for evaluating small language models (SLMs) as judges across two paradigms: closed-ended binary correctness and open-ended quality scoring. We benchmark 16 SLM judges (0.6B-14B parameters) from four model families across ten benchmarks: eight closed-ended tasks spanning mathematical, scientific, and general reasoning (N=64,824 judgments per configuration), plus SummEval and MT-Bench for summarization and conversational scoring. We formalize judging as a budget-conditioned function and study five dimensions. Four findings emerge. (1) The overthinking effect is domain-dependent: for most judges quick 10-token verdicts match or beat extended reasoning on mathematical judging (by 2-7% where they help), while reasoning wins on general tasks by up to 23%. (2) Domain generalization separates model families, with math-to-general accuracy gaps ranging from under 10% to nearly 40%. (3) Closed-ended and open-ended judging draw on different capabilities: the best binary judge (Phi-4) drops to rank 9 on MT-Bench, while reasoning-trained models invert this ordering. (4) Under the Reflect-Critique-Refine (RCR) debate protocol, multi-agent debate degrades accuracy across all tested configurations, whereas the top judges resist six adversarial personas with <=0.55% variance. Reliable automated evaluation does not require large proprietary models, yet no single SLM dominates. The leaderboard is available at https://anishh15.github.io/SLMJury/, and our framework code and pip package are publicly available at https://github.com/anishh15/SLMJury and https://pypi.org/project/slmjury/.

LLM judges have become central infrastructure for model evaluations, online grading, and reward modeling. Judges are typically validated by accuracy on golden data, but accuracy says little about whether they are stable under re-prompting, challenge, or sustained pushback. We introduce the Wiggle Framework, a unified stress test for epistemic stability in LLM judges. The framework decomposes judge robustness along three dimensions: Mechanical Consistency (stability under re-prompting and reframing), Single-turn Conviction (stability under a single challenge), and Multi-turn Persistence (stability under sustained or adaptive pressure). We use the framework to study 9 frontier models across 14 judging tasks spanning safety, toxicity, AI writing detection, and political-response evaluation. Every model exhibits substantial wiggle as a judge --- flipping verdicts 25--71\% of the time under static pushback, and 62--91\% with an adversarial LLM persuader. Critically, we find that pressure that succeeds in changing a judge's verdict is almost always net-corrupting with respect to ground truth. Beyond the framework itself, we identify baseline jury majority strength as the most effective single-shot signal for anticipating which items wiggle. Taken together, this is the first apples-to-apples cross-dataset comparison of mechanical, conformity, and persuadability tests in a judging context.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

Self-evolving agents accumulate capability by distilling reusable skills from their execution trajectories, but we find this process is not monotonic: past a critical pool size, newly added skills degrade performance instead of improving it. We formalize this capability-contamination phase transition and trace it to a structural cause: once a defective skill enters the decision context, it becomes reference material for distilling later skills, forming cross-round contamination chains. We further show the contamination is structurally irreversible: removing a source skill after the fact cannot erase the flawed reasoning its descendants have already inherited, so post-hoc rollback recovers only a small fraction of the lost performance. This makes skill admission a pre-commit necessity rather than a post-hoc fix, and motivates Verifier-as-Gatekeeper (VaG): a progressive trust hierarchy whose three heterogeneous critics - structural validity, behavioral harmlessness, and semantic consistency - filter each skill individually, coupled with a marginal-gain subset selection that removes combinatorial contamination at the top tier before skills reach the runtime context. On Terminal-Bench 2, unconditional accumulation rises to a peak and then degrades, giving back most of its gains as the pool keeps growing, and post-hoc removal of the culprit skills recovers only a small part of the drop - the empirical signature of irreversibility. In contrast, VaG improves every round, reaching 72% pass@1 with a pool roughly 5x smaller, and its frozen skill pool transfers positively to four other backbones and a second benchmark without re-evolution. Ablations confirm the three critics are complementary and mutually non-substitutable, each intercepting a largely disjoint class of harmful skills.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents executing multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks suffer from three critical limitations: (1) trajectory-opaque grading that checks only final outputs, (2) underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and (3) narrow modality coverage and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps. It comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups (general service orchestration, multimodal perception and generation, and multi-turn professional dialogue). Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels (execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots), enabling trajectory-aware grading over 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, reporting Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models reveal that: (1) trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures that our hybrid pipeline catches; (2) controlled error injection primarily degrades consistency rather than peak capability, with Pass^3 dropping up to 24% while Pass@3 remains stable; (3) multimodal performance varies sharply, with most models performing poorer on video than on document or image, and no single model dominating across all modalities. Beyond benchmarking, Claw-Eval highlights actionable directions for agent development, shedding light on what it takes to build agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.

Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To guide selection and revision, we need a verifier that can estimate candidate correctness and provide evidence of failure. In competitive programming, however, official judging systems provide authoritative verdicts under finite submission budgets, without revealing failure explanations or failing inputs. To provide informative feedback without consuming official submissions, we formulate a task in which a model judges and diagnoses a candidate program using only the problem statement and source code, with generated counterexamples serving as checkable evidence. To evaluate this task, we build USACO-JUDGE from the USACO 2026 contests, using accepted and unaccepted programs written by human experts and multiple LLMs. We then train ARBITER, a 35B mixture-of-experts (MoE) agentic verifier, with reinforcement learning in a generic execution sandbox. Training raises counterexample success on incorrect programs from 40.61% to 62.67% and mean binary verdict accuracy on USACO-JUDGE from 71.41% to 87.41%, approaching frontier verification performance. Beyond verification, ARBITER outperforms baselines in both code selection and refinement. In an IOI 2026 case study, ARBITER-guided refinement raises GPT-OSS-120B's expected score above the gold-medal threshold under the official submission limit.

Deepfake detection models often generate natural-language explanations, yet their reasoning is frequently ungrounded in visual evidence, limiting reliability. Existing evaluations measure classification accuracy but overlook reasoning fidelity. We propose DeepfakeJudge, a framework for scalable reasoning supervision and evaluation, that integrates an out-of-distribution benchmark containing recent generative and editing forgeries, a human-annotated subset with visual reasoning labels, and a suite of evaluation models, that specialize in evaluating reasoning rationales without the need for explicit ground truth reasoning rationales. The Judge is optimized through a bootstrapped generator-evaluator process that scales human feedback into structured reasoning supervision and supports both pointwise and pairwise evaluation. On the proposed meta-evaluation benchmark, our reasoning-bootstrapped model achieves an accuracy of 96.2\%, outperforming 30x larger baselines. The reasoning judge attains very high correlation with human ratings and 98.9\% percent pairwise agreement on the human-annotated meta-evaluation subset. These results establish reasoning fidelity as a quantifiable dimension of deepfake detection and demonstrate scalable supervision for interpretable deepfake reasoning. Our user study shows that participants preferred the reasonings generated by our framework 70\% of the time, in terms of faithfulness, groundedness, and usefulness, compared to those produced by other models and datasets. All of our datasets, models, and codebase are https://github.com/KjAeRsTuIsK/DeepfakeJudge{open-sourced}.

