Daily Papers

Pulmonary fibrosis is a devastating chronic lung disease that causes irreparable lung tissue scarring and damage, resulting in progressive loss in lung capacity and has no known cure. A critical step in the treatment and management of pulmonary fibrosis is the assessment of lung function decline, with computed tomography (CT) imaging being a particularly effective method for determining the extent of lung damage caused by pulmonary fibrosis. Motivated by this, we introduce Fibrosis-Net, a deep convolutional neural network design tailored for the prediction of pulmonary fibrosis progression from chest CT images. More specifically, machine-driven design exploration was leveraged to determine a strong architectural design for CT lung analysis, upon which we build a customized network design tailored for predicting forced vital capacity (FVC) based on a patient's CT scan, initial spirometry measurement, and clinical metadata. Finally, we leverage an explainability-driven performance validation strategy to study the decision-making behaviour of Fibrosis-Net as to verify that predictions are based on relevant visual indicators in CT images. Experiments using a patient cohort from the OSIC Pulmonary Fibrosis Progression Challenge showed that the proposed Fibrosis-Net is able to achieve a significantly higher modified Laplace Log Likelihood score than the winning solutions on the challenge. Furthermore, explainability-driven performance validation demonstrated that the proposed Fibrosis-Net exhibits correct decision-making behaviour by leveraging clinically-relevant visual indicators in CT images when making predictions on pulmonary fibrosis progress. While Fibrosis-Net is not yet a production-ready clinical assessment solution, we hope that its release in open source manner will encourage researchers, clinicians, and citizen data scientists alike to leverage and build upon it.

Is explainability a false promise? This debate has emerged from the insufficient evidence that explanations aid people in situations they are introduced for. More human-centered, application-grounded evaluations of explanations are needed to settle this. Yet, with no established guidelines for such studies in NLP, researchers accustomed to standardized proxy evaluations must discover appropriate measurements, tasks, datasets, and sensible models for human-AI teams in their studies. To help with this, we first review fitting existing metrics. We then establish requirements for datasets to be suitable for application-grounded evaluations. Among over 50 datasets available for explainability research in NLP, we find that 4 meet our criteria. By finetuning Flan-T5-3B, we demonstrate the importance of reassessing the state of the art to form and study human-AI teams. Finally, we present the exemplar studies of human-AI decision-making for one of the identified suitable tasks -- verifying the correctness of a legal claim given a contract.

Interpretability and explainability of deep neural networks are challenging due to their scale, complexity, and the agreeable notions on which the explaining process rests. Previous work, in particular, has focused on representing internal components of neural networks through human-friendly visuals and concepts. On the other hand, in real life, when making a decision, human tends to rely on similar situations and/or associations in the past. Hence arguably, a promising approach to make the model transparent is to design it in a way such that the model explicitly connects the current sample with the seen ones, and bases its decision on these samples. Grounded on that principle, we propose in this paper an explainable, evidence-based memory network architecture, which learns to summarize the dataset and extract supporting evidences to make its decision. Our model achieves state-of-the-art performance on two popular question answering datasets (i.e. TrecQA and WikiQA). Via further analysis, we show that this model can reliably trace the errors it has made in the validation step to the training instances that might have caused these errors. We believe that this error-tracing capability provides significant benefit in improving dataset quality in many applications.

Algorithmic approaches to interpreting machine learning models have proliferated in recent years. We carry out human subject tests that are the first of their kind to isolate the effect of algorithmic explanations on a key aspect of model interpretability, simulatability, while avoiding important confounding experimental factors. A model is simulatable when a person can predict its behavior on new inputs. Through two kinds of simulation tests involving text and tabular data, we evaluate five explanations methods: (1) LIME, (2) Anchor, (3) Decision Boundary, (4) a Prototype model, and (5) a Composite approach that combines explanations from each method. Clear evidence of method effectiveness is found in very few cases: LIME improves simulatability in tabular classification, and our Prototype method is effective in counterfactual simulation tests. We also collect subjective ratings of explanations, but we do not find that ratings are predictive of how helpful explanations are. Our results provide the first reliable and comprehensive estimates of how explanations influence simulatability across a variety of explanation methods and data domains. We show that (1) we need to be careful about the metrics we use to evaluate explanation methods, and (2) there is significant room for improvement in current methods. All our supporting code, data, and models are publicly available at: https://github.com/peterbhase/InterpretableNLP-ACL2020

This paper presents a systematic review of benchmarks and approaches for explainability in Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC). We present how the representation and inference challenges evolved and the steps which were taken to tackle these challenges. We also present the evaluation methodologies to assess the performance of explainable systems. In addition, we identify persisting open research questions and highlight critical directions for future work.

Training data influence estimation methods quantify the contribution of training documents to a model's output, making them a promising source of information for example-based explanations. As humans cannot interpret thousands of documents, only a small subset of the training data can be presented as an explanation. Although the choice of which documents to include directly affects explanation quality, previous evaluations of such systems have largely ignored any selection strategies. To address this, we propose a novel selection relevance score, a retraining-free metric that quantifies how useful a set of examples is for explaining a model's output. We validate this score through fine-tuning experiments, confirming that it can predict whether a set of examples supports or undermines the model's predictions. Using this metric, we further show that common selection strategies often underperform random selection. Motivated by this finding, we propose a strategy that balances influence and representativeness, enabling better use of selection budgets than naively selecting the highest-ranking examples.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields, necessitating the development of effective methods to evaluate and compare their performance. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either based on fixed, domain-specific questions that lack the flexibility required in many real-world applications, or rely on human input, making them unscalable. To address these issues, we propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between LLMs, judged by another LLM. This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as argumentative reasoning and inconsistency recognition. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs using the debate framework and achieve rankings that align closely with popular rankings based on human input, eliminating the need for costly human crowdsourcing.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently achieve impressive scores on standardized benchmarks, yet accuracy alone offers a limited view of their capabilities. Evaluating open-source LLMs through leaderboards faces persistent issues like data contamination, narrow task scope, and weak alignment with real-world reliability. Benchmark-based evaluations such as MMLU PRO, BBH, or IFEval primarily capture what a model outputs on fixed test sets, not how it processes information, calibrates uncertainty, or structures internal knowledge. In this article, we advocate for a shift from benchmark-centric evaluation toward a complementary, state-centered intrinsic assessment of LLMs. To this end, we introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions. LPP defines a set of scalar metrics on a model's latent representations and dynamics, revealing scale-independent traits that enable interpretable comparisons and uncover hidden vulnerabilities. Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size. With extensive empirical analyses across eight LLMs, spanning a size range of 0.5B-14B, we demonstrate that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability. Guided by these insights, we design synthetic probes for uncertainty and symbolic reasoning that align with intrinsic metrics while decoupling from leaderboard bias. We recommend that reporting LPP alongside benchmarks provides a deeper, interpretable understanding of model behavior, enabling more reliable model selection, safety assessment, and evaluation beyond surface-level accuracy.

We present TIGERScore, a Trained metric that follows Instruction Guidance to perform Explainable, and Reference-free evaluation over a wide spectrum of text generation tasks. Different from other automatic evaluation methods that only provide arcane scores, TIGERScore is guided by the natural language instruction to provide error analysis to pinpoint the mistakes in the generated text. Our metric is based on LLaMA, trained on our meticulously curated instruction-tuning dataset MetricInstruct which covers 6 text generation tasks and 23 text generation datasets. The dataset consists of 48K quadruple in the form of (instruction, input, system output rightarrow error analysis). We collected the `system outputs' through diverse channels to cover different types of errors. To quantitatively assess our metric, we evaluate its correlation with human ratings on 5 held-in datasets, 2 held-out datasets and show that TIGERScore can achieve the highest overall Spearman's correlation with human ratings across these datasets and outperforms other metrics significantly. As a reference-free metric, its correlation can even surpass the best existing reference-based metrics. To further qualitatively assess the rationale generated by our metric, we conduct human evaluation on the generated explanations and found that the explanations are 70.8\% accurate. Through these experimental results, we believe TIGERScore demonstrates the possibility of building universal explainable metrics to evaluate any text generation task.

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.