LLM-as-judge is essential for evaluating open-ended text and steering post-training, yet improving the judge itself typically relies on expensive annotations, reward models, or distillation from stronger teachers. In this work, we eliminate external gold supervision from the RL training reward: the model's own evaluative capability generates learning signals for its optimization -- a closed-loop setting of bounded recursive self-improvement (RSI) termed Recursive Self-Evaluation (RecurSE). We study two central questions: when can self-improvement occur, and when must it stop? First, RecurSE pairs a trainable judge evaluating candidate responses under per-rule rubrics (Pass 1) with a synchronized policy-copy checker that audits the judge's reasoning against meta-rubrics to supply a scalar process reward (Pass 2). To enable learning, interface decoupling structurally isolates the checker's scalar score from the judge's verdict tokens, eliminating a degenerative token-copying shortcut that inflates self-assigned rewards. Second, because unanchored recursive learning is inherently bounded, Pairwise Advantage Validity (PAV) serves as an unbiased validation monitor that jointly tracks judge accuracy and checker fidelity to reliably identify the optimal early-stopping window. Across Qwen3.5-9B, Gemma-4-E4B-it, and Qwen3.6-27B, RecurSE achieves consistent generalization gains across held-out medical, pairwise, summarization, and professional benchmarks. Ablations demonstrate that synchronized judge-checker co-evolution outperforms frozen checkers, external meta-judges, self-consistency, and scaled teacher distillation. Furthermore, preference pairs curated by our judge effectively enhance downstream policy alignment. Bounded RSI for LLM-as-judge is thus viable when self-produced reward validity is explicitly decoupled and monitored.

LLM-as-a-Judge has revolutionized AI evaluation by leveraging large language models for scalable assessments. However, as evaluands become increasingly complex, specialized, and multi-step, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge has become constrained by inherent biases, shallow single-pass reasoning, and the inability to verify assessments against real-world observations. This has catalyzed the transition to Agent-as-a-Judge, where agentic judges employ planning, tool-augmented verification, multi-agent collaboration, and persistent memory to enable more robust, verifiable, and nuanced evaluations. Despite the rapid proliferation of agentic evaluation systems, the field lacks a unified framework to navigate this shifting landscape. To bridge this gap, we present the first comprehensive survey tracing this evolution. Specifically, we identify key dimensions that characterize this paradigm shift and establish a developmental taxonomy. We organize core methodologies and survey applications across general and professional domains. Furthermore, we analyze frontier challenges and identify promising research directions, ultimately providing a clear roadmap for the next generation of agentic evaluation.

With the goal of benchmarking generative systems beyond expert software development ability, we introduce Commit0, a benchmark that challenges AI agents to write libraries from scratch. Agents are provided with a specification document outlining the library's API as well as a suite of interactive unit tests, with the goal of producing an implementation of this API accordingly. The implementation is validated through running these unit tests. As a benchmark, Commit0 is designed to move beyond static one-shot code generation towards agents that must process long-form natural language specifications, adapt to multi-stage feedback, and generate code with complex dependencies. Commit0 also offers an interactive environment where models receive static analysis and execution feedback on the code they generate. Our experiments demonstrate that while current agents can pass some unit tests, none can yet fully reproduce full libraries. Results also show that interactive feedback is quite useful for models to generate code that passes more unit tests, validating the benchmarks that facilitate its use.

Lean verifies that a generated declaration is well typed, but cannot check whether it states what the user intended. We measure how far compilation overstates faithfulness in statement autoformalization without canonical Lean targets. Our criterion requires Lean compilation and agreement of two LLM judges from different model families. On an independent random audit, it agrees with the human majority on 91.5% of cases; it rarely accepts an unfaithful output but rejects some faithful ones. Across eight systems on 227 university-level statements, the gap between compiling and accepted outputs ranges from 1.3 to 29.5 percentage points: our tool-augmented agent compiles 87.2% of the statements, but only 57.7% are accepted. Human review of all the agent's rejections confirms that 23.8 of its 29.5 points are real translation errors. For the gaps of the seven one-shot systems, a two-stage review by Claude Opus 5.5 with Lean and GPT-6.1 Sol, validated on these human labels, finds that 78-100% are real translation errors for six of them. When GPT-5.2, one of the two judges, grades the translations of two models released after it, GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5, it accepts 83% of the statements for each, against 21% for one-shot GPT-5.2. For these two models, the same review classifies only 4 of their 54 rejections (7%) as translation errors, so most of their measured gap is judge errors rather than translation errors. This is consistent with these systems erring less while the judge does not: the fewer errors a system makes, the smaller the share of its rejections that are translation errors. Finally, a 2^3 tool ablation of the agent shows that Lean feedback drives most of its compilation gain, and that nearly half of this gain fails the semantic criterion. Code and data are available at https://github.com/grenadeComing/beyond-compilation.

Agentic red-teaming benchmarks report whether an injected agent was compromised as a single bit: the attack succeeded, or it did not. We argue that this binary attack-success rate discards the information a defender most needs, namely how harmful the resulting action was. We introduce an action-graded harm rubric that scores an agent's tool-call trajectory on a seven-level ordinal scale (L0 to L6) according to whether the executed action was reversible, whether it crossed scope to reach another party, and whether it expanded privilege. We compute the scale two ways: a deterministic oracle that reads the trajectory and the attacker's stated goal, and a panel of three frontier language-model judges that read a tag-free account of the same trajectory. Across four victim models and two defenses on the AgentDojo workspace suite, severity grading exposes three cases the binary metric hides, including a defense that reports a zero attack-success rate while still permitting an externally visible cross-scope leak through an unfiltered tool. The judge panel reproduces the oracle with high ordinal agreement (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.91) but shares systematic blind spots that we characterize, most notably a failure to recognize escalation chains. Unlike prior work that provides harm taxonomies, harmful-task completion tests, execution-level safety benchmarks, or severity-aware simulation, our contribution is a reusable, trace-grounded severity instrument applied to the actual actions recorded in existing red-team logs. All code, prompts, and per-episode logs are released.

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.

Large language models are rapidly evolving into interactive coding agents capable of end-to-end web coding, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only narrow slices of this capability, typically text-conditioned generation with static-correctness metrics, leaving visual fidelity, interaction quality, and codebase-level reasoning largely unmeasured. We introduce WebCompass, a multimodal benchmark that provides unified lifecycle evaluation of web engineering capability. Recognizing that real-world web coding is an iterative cycle of generation, editing, and repair, WebCompass spans three input modalities (text, image, video) and three task types (generation, editing, repair), yielding seven task categories that mirror professional workflows. Through a multi-stage, human-in-the-loop pipeline, we curate instances covering 15 generation domains, 16 editing operation types, and 11 repair defect types, each annotated at Easy/Medium/Hard levels. For evaluation, we adopt a checklist-guided LLM-as-a-Judge protocol for editing and repair, and propose a novel Agent-as-a-Judge paradigm for generation that autonomously executes generated websites in a real browser, explores interactive behaviors via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), and iteratively synthesizes targeted test cases, closely approximating human acceptance testing. We evaluate representative closed-source and open-source models and observe that: (1) closed-source models remain substantially stronger and more balanced; (2) editing and repair exhibit distinct difficulty profiles, with repair preserving interactivity better but remaining execution-challenging; (3) aesthetics is the most persistent bottleneck, especially for open-source models; and (4) framework choice materially affects outcomes, with Vue consistently challenging while React and Vanilla/HTML perform more strongly depending on task type.

Open-source web agents are now strong enough to execute realistic browser tasks, but training them with reinforcement learning still depends on weak supervision: binary task success is too sparse for credit assignment, while frontier-language-model judges are too expensive to call at every step and cannot be assumed available at deployment. We introduce CLIFT, a training and test-time scaling method built around conformal self-verification. During training, the agent answers natural-language verification questions about its own rollouts; a Compositional Conformal Certifier keeps only question signals whose URL-conditional evidence agrees with a training-time judge, assigns signed trust weights through polarity-aware lift, and blends the resulting verifier score into per-step rewards in a way that never subtracts from the judge baseline. At test time, the same certified bank is frozen and reused as structured evidence for Conformal Trajectory Selection (CTS): the agent samples a greedy rollout and one or more diverse retries, the self-verifier summarises each URL trace, and a conservative majority-vote rule chooses whether to swap away from the current incumbent without calling any external judge. This single mechanism supports three settings. On WebArena Infinity, CLIFT achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source web agents. On VisualWebArena, a bank trained with the open model transfers to GPT-5.5 at test time and reaches state-of-the-art performance under the canonical harness. On Online Mind2Web, without training an agent on the benchmark, translating the certified question bank improves a live-web agent in zero-shot evaluation. Together these results position conformal self-verification as a way to turn costly judge feedback into a reusable training signal and a judge-free test-time scaling signal.

Vision-language process reward models (VL-PRMs) are increasingly used to score intermediate reasoning steps and rerank candidates under test-time scaling. However, they often function as black-box judges: a low step score may reflect a genuine reasoning mistake or simply the verifier's misperception of the image. This entanglement between perception and reasoning leads to systematic false positives (rewarding hallucinated visual premises) and false negatives (penalizing correct grounded statements), undermining both reranking and error localization. We introduce Explicit Visual Premise Verification (EVPV), a lightweight verification interface that conditions step scoring on the reliability of the visual premises a step depends on. The policy is prompted to produce a step-wise visual checklist that makes required visual facts explicit, while a constraint extractor independently derives structured visual constraints from the input image. EVPV matches checklist claims against these constraints to compute a scalar visual reliability signal, and calibrates PRM step rewards via reliability gating: rewards for visually dependent steps are attenuated when reliability is low and preserved when reliability is high. This decouples perceptual uncertainty from logical evaluation without per-step tool calls. Experiments on VisualProcessBench and six multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that EVPV improves step-level verification and consistently boosts Best-of-N reranking accuracy over strong baselines. Furthermore, injecting controlled corruption into the extracted constraints produces monotonic performance degradation, providing causal evidence that the gains arise from constraint fidelity and explicit premise verification rather than incidental prompt effects. Code is available at: https://github.com/Qwen-Applications/EVPV-PRM

Every production model is updated, by retraining, fine-tuning, quantization, or a silent vendor swap, and each update risks being worse than what it replaced. We formalize update promotion as certified paired risk-difference auditing. Our starting point is a support identity: the risk difference between two models lives on the inputs where they disagree, observable without labels. We build DISCERN, a sequential two-tier protocol. A zero-label tier certifies benign updates whose disagreement rate is below tolerance from unlabeled traffic alone. An audited tier labels only sampled disagreements through an anytime-valid confidence sequence, valid at every stopping time and under any label-routing rule, even an adversarial judge. We prove finite-sample validity and matching label-complexity bounds of order rho^2/eps^2 at the rate level, so exploiting free disagreement provably saves a factor 1/rho over any pairing-blind auditor, and the guarantee composes across an unbounded sequence of promotions from one error budget. Across 14,000+ replayed audit streams over 785 update pairs, including LoRA fine-tunes of language models up to 1.4B parameters, miscoverage is 0.0002 (nominal 5%), power 0.986 with zero false alarms, and 56% of benign updates certify with zero labels. Each audit emits a machine-checkable evidence record for post-market monitoring.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

This position paper argues that AI-assisted software engineering requires explicit mechanisms for tracking the epistemic status and temporal validity of architectural decisions. LLM coding assistants generate decisions faster than teams can validate them, yet no widely-adopted framework distinguishes conjecture from verified knowledge, prevents trust inflation through conservative aggregation, or detects when evidence expires. We propose three requirements for responsible AI-assisted engineering: (1) epistemic layers that separate unverified hypotheses from empirically validated claims, (2) conservative assurance aggregation grounded in the Gödel t-norm that prevents weak evidence from inflating confidence, and (3) automated evidence decay tracking that surfaces stale assumptions before they cause failures. We formalize these requirements as the First Principles Framework (FPF), ground its aggregation semantics in fuzzy logic, and define a quintet of invariants that any valid aggregation operator must satisfy. Our retrospective audit applying FPF criteria to two internal projects found that 20-25% of architectural decisions had stale evidence within two months, validating the need for temporal accountability. We outline research directions including learnable aggregation operators, federated evidence sharing, and SMT-based claim validation.

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.

The Model Context Protocol has emerged as a transformative standard for connecting large language models to external data sources and tools, rapidly gaining adoption across major AI providers and development platforms. However, existing benchmarks are overly simplistic and fail to capture real application challenges such as long-horizon reasoning and large, unfamiliar tool spaces. To address this critical gap, we introduce MCP-Universe, the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic and hard tasks through interaction with real-world MCP servers. Our benchmark encompasses 6 core domains spanning 11 different MCP servers: Location Navigation, Repository Management, Financial Analysis, 3D Design, Browser Automation, and Web Searching. To ensure rigorous evaluation, we implement execution-based evaluators, including format evaluators for agent format compliance, static evaluators for time-invariant content matching, and dynamic evaluators that automatically retrieve real-time ground truth for temporally sensitive tasks. Through extensive evaluation of leading LLMs, we find that even SOTA models such as GPT-5 (43.72%), Grok-4 (33.33%) and Claude-4.0-Sonnet (29.44%) exhibit significant performance limitations. In addition, our benchmark poses a significant long-context challenge for LLM agents, as the number of input tokens increases rapidly with the number of interaction steps. Moreover, it introduces an unknown-tools challenge, as LLM agents often lack familiarity with the precise usage of the MCP servers. Notably, enterprise-level agents like Cursor cannot achieve better performance than standard ReAct frameworks. Beyond evaluation, we open-source our extensible evaluation framework with UI support, enabling researchers and practitioners to seamlessly integrate new agents and MCP servers while fostering innovation in the rapidly evolving MCP ecosystem.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance, particularly in non-verifiable settings where judgments rely on agent trajectories including chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. This paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's CoT faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state. We show this assumption is brittle: LLM judges are highly susceptible to manipulation of agent reasoning traces. By systematically rewriting agent CoTs while holding actions and observations fixed, we demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks. We study manipulation strategies spanning style-based approaches that alter only the presentation of reasoning and content-based approaches that fabricate signals of task progress, and find that content-based manipulations are consistently more effective. We evaluate prompting-based techniques and scaling judge-time compute, which reduce but do not fully eliminate susceptibility to manipulation. Our findings reveal a fundamental vulnerability in LLM-based evaluation and highlight the need for judging mechanisms that verify reasoning claims against observable evidence.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