Explainable recommender systems are designed to elucidate the explanation behind each recommendation, enabling users to comprehend the underlying logic. Previous works perform rating prediction and explanation generation in a multi-task manner. However, these works suffer from incoherence between predicted ratings and explanations. To address the issue, we propose a novel framework that employs a large language model (LLM) to generate a rating, transforms it into a rating vector, and finally generates an explanation based on the rating vector and user-item information. Moreover, we propose utilizing publicly available LLMs and pre-trained sentiment analysis models to automatically evaluate the coherence without human annotations. Extensive experimental results on three datasets of explainable recommendation show that the proposed framework is effective, outperforming state-of-the-art baselines with improvements of 7.3\% in explainability and 4.4\% in text quality.

This position paper emphasizes the critical gap in the evaluation of Explainable AI (XAI) due to the lack of standardized and reliable metrics, which diminishes its practical value, trustworthiness, and ability to meet regulatory requirements. Current evaluation methods are often fragmented, subjective, and biased, making them prone to manipulation and complicating the assessment of complex models. A central issue is the absence of a ground truth for explanations, complicating comparisons across various XAI approaches. To address these challenges, we advocate for widespread research into developing robust, context-sensitive evaluation metrics. These metrics should be resistant to manipulation, relevant to each use case, and based on human judgment and real-world applicability. We also recommend creating domain-specific evaluation benchmarks that align with the user and regulatory needs of sectors such as healthcare and finance. By encouraging collaboration among academia, industry, and regulators, we can create standards that balance flexibility and consistency, ensuring XAI explanations are meaningful, trustworthy, and compliant with evolving regulations.

The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to use external tools unlocks powerful real-world interactions, making rigorous evaluation essential. However, current benchmarks primarily report final accuracy, revealing what models can do but obscuring the cognitive bottlenecks that define their true capability boundaries. To move from simple performance scoring to a diagnostic tool, we introduce a framework grounded in Cognitive Load Theory. Our framework deconstructs task complexity into two quantifiable components: Intrinsic Load, the inherent structural complexity of the solution path, formalized with a novel Tool Interaction Graph; and Extraneous Load, the difficulty arising from ambiguous task presentation. To enable controlled experiments, we construct ToolLoad-Bench, the first benchmark with parametrically adjustable cognitive load. Our evaluation reveals distinct performance cliffs as cognitive load increases, allowing us to precisely map each model's capability boundary. We validate that our framework's predictions are highly calibrated with empirical results, establishing a principled methodology for understanding an agent's limits and a practical foundation for building more efficient systems.

As machine learning and algorithmic decision making systems are increasingly being leveraged in high-stakes human-in-the-loop settings, there is a pressing need to understand the rationale of their predictions. Researchers have responded to this need with explainable AI (XAI), but often proclaim interpretability axiomatically without evaluation. When these systems are evaluated, they are often tested through offline simulations with proxy metrics of interpretability (such as model complexity). We empirically evaluate the veracity of three common interpretability assumptions through a large scale human-subjects experiment with a simple "placebo explanation" control. We find that feature attribution explanations provide marginal utility in our task for a human decision maker and in certain cases result in worse decisions due to cognitive and contextual confounders. This result challenges the assumed universal benefit of applying these methods and we hope this work will underscore the importance of human evaluation in XAI research. Supplemental materials -- including anonymized data from the experiment, code to replicate the study, an interactive demo of the experiment, and the models used in the analysis -- can be found at: https://doi.pizza/challenging-xai.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely applied to downstream domains. However, current LLMs for high-stakes domain tasks, such as financial investment and legal QA, typically generate brief answers without reasoning processes and explanations. This limits users' confidence in making decisions based on their responses. While original CoT shows promise, it lacks self-correction mechanisms during reasoning. This work introduces Domaino1s, which enhances LLMs' reasoning capabilities on domain tasks through supervised fine-tuning and tree search. We construct CoT-stock-2k and CoT-legal-2k datasets for fine-tuning models that activate domain-specific reasoning steps based on their judgment. Additionally, we propose Selective Tree Exploration to spontaneously explore solution spaces and sample optimal reasoning paths to improve performance. We also introduce PROOF-Score, a new metric for evaluating domain models' explainability, complementing traditional accuracy metrics with richer assessment dimensions. Extensive experiments on stock investment recommendation and legal reasoning QA tasks demonstrate Domaino1s's leading performance and explainability. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Domaino1s-006F/.