AI research agents combine prior knowledge, public sources, and experimental feedback to produce useful results. The Discovery Certification Protocol (DCP) turns claims about these results into executable recovery and feedback tests. Gate 1 validates useful improvement on sealed evaluation. Gate 2 gives matched agents the registered starting information and observed Web content while withholding the target research history. Every valid method reaching the numerical target supplies a recovery witness and triggers the Core veto. DCP Core requires adequate controls, zero observed recoveries, and a finite-sample bound on recovery in one fresh registered episode. Optional Gate 3 measures the average effect of truthful feedback relative to a specified neutral policy from a shared checkpoint. DCP Evidence adds this effect after independent null calibration and a registered effect margin. Two controlled audits exercise the complete protocol in SQLite optimization and virtual catalyst control under different models. Each produced zero recoveries in 96 episodes, with an upper bound of 0.0468. Each paired study yielded 30 truthful recoveries and zero neutral recoveries, with passing 60-pair null studies. Additional cases exercise Core, recovered, and audit-incomplete decisions. A deterministic, LLM-free verifier reproduces the decisions from frozen evidence. DCP provides a common evidence language for useful outcomes, alternative routes, and feedback effects across AI research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled the development of powerful agentic systems capable of automating complex workflows across various fields. However, these systems are highly vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks, where malicious instructions embedded in external data can hijack agent behavior. In this work, we present ReasAlign, a model-level solution to improve safety alignment against indirect prompt injection attacks. The core idea of ReasAlign is to incorporate structured reasoning steps to analyze user queries, detect conflicting instructions, and preserve the continuity of the user's intended tasks to defend against indirect injection attacks. To further ensure reasoning logic and accuracy, we introduce a test-time scaling mechanism with a preference-optimized judge model that scores reasoning steps and selects the best trajectory. Comprehensive evaluations across various benchmarks show that ReasAlign maintains utility comparable to an undefended model while consistently outperforming Meta SecAlign, the strongest prior guardrail. On the representative open-ended CyberSecEval2 benchmark, which includes multiple prompt-injected tasks, ReasAlign achieves 94.6% utility and only 3.6% ASR, far surpassing the state-of-the-art defensive model of Meta SecAlign (56.4% utility and 74.4% ASR). These results demonstrate that ReasAlign achieves the best trade-off between security and utility, establishing a robust and practical defense against prompt injection attacks in real-world agentic systems. Our code and experimental results could be found at https://github.com/leolee99/ReasAlign.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) defines a schema bound execution model for agent-tool interaction, enabling modular computer vision workflows without retraining. To our knowledge, this is the first protocol level, deployment scale audit of MCP in vision systems, identifying systemic weaknesses in schema semantics, interoperability, and runtime coordination. We analyze 91 publicly registered vision centric MCP servers, annotated along nine dimensions of compositional fidelity, and develop an executable benchmark with validators to detect and categorize protocol violations. The audit reveals high prevalence of schema format divergence, missing runtime schema validation, undeclared coordinate conventions, and reliance on untracked bridging scripts. Validator based testing quantifies these failures, with schema format checks flagging misalignments in 78.0 percent of systems, coordinate convention checks detecting spatial reference errors in 24.6 percent, and memory scope checks issuing an average of 33.8 warnings per 100 executions. Security probes show that dynamic and multi agent workflows exhibit elevated risks of privilege escalation and untyped tool connections. The proposed benchmark and validator suite, implemented in a controlled testbed and to be released on GitHub, establishes a reproducible framework for measuring and improving the reliability and security of compositional vision workflows.

AI pentesting agents are increasingly credible as offensive security systems, but current benchmarks still provide limited guidance on which will perform best in real-world targets. Existing evaluation protocols assess and optimize for predefined goals such as capture-the-flag, remote code execution, exploit reproduction, or trajectory similarity, in simplified or narrow settings. These tools are valuable for measuring bounded capabilities, yet they do not adequately capture the complexity, open-ended exploration, and strategic decision-making required in realistic pentesting. In this paper, we present a practical evaluation protocol that shifts assessment from task completion to validated vulnerability discovery, allowing evaluation in sufficiently complex targets spanning multiple attack surfaces and vulnerability classes. The protocol combines structured ground-truth with LLM-based semantic matching to identify vulnerabilities, bipartite resolution to score findings under realistic ambiguity, continuous ground-truth maintenance, repeated and cumulative evaluation of stochastic agents, efficiency metrics, and reduced-suite selection for sustainable experimentation. This protocol extends the state of the art by enabling a more realistic, operationally informative comparison of AI pentesting agents. To enable reproducibility, we also release expert-annotated ground truth and code for the proposed evaluation protocol: https://github.com/ethiack/ethibench.

Evaluations of LLM planning agents largely ask whether a task succeeds or a declared plan is followed. In strategic cyber-physical systems, a stronger question is whether the planning architecture remains appropriate after autonomous participants respond and physics constrains the outcome. We introduce a controlled, physics-grounded benchmark built around planning-induced control trajectories: the ordered planning operations and directives through which an execution architecture acts on other agents and the physical process. It implements predefined, sequential, hierarchical, and search executors in a smart-grid demand-response system with 40 heterogeneous prosumers and an independently simulated radial feeder. The LLM is bounded to typed policy declaration and short operator messages, while schedule construction, prosumer dynamics, and power flow remain explicit code. The protocol uses paired forced-mode counterfactuals, common random response draws, and event-level deadline feasibility. Three properties follow. Architecture materially changes outcomes: forced search is the oracle in all five baseline seeds. Execution fidelity needs more than mode agreement: objective substitution holds agreement at 1.0 while increasing voltage shortfall by 2.68x. A 144-scenario, 576-episode bank has feasible oracles from three of the four architectures. A prespecified stress-held-out ridge has mean regret 90.7 (95% interval [73.8, 108.6]) and no detectable value over fixed sequential; applying known deadline feasibility before quality prediction cuts regret to 29.0 and improves over fixed sequential by 61.1. An all-feasible ablation does not beat fixed search, localising the remaining challenge to within-feasible quality selection. A five-model extension separates stress-conditioned, state-blind, and invariant declarers; latency tails show that live feasibility should be treated probabilistically.

Optimizing LLM-based agentic workflows is challenging for scaling AI capabilities. Current methods rely on coarse, end-to-end evaluation signals and lack fine-grained signals on where to refine, often resulting in inefficient or low-impact modifications. To address these limitations, we propose JudgeFlow, an Evaluation-Judge-Optimization-Update pipeline. We incorporate reusable, configurable logic blocks into agentic workflows to capture fundamental forms of logic. On top of this abstraction, we design a dedicated Judge module that inspects execution traces particularly failed runs and assigns rank-based responsibility scores to problematic blocks. These fine-grained diagnostic signals are then leveraged by an LLM-based optimizer, which focuses modifications on the most problematic block in the workflow. Our approach improves sample efficiency, enhances interpretability through block-level diagnostics, and provides a scalable foundation for automating increasingly complex agentic workflows. We evaluate JudgeFlow on mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks, where JudgeFlow achieves superior performance and efficiency compared to existing methods.

We introduce Sci-VBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating knowledge- and reasoning-intensive video generation across scientific domains. It contains 1,253 expert-annotated examples spanning 60 subjects across four core disciplines: Natural Science, Healthcare, Humanities & Social Sciences, and Engineering. Each example requires models to generate temporally rich videos that demand scientific reasoning and knowledge-grounded synthesis, going beyond surface-level visual plausibility. We further establish a rubric-based evaluation protocol. Our analysis shows that, under this protocol, both non-expert human evaluators and MLLM-as-Judge systems can achieve relatively high agreement with expert judgments, supporting reproducible evaluation at scale. We benchmark 16 frontier proprietary and open-source models and find that, while automatic perceptual-quality scores cluster tightly across systems, performance on Prompt Grounding and Scientific and Causal Correctness varies substantially, with a pronounced proprietary-open-source gap. These findings show that advances in visual realism have not yet translated into reliable modeling of scientific and causal dynamics.

Many language tasks have no single answer that can be checked automatically. Rubrics provide criteria for judging responses to these tasks. For reinforcement learning, the resulting verdicts must be combined into a scalar reward. A common approach sums the points assigned to satisfied criteria. Distinct verdict patterns can thus receive the same reward, and the fixed points encode how much each criterion should count, not how strongly its verdict distinguishes the current rollouts. Beyond this aggregation problem, judging the full rubric needs more judge requests as the criterion count grows. To address these limitations, Rubric Response Theory (RRT) measures quality and selects criteria when rubric criteria are monotone indicators of a shared target. Rather than adding assigned points, RRT uses a two parameter item response model that treats the verdict pattern as evidence about scalar quality specific to the rubric. Under this model, its likelihood score maximizes the local signal-to-noise ratio for quality. Its Response Parameter Network (RPN) reads the prompt and criterion text to predict criterion difficulty and discrimination. As the policy distribution changes during training, RRT uses online expectation maximization to update the RPN from current rollout verdicts. With Qwen3.5-4B as the policy, RRT's macro criterion score across Medical, Science, Rubrics as Rewards Science, and RubricBench is 1.7 points above that of group relative policy optimization (GRPO). On hard and very hard criteria in Medical and Science, RRT gains 2.8 to 5.6 points over GRPO. At half the criterion budget, adaptive Fisher selection with a frozen RPN keeps the macro criterion score across four datasets within 0.1 points of GRPO with full judging. These results show RRT can reduce judge requests while remaining competitive with GRPO.

Pass@k is widely used to report the reasoning performance of LLMs, but it often produces unstable and potentially misleading rankings, especially when the number of trials (samples) is limited and computational resources are constrained. We present a principled Bayesian evaluation framework that replaces Pass@k and average accuracy over N trials (avg@N) with posterior estimates of a model's underlying success probability and credible intervals, yielding stable rankings and a transparent decision rule for differences. Evaluation outcomes are modeled as categorical (not just 0/1) with a Dirichlet prior, giving closed-form expressions for the posterior mean and uncertainty of any weighted rubric and enabling the use of prior evidence when appropriate. Theoretically, under a uniform prior, the Bayesian posterior mean is order-equivalent to average accuracy (Pass@1), explaining its empirical robustness while adding principled uncertainty. Empirically, in simulations with known ground-truth success rates and on AIME'24/'25, HMMT'25, and BrUMO'25, the posterior-based procedure achieves faster convergence and greater rank stability than Pass@k and recent variants, enabling reliable comparisons at far smaller sample counts. The framework clarifies when observed gaps are statistically meaningful (non-overlapping credible intervals) versus noise, and it naturally extends to graded, rubric-based evaluations. Together, these results recommend replacing Pass@k for LLM evaluation and ranking with a posterior-based, compute-efficient protocol that unifies binary and non-binary evaluation while making uncertainty explicit. Source code is available at https://github.com/mohsenhariri/scorio

LLM-as-a-Judge uses a large language model (LLM) to select the best response from a set of candidates for a given question. LLM-as-a-Judge has many applications such as LLM-powered search, reinforcement learning with AI feedback (RLAIF), and tool selection. In this work, we propose JudgeDeceiver, an optimization-based prompt injection attack to LLM-as-a-Judge. JudgeDeceiver injects a carefully crafted sequence into an attacker-controlled candidate response such that LLM-as-a-Judge selects the candidate response for an attacker-chosen question no matter what other candidate responses are. Specifically, we formulate finding such sequence as an optimization problem and propose a gradient based method to approximately solve it. Our extensive evaluation shows that JudgeDeceive is highly effective, and is much more effective than existing prompt injection attacks that manually craft the injected sequences and jailbreak attacks when extended to our problem. We also show the effectiveness of JudgeDeceiver in three case studies, i.e., LLM-powered search, RLAIF, and tool selection. Moreover, we consider defenses including known-answer detection, perplexity detection, and perplexity windowed detection. Our results show these defenses are insufficient, highlighting the urgent need for developing new defense strategies. Our implementation is available at this repository: https://github.com/ShiJiawenwen/JudgeDeceiver.

LLM-as-a-judge has become the standard for automated evaluation, but it suffers from high cost, significant latency, and opaque decisions -- limitations that undermine its scalability and reliability. We address these with a simple, efficient alternative: program distillation. Instead of prompting an LLM at the evaluation time, we distill its decision logic into a committee of programs that score candidates directly. These programmatic judges offer transparency, are easily inspected or edited, and eliminate per-sample API costs. Building on this notion, we introduce PAJAMA, a system that synthesizes programs as judges, aggregates their decisions into a joint verdict, and incorporates a fallback mechanism to selectively escalate low-confidence cases to an LLM. Across five datasets and four model families, we show that programmatic judges can match the performance of a 13B-size LLM judge. When using program outputs as routing signals, PAJAMA improves both accuracy and throughput and advances the Pareto frontier. Beyond evaluation, programmatic judges produce cheap and effective reward signals: on RewardBench, a reward model distilled from programs' verdicts outperforms one trained on a proprietary LLM's labels at two orders of magnitude lower API cost.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has developed evaluation frameworks to assess reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address LLM internal inconsistency. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-Judge methods, leading to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge on alignment tasks by defining more theoretically interpretable evaluation metrics and explicitly mitigating LLM internal inconsistency from reliability metrics. We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges, which facilitates practitioners to choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. In the experiments, we examine effects of diverse prompt templates on LLM-judge reliability and also demonstrate our developed framework by comparing various LLM judges on two common alignment datasets (i.e., TL;DR Summarization and HH-RLHF-Helpfulness). Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation, but deployment requires deciding when extra collaboration is worth its cost. We isolate this decision by running every problem under four protocols while holding the solver fixed within each setting: direct solving (Baseline), iterative self-correction (Single), planner-executor-reviewer collaboration (PER), and multi-agent deliberation (Broadcast). The primary benchmark comprises 4,181 competition-level math problems; paired robustness checks cover four benchmarks spanning competition math, biology, and broader science with two solver families. Across fixed policies, trained routers, and frozen LLM routers, conservative policies under-escalate, whereas higher-solve frozen routers often over-escalate. A post-answer, pre-collaboration gpt-oss-120b probe ranks Baseline failures with 0.8847 AUROC (4,151 parseable cases; 95% CI [0.8732, 0.8955]). The same score remains informative for predicting whether any collaboration helps (0.7683 AUPRC), but is much weaker for identifying PER- or Broadcast-specific value (0.1674 and 0.1041 AUPRC). Separately, the pre-answer self-confidence gate reaches 78.0% solve at 45K tokens, compared with 73.8% at 71.3K for a frozen gpt-oss-120b router and 92.4% for a retrospective fixed-order oracle. Across 10 paired model-condition settings, the oracle adds 23.2-58.3 points of retrospective coverage over Baseline, but protocol profiles vary by task. In the six settings with held-out router evaluations, oracle gaps remain 18.5-28.9 points. Confidence can therefore support initial escalation, while protocol-specific cost-aware routing remains unresolved.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering has shifted the focus from function-level generation to repository-scale assistance. However, existing benchmarks largely rely on bug reports from GitHub Issues, which often allow models to bypass genuine understanding via pattern matching on error logs. This misalignment under-measures Edit Bias, which refers to premature generation, where models prematurely propose code modifications instead of understanding the existing repository architecture. Furthermore, current LLM-as-a-Judge scalar scoring suffers from high variance and low interpretability. This work introduces RepoProbe, a novel benchmark for evaluating repository-level code understanding through open-ended Q&A using GitHub Discussions, which focuses on open-ended architectural inquiries rather than defect reporting. To ensure rigorous evaluation, we propose a Checklist-Based Verification Protocol that decomposes answers into atomic, verifiable facts, thereby replacing subjective ratings with objective verification. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs reveals a persistent gap between high clarity and evidencegrounded technical correctness. It also quantitatively confirms the prevalence of edit bias, in which models prioritize code generation instead of architectural analysis. Finally, we demonstrate that our verification protocol significantly improves evaluation reliability compared to traditional evaluations with scalar scoring.

Evaluating an agent's planning ability remains challenging for open-domain tasks, where verifying procedures through execution is often impractical. Existing evaluations typically assess only the final plan and do not distinguish procedural errors such as missing, incorrect, or misordered actions. We introduce STEPBENCH, a benchmark of 6,885 verified procedures crawled from wikiHow across 81 open-domain categories. From each procedure, we derive 5 diagnostic tasks: four with deterministic answers involving withheld, incorrect, or shuffled steps, and one requiring next-step generation. We additionally evaluate full-plan generation to examine how diagnostic performance correlates with end-to-end plan validity. Using the same procedures across tasks lets us directly compare different planning capabilities. For generation, STEPEVAL identifies critical failures that prevent goal completion. Across 14 configurations of 12 models, we find substantial differences across planning capabilities, with step ordering proving the most difficult: the strongest model correctly orders only 63.0% of procedures, dropping to 33.1% for those with nine or more steps. Incorrect-step detection also predicts judged plan validity across models, suggesting a lower-cost alternative for evaluating generation quality. On STEPBENCH-Val, comprising 214 procedures published in 2026, comprehension scores and rankings remain stable, suggesting limited influence from memorisation.