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

Large language model (LLM)-based reasoning systems have recently achieved gold medal-level performance in the IMO 2025 competition, writing mathematical proofs where, to receive full credit, each step must be not only correct but also sufficiently supported. To train LLM-based reasoners in such challenging, open-ended settings, strong verifiers capable of catching step-level mistakes are necessary prerequisites. We introduce Hard2Verify, a human-annotated, step-level verification benchmark produced with over 500 hours of human labor. Hard2Verify is designed to rigorously assess step-level verifiers at the frontier: Verifiers must provide step-level annotations or identify the first error in responses generated by frontier LLMs for very recent, challenging, and open-ended math questions. We evaluate 29 generative critics and process reward models, demonstrating that, beyond a few standouts, open-source verifiers lag closed source models. We subsequently analyze what drives poor performance in step-level verification, the impacts of scaling verifier compute, as well as fundamental questions such as self-verification and verification-generation dynamics.

Recent advancements in machine learning have spurred growing interests in automated interpreting quality assessment. Nevertheless, existing research suffers from insufficient examination of language use quality, unsatisfactory modeling effectiveness due to data scarcity and imbalance, and a lack of efforts to explain model predictions. To address these gaps, we propose a multi-dimensional modeling framework that integrates feature engineering, data augmentation, and explainable machine learning. This approach prioritizes explainability over ``black box'' predictions by utilizing only construct-relevant, transparent features and conducting Shapley Value (SHAP) analysis. Our results demonstrate strong predictive performance on a novel English-Chinese consecutive interpreting dataset, identifying BLEURT and CometKiwi scores to be the strongest predictive features for fidelity, pause-related features for fluency, and Chinese-specific phraseological diversity metrics for language use. Overall, by placing particular emphasis on explainability, we present a scalable, reliable, and transparent alternative to traditional human evaluation, facilitating the provision of detailed diagnostic feedback for learners and supporting self-regulated learning advantages not afforded by automated scores in isolation.

Two prominent challenges in explainability research involve 1) the nuanced evaluation of explanations and 2) the modeling of missing information through baseline representations. The existing literature introduces diverse evaluation metrics, each scrutinizing the quality of explanations through distinct lenses. Additionally, various baseline representations have been proposed, each modeling the notion of missingness differently. Yet, a consensus on the ultimate evaluation metric and baseline representation remains elusive. This work acknowledges the diversity in explanation metrics and baselines, demonstrating that different metrics exhibit preferences for distinct explanation maps resulting from the utilization of different baseline representations and distributions. To address the diversity in metrics and accommodate the variety of baseline representations in a unified manner, we propose Baseline Exploration-Exploitation (BEE) - a path-integration method that introduces randomness to the integration process by modeling the baseline as a learned random tensor. This tensor follows a learned mixture of baseline distributions optimized through a contextual exploration-exploitation procedure to enhance performance on the specific metric of interest. By resampling the baseline from the learned distribution, BEE generates a comprehensive set of explanation maps, facilitating the selection of the best-performing explanation map in this broad set for the given metric. Extensive evaluations across various model architectures showcase the superior performance of BEE in comparison to state-of-the-art explanation methods on a variety of objective evaluation metrics.

The field of explainable AI (XAI) has quickly become a thriving and prolific community. However, a silent, recurrent and acknowledged issue in this area is the lack of consensus regarding its terminology. In particular, each new contribution seems to rely on its own (and often intuitive) version of terms like "explanation" and "interpretation". Such disarray encumbers the consolidation of advances in the field towards the fulfillment of scientific and regulatory demands e.g., when comparing methods or establishing their compliance with respect to biases and fairness constraints. We propose a theoretical framework that not only provides concrete definitions for these terms, but it also outlines all steps necessary to produce explanations and interpretations. The framework also allows for existing contributions to be re-contextualized such that their scope can be measured, thus making them comparable to other methods. We show that this framework is compliant with desiderata on explanations, on interpretability and on evaluation metrics. We present a use-case showing how the framework can be used to compare LIME, SHAP and MDNet, establishing their advantages and shortcomings. Finally, we discuss relevant trends in XAI as well as recommendations for future work, all from the standpoint of our framework.