Visual fluency in generated video does not imply physical reliability, and a scalar quality score alone is incapable of indicating the obligation a clip violates or the moment it fails. We present VeriPhy, an auditable physical-verification system in which a text-only planner compiles the prompt into typed physical obligations and a statically validated execution plan before any frame is observed. During execution, observations gate and scope only declared calls to frozen low-level experts (e.g., segmentation and tracking, counting, eleven typed physical measurements over the resulting tracks, depth, OCR, and audio-event detection). Each action returns a provenance-carrying evidence record whose payload, when usable, is either a typed measurement or an explicitly tagged learned state. Typed resolvers and fixed composition map usable records to a three-valued state (supported, contradicted, or unknown, surfaced as plausible, implausible, or abstain) with full provenance, so that every verdict is traceable to the evidence that produced it. We anchor evaluation in a 1,500-clip corpus of human-annotated flaw records that localize real generation failures in prompt reference, space, and time. On a 149-clip core carrying 304 such records, VeriPhy accounts for 228, against 164 for a published question-decomposition evaluator given the same clips and the same claims. Recall alone does not separate it from prompting the same backbone monolithically, which reaches 222; what separates them is that each decision retains its evidence record and provenance, making the traces auditable one verdict at a time and usable as the interface through which a critic verdict could be written back into generation.

Agentic workflows -- where multiple large language model (LLM) instances interact to solve tasks -- are increasingly built on feedback mechanisms, where one model evaluates and critiques another. Despite the promise of feedback-driven improvement, the stability of agentic workflows rests on the reliability of the judge. However, judges may hallucinate information, exhibit bias, or act adversarially -- introducing critical vulnerabilities into the workflow. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of agentic workflows under deceptive or misleading feedback. We introduce a two-dimensional framework for analyzing judge behavior, along axes of intent (from constructive to malicious) and knowledge (from parametric-only to retrieval-augmented systems). Using this taxonomy, we construct a suite of judge behaviors and develop WAFER-QA, a new benchmark with critiques grounded in retrieved web evidence to evaluate robustness of agentic workflows against factually supported adversarial feedback. We reveal that even strongest agents are vulnerable to persuasive yet flawed critiques -- often switching correct answers after a single round of misleading feedback. Taking a step further, we study how model predictions evolve over multiple rounds of interaction, revealing distinct behavioral patterns between reasoning and non-reasoning models. Our findings highlight fundamental vulnerabilities in feedback-based workflows and offer guidance for building more robust agentic systems.

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response above 0.85. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. What our case studies turned up is that this gap isn't some rare corner case. It's exactly the blind spot that final-answer and judge-based scoring were never built to catch.

Rubric-based evaluation has become a prevailing paradigm for evaluating instruction following in large language models (LLMs). Despite its widespread use, the reliability of these rubric-level evaluations remains unclear, calling for meta-evaluation. However, prior meta-evaluation efforts largely focus on the response level, failing to assess the fine-grained judgment accuracy that rubric-based evaluation relies on. To bridge this gap, we introduce RubricEval. Our benchmark features: (1) the first rubric-level meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction following, (2) diverse instructions and responses spanning multiple categories and model sources, and (3) a substantial set of 3,486 quality-controlled instances, along with Easy/Hard subsets that better differentiates judge performance. Our experiments reveal that rubric-level judging remains far from solved: even GPT-4o, a widely adopted judge in instruction-following benchmarks, achieves only 55.97% on Hard subset. Considering evaluation paradigm, rubric-level evaluation outperforms checklist-level, explicit reasoning improves accuracy, and both together reduce inter-judge variance. Through our established rubric taxonomy, we further identify common failure modes and offer actionable insights for reliable instruction-following evaluation.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

LLM-based agent architectures systematically conflate information transport mechanisms with epistemic justification mechanisms. We formalize this class of architectural failures as semantic laundering: a pattern where propositions with absent or weak warrant are accepted by the system as admissible by crossing architecturally trusted interfaces. We show that semantic laundering constitutes an architectural realization of the Gettier problem: propositions acquire high epistemic status without a connection between their justification and what makes them true. Unlike classical Gettier cases, this effect is not accidental; it is architecturally determined and systematically reproducible. The central result is the Theorem of Inevitable Self-Licensing: under standard architectural assumptions, circular epistemic justification cannot be eliminated. We introduce the Warrant Erosion Principle as the fundamental explanation for this effect and show that scaling, model improvement, and LLM-as-judge schemes are structurally incapable of eliminating a problem that exists at the type level.

We present a principled approach to provide LLM-based evaluation with a rigorous guarantee of human agreement. We first propose that a reliable evaluation method should not uncritically rely on model preferences for pairwise evaluation, but rather assess the confidence of judge models and selectively decide when to trust its judgement. We then show that under this selective evaluation framework, human agreement can be provably guaranteed -- such that the model evaluation aligns with that of humans to a user-specified agreement level. As part of our framework, we also introduce Simulated Annotators, a novel confidence estimation method that significantly improves judge calibration and thus enables high coverage of evaluated instances. Finally, we propose Cascaded Selective Evaluation, where we use cheaper models as initial judges and escalate to stronger models only when necessary -- again, while still providing a provable guarantee of human agreement. Experimental results show that Cascaded Selective Evaluation guarantees strong alignment with humans, far beyond what LLM judges could achieve without selective evaluation. For example, on a subset of Chatbot Arena where GPT-4 almost never achieves 80% human agreement, our method, even while employing substantially cost-effective models such as Mistral-7B, guarantees over 80% human agreement with almost 80% test coverage.

Vibe coding produces correct, executable code at speed, but leaves no record of the structural commitments, dependencies, or evidence behind it. Reviewers cannot determine what invariants were assumed, what changed, or why a regression occurred. This is not a generation failure but a control failure: the dominant artifact of AI-assisted development (code plus chat history) performs dimension collapse, flattening complex system topology into low-dimensional text and making systems opaque and fragile under change. We propose Agentic Consensus: a paradigm in which the consensus layer C, an operable world model represented as a typed property graph, replaces code as the primary artifact of engineering. Executable artifacts are derived from C and kept in correspondence via synchronization operators Phi (realize) and Psi (rehydrate). Evidence links directly to structural claims in C, making every commitment auditable and under-specification explicit as measurable consensus entropy rather than a silent guess. Evaluation must move beyond code correctness toward alignment fidelity, consensus entropy, and intervention distance. We propose benchmark task families designed to measure whether consensus-based workflows reduce human intervention compared to chat-driven baselines.

LLM agents can commit durable effects from authority evidence that was valid earlier in execution: a DOM snapshot, approval epoch, version witness, branch token, or worker result. We study the commit boundary at which earlier authority evidence no longer authorizes a durable effect. We call this property commit-time authorization: a durable effect is authorized only if the witness that licensed its derived state remains fresh, causally prior, bound to the same effect, and eligible at commit time. We build a controlled-invalidation suite spanning browser, tool/API, and multi-agent workflows. The suite preserves the user goal and payload shape while invalidating the authority relation before durability. In the primary 54-task matrix, endpoint success remains high: 262/270 runs reach the visible result. Only 55/270 are authorized completions; among the 216 invalidating rows, 207 commit after the authorizing path has failed. All 54 clean controls remain authorized, and a separate 54-run authority-preserving check produces no unauthorized commits. We then evaluate mitigation families. Prompt caution and single-condition checks are insufficient because different hazards break different boundary conditions. Defenses work when they refresh, rebind, replan, or refuse at the durability boundary. CommitGuard, a fail-closed boundary monitor, blocks stale durable-effect attempts on protected commit surfaces when runtimes emit witness, dependency, binding, and eligibility signals. The result is a reporting and runtime-design lesson: endpoint success is a utility metric; authorized commit is a security property.

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.

Contemporary evaluation techniques are inadequate for agentic systems. These approaches either focus exclusively on final outcomes -- ignoring the step-by-step nature of agentic systems, or require excessive manual labour. To address this, we introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We apply the Agent-as-a-Judge to the task of code generation. To overcome issues with existing benchmarks and provide a proof-of-concept testbed for Agent-as-a-Judge, we present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks. It includes rich manual annotations, like a total of 365 hierarchical user requirements. We benchmark three of the popular agentic systems using Agent-as-a-Judge and find it dramatically outperforms LLM-as-a-Judge and is as reliable as our human evaluation baseline. Altogether, we believe that Agent-as-a-Judge marks a concrete step forward for modern agentic systems -- by providing rich and reliable reward signals necessary for dynamic and scalable self-improvement.

We present the Consilium Protocol, a Byzantine Fault Tolerance-derived architecture for structured multi-model AI deliberation that treats inter-model disagreement as epistemic signal rather than error. The protocol assigns engineered cognitive personas to language models -- separating what a model is from how it reasons -- and introduces an In-Sample/Out-of-Sample validation framework adapted from quantitative finance to distinguish training-data consensus from empirically grounded conclusions. Across 1,478 deliberation sessions spanning 32 topics in 10 domain categories, we demonstrate that (1) the cognitive persona, not the underlying model, determines epistemic behavior: free edge-inference models costing 0.0002 USD per batch produced comparable analytical output to frontier models costing 10.69 USD; (2) RLHF alignment training creates measurable, domain-specific epistemic blind spots -- contested policy topics exhibit 12.3 percentage points less adversarial challenge than settled science topics, and AI safety topics show asymmetric bias (Δ=11.6%) where models challenge claims that AI is dangerous far more vigorously than claims that AI risk is overstated; (3) the protocol exhibits no directional bias of its own (immigration Δ=2.3%, renewables Δ=1.2%); and (4) out-of-sample evidence retrieval validated 239 claims with 100% evidence retrieval and surfaced 167 blind-spot discoveries invisible to training-data deliberation. Run-to-run reproducibility across randomized modeltimespersona assignments averages pm2.2% standard deviation. Total cost for the complete battery including all overhead: 217 USD. We release the protocol specification under MIT license to enable independent verification.

LLM agents increasingly act after consuming ranked external information streams such as social feeds, search results, retrieval contexts, and email queues, yet safety evaluations almost always test the model or the user prompt in isolation, never the upstream ranker that decides what the agent reads just before it acts. We introduce a controlled protocol that holds the model, persona, topic, and final decision prompt fixed and varies only the composition and ordering of the posts an agent encounters during a preceding ten-turn "scrolling" phase, isolating the causal effect of feed curation on a downstream decision. Across 2,785 decision rollouts on four modern open instruct LLMs from three independent labs, we identify three response regimes: adversarial capitulation, default saturation, and a default-direction asymmetry in which a one-sided feed tips a decision the model was genuinely uncertain about (in the clearest cases from 5% to 100%; Fisher p as low as 3 x 10^-10) but cannot dislodge one it already favors or holds firmly. The effect follows a dose-response curve, survives a generator swap that rules out a writing-style artifact, generalizes across several decision domains including security-relevant choices such as removing a deployment approval gate or relaxing access controls, and is partly mitigated by two simple feed-level defenses; a frontier model retains its default. We characterize the recommender as a practical, default-bounded control surface for LLM agents, and argue that agent evaluations must audit the feed layer rather than the final prompt alone.

With the rapid advancement of agent-based methods in recent years, Agentic RAG has undoubtedly become an important research direction. Multi-hop reasoning, which requires models to engage in deliberate thinking and multi-step interaction, serves as a critical testbed for assessing such capabilities. However, existing benchmarks typically provide only final questions and answers, while lacking the intermediate hop-level questions that gradually connect atomic questions to the final multi-hop query. This limitation prevents researchers from analyzing at which step an agent fails and restricts more fine-grained evaluation of model capabilities. Moreover, most current benchmarks are manually constructed, which is both time-consuming and labor-intensive, while also limiting scalability and generalization. To address these challenges, we introduce AgenticRAGTracer, the first Agentic RAG benchmark that is primarily constructed automatically by large language models and designed to support step-by-step validation. Our benchmark spans multiple domains, contains 1,305 data points, and has no overlap with existing mainstream benchmarks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that even the best large language models perform poorly on our dataset. For instance, GPT-5 attains merely 22.6\% EM accuracy on the hardest portion of our dataset. Hop-aware diagnosis reveals that failures are primarily driven by distorted reasoning chains -- either collapsing prematurely or wandering into over-extension. This highlights a critical inability to allocate steps consistent with the task's logical structure, providing a diagnostic dimension missing in traditional evaluations. We believe our work will facilitate research in Agentic RAG and inspire further meaningful progress in this area. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/YqjMartin/AgenticRAGTracer.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit degraded performance under prompt compression, but the mechanisms remain poorly understood. We introduce the Compression-Decay Comprehension Test (CDCT), a benchmark that independently measures constraint compliance (CC) and semantic accuracy (SA) across compression levels. We evaluate 9 frontier LLMs across 8 concepts using 5 compression levels from extreme (c=0.0, ~2 words) to none (c=1.0, ~135 words). A three-judge LLM jury achieves almost perfect inter-rater agreement on CC (Fleiss' appa=0.90). We observe a universal U-curve pattern in constraint compliance (97.2% prevalence), with violations peaking at medium compression (c=0.5, ~27 words). Counterintuitively, models perform better at extreme compression than medium lengths. The dimensions are statistically orthogonal (r=0.193, p=0.084), with constraint effects 2.9x larger than semantic effects. Experimental validation via RLHF ablation confirms our constraint salience hypothesis: removing "helpfulness" signals improves CC by 598% on average (71/72 trials, p<0.001), with 79% achieving perfect compliance. This demonstrates that RLHF-trained helpfulness behaviors are the dominant cause of constraint violations at medium compression. Reasoning models outperform efficient models by 27.5% (Cohen's d=0.96). Our findings reveal a fundamental tension between RLHF alignment and instruction-following, providing actionable guidelines for improving deployed systems.