Explanations of model behavior are commonly evaluated via proxy properties weakly tied to the purposes explanations serve in practice. We contribute a decision theoretic framework that treats explanations as information signals valued by the expected improvement they enable on a specified decision task. This approach yields three distinct estimands: 1) a theoretical benchmark that upperbounds achievable performance by any agent with the explanation, 2) a human-complementary value that quantifies the theoretically attainable value that is not already captured by a baseline human decision policy, and 3) a behavioral value representing the causal effect of providing the explanation to human decision-makers. We instantiate these definitions in a practical validation workflow, and apply them to assess explanation potential and interpret behavioral effects in human-AI decision support and mechanistic interpretability.

The rapid advancements in computing dramatically increase the scale and cost of training Large Language Models (LLMs). Accurately predicting downstream task performance prior to model training is crucial for efficient resource allocation, yet remains challenging due to two primary constraints: (1) the "emergence phenomenon", wherein downstream performance metrics become meaningful only after extensive training, which limits the ability to use smaller models for prediction; (2) Uneven task difficulty distributions and the absence of consistent scaling laws, resulting in substantial metric variability. Existing performance prediction methods suffer from limited accuracy and reliability, thereby impeding the assessment of potential LLM capabilities. To address these challenges, we propose a Clustering-On-Difficulty (COD) downstream performance prediction framework. COD first constructs a predictable support subset by clustering tasks based on difficulty features, strategically excluding non-emergent and non-scalable clusters. The scores on the selected subset serve as effective intermediate predictors of downstream performance on the full evaluation set. With theoretical support, we derive a mapping function that transforms performance metrics from the predictable subset to the full evaluation set, thereby ensuring accurate extrapolation of LLM downstream performance. The proposed method has been applied to predict performance scaling for a 70B LLM, providing actionable insights for training resource allocation and assisting in monitoring the training process. Notably, COD achieves remarkable predictive accuracy on the 70B LLM by leveraging an ensemble of small models, demonstrating an absolute mean deviation of 1.36% across eight important LLM evaluation benchmarks.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and sometimes trained using automated graders such as LLM-as-judges that output scalar scores or preferences. While convenient, these approaches are often opaque: a single score rarely explains why an answer is good or bad, which requirements were missed, or how a system should be improved. This lack of interpretability limits their usefulness for model development, dataset curation, and high-stakes deployment. Query-specific rubric-based evaluation offers a more transparent alternative by decomposing quality into explicit, checkable criteria. However, manually designing high-quality, query-specific rubrics is labor-intensive and cognitively demanding and not feasible for deployment. While previous approaches have focused on generating intermediate rubrics for automated downstream evaluation, it is unclear if these rubrics are both interpretable and effective for human users. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs can generate useful, instance-specific rubrics as compared to human-authored rubrics, while also improving effectiveness for identifying good responses. Through our systematic study on two rubric benchmarks, and on multiple few-shot and post-training strategies, we find that off-the-shelf LLMs produce rubrics that are poorly aligned with human-authored ones. We introduce a simple strategy, RubricRAG, which retrieves domain knowledge via rubrics at inference time from related queries. We demonstrate that RubricRAG can generate more interpretable rubrics both for similarity to human-authored rubrics, and for improved downstream evaluation effectiveness. Our results highlight both the challenges and a promising approach of scalable, interpretable evaluation through automated rubric generation.

As machine learning models evolve, maintaining transparency demands more human-centric explainable AI techniques. Counterfactual explanations, with roots in human reasoning, identify the minimal input changes needed to obtain a given output and, hence, are crucial for supporting decision-making. Despite their importance, the evaluation of these explanations often lacks grounding in user studies and remains fragmented, with existing metrics not fully capturing human perspectives. To address this challenge, we developed a diverse set of 30 counterfactual scenarios and collected ratings across 8 evaluation metrics from 206 respondents. Subsequently, we fine-tuned different Large Language Models (LLMs) to predict average or individual human judgment across these metrics. Our methodology allowed LLMs to achieve an accuracy of up to 63% in zero-shot evaluations and 85% (over a 3-classes prediction) with fine-tuning across all metrics. The fine-tuned models predicting human ratings offer better comparability and scalability in evaluating different counterfactual explanation frameworks.