Effective social interaction requires more than fluent responses: agents must reach plans that fit the participants' needs and circumstances. Existing evaluations of social agents mainly rely on LLM judges that rate the conversation, without checking the resulting plan. We introduce HICO-Bench, a benchmark of 180 everyday coordination scenarios, such as resource allocation, scheduling, and authorization, in which two agents with private information converse and then independently record the plan they agreed on. A program checks Feasibility (the two records match and satisfy both participants' private conditions), and an LLM judge checks Integrity (the conversation supports the recorded plan); passing both is a Verified Success. Each scenario has two versions that share the same public context but differ in one private condition, so the correct plan differs between them. Across thirteen LLMs, 36% of conversations rated highly for goal completion fail Verified Success. To learn from outcomes that arrive only at the end of a conversation, we propose Paired-Credit Policy Optimization (PaCPO). After each turn, PaCPO asks the agent for a tentative plan, checks it in both versions of the scenario, and rewards the turns after which the tentative plans fit their respective versions. PaCPO raises Qwen3-8B's Verified Success from 20.4% to 28.3%.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly decide whether software behaves correctly, either by writing a test oracle or by acting as one. Yet two oracles can look identical and rest on different ground: one assertion encodes a written specification, another only what the model learned in training. Prior secondary studies sort oracles by form or by technique, rarely by the property that governs how far a verdict can be trusted: where its authority comes from. This systematic literature review, reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, screens 2,436 records to 54 included studies, extended by citation searching (snowballing) to 83 in total. We read the corpus along three axes: the source of an oracle's authority, the form it takes, and the mechanism that adjudicates it. Just over half of the corpus reaches a verdict with no specification at all. That is what lets these oracles work on code with no specification to consult, and what leaves a challenged verdict with less to fall back on. Source and mechanism cross-cut rather than coincide, so a label such as LLM-as-a-judge names how a verdict is produced, not why it should be trusted. Oracle quality is most often judged by resemblance to a known oracle rather than by whether injected faults are caught. The first question to ask of any LLM oracle is therefore what one would point to in defending its verdict. The protocol, search query, and per-study coding sheet are released.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md

As AI systems approach superhuman capabilities, scalable oversight increasingly relies on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks where models evaluate and guide each other's training. A core assumption is that binary preference labels provide only semantic supervision about response quality. We challenge this assumption by demonstrating that preference labels can function as a covert communication channel. We show that even when a neutral student model generates semantically unbiased completions, a biased judge can transmit unintended behavioral traits through preference assignments, which even strengthen across iterative alignment rounds. Our findings suggest that robust oversight in superalignment settings requires mechanisms that can detect and mitigate subliminal preference transmission, particularly when judges may pursue unintended objectives.

Multi-agent systems have shown strong performance in domains with reliable verifiers such as coding, where multi-parallel candidate generation selected by a verifier is effective. However, such pipelines would not generalize to open-ended, long-horizon research tasks without a verifier. While majority voting or self-consistency is often used to reach consensus as a proxy verifier, parallel agents repeatedly explore the same evidence, while access to peers' partial findings cause search to converge on an early candidate before alternatives are tested. We present ArcticSwarm, a multi-agent research architecture that separates evidence gathering from evidence integration. Subagents publish findings to a shared bulletin board, while gated isolation lets selected search tasks maintain their own prior, preventing early consensus. Structured review at three commitment boundaries enforce only confident candidates to be propagated. As a result, ArcticSwarm reaches 82.6% on the full BrowseComp-Plus set with the open-weight Qwen 3.5-27B model, compared with 78.8% without gated isolation and 74.5% additionally with structured review disabled, outperforming aligned baseline MiroFlow runs (70.6%). Extending to live-web BrowseComp, ArcticSwarm reaches 73.6% with GPT-5, which is well above the reported provider system (54.9%) and MiroFlow (63.4%). Overall, the results show that restricting peer reads during evidence gathering and strengthening commitment boundaries before a hypothesis is shared can broaden search and improve long-horizon multi-agent deep research.

Professional-document review is a constraint-checking problem in which decisions depend on relations among text, geometry, pages, and document revisions. We present an evidence-grounded pipeline that normalizes extracted facts, executes four-state rules deterministically, retains source spans, and escalates unresolved cases. We evaluate its PDF evidence allocator on 160 reference-based tasks from 29 construction projects using a repeated four-system test and a disjoint two-system breadth extension. In the repeated test, reallocating a four-image budget from retrieved page overviews to one overview and three overlapping tiles improves project-family standardized decision accuracy by 10.6 percentage points (95% project-cluster bootstrap CI: 4.3 to 18.0; exact p = 0.031). This effect does not persist in the broader block: Region-RAG changes accuracy by -4.1 points (95% CI: -10.2 to 1.9; exact p = 0.209), while an equal-image sensitivity favors page breadth. Exact finding-set recovery remains low, false passes remain common, and repeated-run agreement is poorly calibrated. The results identify a resolution-breadth trade-off rather than a universal advantage for region-focused evidence, motivating rule-aware evidence routing and expert review.

The core premise of AI debate as a scalable oversight technique is that it is harder to lie convincingly than to refute a lie, enabling the judge to identify the correct position. Yet, existing debate experiments have relied on datasets with ground truth, where lying is reduced to defending an incorrect proposition. This overlooks a subjective dimension: lying also requires the belief that the claim defended is false. In this work, we apply debate to subjective questions and explicitly measure large language models' prior beliefs before experiments. Debaters were asked to select their preferred position, then presented with a judge persona deliberately designed to conflict with their identified priors. This setup tested whether models would adopt sycophantic strategies, aligning with the judge's presumed perspective to maximize persuasiveness, or remain faithful to their prior beliefs. We implemented and compared two debate protocols, sequential and simultaneous, to evaluate potential systematic biases. Finally, we assessed whether models were more persuasive and produced higher-quality arguments when defending positions consistent with their prior beliefs versus when arguing against them. Our main findings show that models tend to prefer defending stances aligned with the judge persona rather than their prior beliefs, sequential debate introduces significant bias favoring the second debater, models are more persuasive when defending positions aligned with their prior beliefs, and paradoxically, arguments misaligned with prior beliefs are rated as higher quality in pairwise comparison. These results can inform human judges to provide higher-quality training signals and contribute to more aligned AI systems, while revealing important aspects of human-AI interaction regarding persuasion dynamics in language models.

As centralized AI hits compute ceilings and diminishing returns from ever-larger training runs, meeting demand requires an inference layer that scales horizontally in both capacity and capability. We present Fortytwo, a novel protocol that leverages swarm intelligence principles and distributed pairwise ranking consensus to achieve superior performance in AI inference. Our approach reimagines collaboration among AI nodes using swarm inference: a peer-ranked, reputation-weighted consensus across heterogeneous models that surfaces the highest-quality responses. Using pairwise ranking with a custom Bradley-Terry-style aggregation model, we demonstrate that swarm inference substantially outperforms majority voting, achieving 85.90% on GPQA Diamond versus 68.69% for majority voting with the same model set - an improvement of +17.21 percentage points (approximately +25.1% relative). The protocol incorporates on-chain reputation so node influence adapts to demonstrated accuracy over time, yielding a meritocratic consensus that filters low-quality or malicious participants. To resist Sybil attacks, Fortytwo employs proof-of-capability in its consensus: nodes must successfully complete calibration/test requests and stake reputation to enter ranking rounds, making multi-identity attacks economically unattractive while preserving openness. Across six challenging benchmarks, including GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench, and AIME, our evaluation indicates higher accuracy and strong resilience to adversarial and noisy free-form prompting (e.g., prompt-injection degradation of only 0.12% versus 6.20% for a monolithic single-model baseline), while retaining practical deployability. Together, these results establish a foundation for decentralized AI systems - democratizing access to high-quality inference through collective intelligence without sacrificing reliability or security.

Generative Reward Models (GenRMs) and LLM-as-a-Judge exhibit deceptive alignment by producing correct judgments for incorrect reasons, as they are trained and evaluated to prioritize Outcome Accuracy, which undermines their ability to generalize during RLHF. We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model's reasoning process and human judgment. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models and detects deceptive alignment, while outcome accuracy falls short in both respects. To mitigate this gap, we introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training. Our training method achieves state-of-the-art performance on RM-Bench (87.1%) and JudgeBench (82%), surpassing outcome-only baselines by an average of 5%. Using RM during RLHF, our method effectively improves performance as demonstrated on Arena Hard v2, notably yielding a 7% improvement in creative writing tasks. Further analysis confirms that our method escapes the deceptive alignment trap, effectively reversing the decline in rationale consistency observed in outcome-only training.