Although recent tool-augmented benchmarks involve complex requests, evaluation remains limited to answer matching, neglecting critical trajectory aspects like efficiency, hallucination, and adaptivity. The most straightforward method for evaluation is to compare an agent's trajectory with the ground-truth, but annotating all valid ground-truth trajectories is prohibitively expensive. In this manner, we introduce TRACE, a reference-free framework for the multi-dimensional evaluation of tool-augmented LLMs. By incorporating an evidence bank which accumulates knowledge from preceding steps, TRACE assesses an agent's reasoning trajectory effectively. To validate our framework, we develop a new meta-evaluation dataset with diverse and flawed trajectories, each labeled with multi-faceted performance scores. Our results confirm that TRACE accurately evaluates complex trajectories even with small open-source LLMs. Furthermore, we apply our method to evaluate the trajectories that agents produce while solving tool-augmented tasks, presenting previously unreported observations and their corresponding insights.

Recent advances in synergizing large reasoning models (LRMs) with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) have shown promising results, yet two critical challenges remain: (1) reasoning models typically operate from a single, unchallenged perspective, limiting their ability to conduct deep, self-correcting reasoning over external documents, and (2) existing training paradigms rely excessively on outcome-oriented rewards, which provide insufficient signal for shaping the complex, multi-step reasoning process. To address these issues, we propose an Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adversarial Reasoning RAG (ARR). The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage that requires no external scoring model. This reward combines explicit observational signals with internal model uncertainty to jointly optimize reasoning fidelity and verification rigor. Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

Performance optimization is a critical yet challenging aspect of software development, often requiring a deep understanding of system behavior, algorithmic tradeoffs, and careful code modifications. Although recent advances in AI coding agents have accelerated code generation and bug fixing, little is known about how these agents perform on real-world performance optimization tasks. We present the first empirical study comparing agent- and human-authored performance optimization commits, analyzing 324 agent-generated and 83 human-authored PRs from the AIDev dataset across adoption, maintainability, optimization patterns, and validation practices. We find that AI-authored performance PRs are less likely to include explicit performance validation than human-authored PRs (45.7\% vs. 63.6\%, p=0.007). In addition, AI-authored PRs largely use the same optimization patterns as humans. We further discuss limitations and opportunities for advancing agentic code optimization.

While question-answering~(QA) benchmark performance is an automatic and scalable method to compare LLMs, it is an indirect method of evaluating their underlying problem-solving capabilities. Therefore, we propose a holistic and generalizable framework based on cascaded question disclosure that provides a more accurate estimate of the models' problem-solving capabilities while maintaining the scalability and automation. This approach collects model responses in a stagewise manner with each stage revealing partial information about the question designed to elicit generalized reasoning in LLMs. We find that our approach not only provides a better comparison between LLMs, but also induces better intermediate traces in models compared to the standard QA paradigm. We empirically verify this behavior on diverse reasoning and knowledge-heavy QA datasets by comparing LLMs of varying sizes and families. Our approach narrows the performance gap observed in the standard QA evaluation settings, indicating that the prevalent indirect QA paradigm of evaluation overestimates the differences in performance between models. We further validate our findings by extensive ablation studies.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks, yet it remains unclear whether such success reflects genuine reasoning or sophisticated recall. We introduce AInstein, a framework for testing whether LLMs can generate valid solutions to AI research problems using only their pretrained parametric knowledge -- without domain-specific fine-tuning, retrieval augmentation, or other external aids. Our approach extracts distilled problem statements from high-quality ICLR 2025 submissions, then tasks specialized solver agents with proposing and refining technical solutions through iterative critique loops, mimicking the cycles of proposal, review, and revision central to scientific inquiry. We evaluate AInstein on 1,214 ICLR papers stratified by acceptance tier (Oral, Spotlight, Poster), using an LLM-as-a-judge paradigm guided by a structured rubric, complemented by targeted manual checks. Performance is assessed with three metrics: Success Rate (does the solution address the problem?), Rediscovery (does it align with human-proposed methods?), and Novelty (does it yield valid, original approaches?). Our results reveal that while LLMs can rediscover feasible solutions and occasionally propose creative alternatives, their problem-solving ability remains fragile and highly sensitive to framing. These findings provide the first large-scale evidence on the extent to which LLMs can act as autonomous scientific problem-solvers, highlighting both their latent potential and their current limitations.

The performance and usability of Large-Language Models (LLMs) are driving their use in explanation generation tasks. However, despite their widespread adoption, LLM explanations have been found to be unreliable, making it difficult for users to distinguish good from bad explanations. To address this issue, we present Rubrik's CUBE, an education-inspired rubric and a dataset of 26k explanations, written and later quality-annotated using the rubric by both humans and six open- and closed-source LLMs. The CUBE dataset focuses on two reasoning and two language tasks, providing the necessary diversity for us to effectively test our proposed rubric. Using Rubrik, we find that explanations are influenced by both task and perceived difficulty. Low quality stems primarily from a lack of conciseness in LLM-generated explanations, rather than cohesion and word choice. The full dataset, rubric, and code will be made available upon acceptance.

Language Models (LMs) can perform new tasks by adapting to a few in-context examples. For humans, explanations that connect examples to task principles can improve learning. We therefore investigate whether explanations of few-shot examples can help LMs. We annotate questions from 40 challenging tasks with answer explanations, and various matched control explanations. We evaluate how different types of explanations, instructions, and controls affect zero- and few-shot performance. We analyze these results using statistical multilevel modeling techniques that account for the nested dependencies among conditions, tasks, prompts, and models. We find that explanations can improve performance -- even without tuning. Furthermore, explanations hand-tuned for performance on a small validation set offer substantially larger benefits, and building a prompt by selecting examples and explanations together substantially improves performance over selecting examples alone. Finally, even untuned explanations outperform carefully matched controls, suggesting that the benefits are due to the link between an example and its explanation, rather than lower-level features. However, only large models benefit. In summary, explanations can support the in-context learning of large LMs on challenging tasks.

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly impacted nearly every domain of human knowledge. However, the explainability of these models esp. to laypersons, which are crucial for instilling trust, have been examined through various skeptical lenses. In this paper, we introduce a novel notion of LLM explainability to laypersons, termed ReQuesting, across three high-priority application domains -- law, health and finance, using multiple state-of-the-art LLMs. The proposed notion exhibits faithful generation of explainable layman-understandable algorithms on multiple tasks through high degree of reproducibility. Furthermore, we observe a notable alignment of the explainable algorithms with intrinsic reasoning of the LLMs.

Text-based explainable recommendation aims to generate natural-language explanations that justify item recommendations, to improve user trust and system transparency. Although recent advances leverage LLMs to produce fluent outputs, a critical question remains underexplored: are these explanations factually consistent with the available evidence? We introduce a comprehensive framework for evaluating the factual consistency of text-based explainable recommenders. We design a prompting-based pipeline that uses LLMs to extract atomic explanatory statements from reviews, thereby constructing a ground truth that isolates and focuses on their factual content. Applying this pipeline to five categories from the Amazon Reviews dataset, we create augmented benchmarks for fine-grained evaluation of explanation quality. We further propose statement-level alignment metrics that combine LLM- and NLI-based approaches to assess both factual consistency and relevance of generated explanations. Across extensive experiments on six state-of-the-art explainable recommendation models, we uncover a critical gap: while models achieve high semantic similarity scores (BERTScore F1: 0.81-0.90), all our factuality metrics reveal alarmingly low performance (LLM-based statement-level precision: 4.38%-32.88%). These findings underscore the need for factuality-aware evaluation in explainable recommendation and provide a foundation for developing more trustworthy explanation systems.

Language model heavily depends on high-quality data for optimal performance. Existing approaches rely on manually designed heuristics, the perplexity of existing models, training classifiers, or careful prompt engineering, which require significant expert experience and human annotation effort while introduce biases. We introduce CritiQ, a novel data selection method that automatically mines criteria from human preferences for data quality with only sim30 human-annotated pairs and performs efficient data selection. The main component, CritiQ Flow, employs a manager agent to evolve quality criteria and worker agents to make pairwise judgments. We build a knowledge base that extracts quality criteria from previous work to boost CritiQ Flow. Compared to perplexity- and classifier- based methods, verbal criteria are more interpretable and possess reusable value. After deriving the criteria, we train the CritiQ Scorer to give quality scores and perform efficient data selection. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in the code, math, and logic domains, achieving high accuracy on human-annotated test sets. To validate the quality of the selected data, we continually train Llama 3.1 models and observe improved performance on downstream tasks compared to uniform sampling. Ablation studies validate the benefits of the knowledge base and the reflection process. We analyze how criteria evolve and the effectiveness of majority voting.

The rapid deployment of AI agents in commercial settings has outpaced the development of evaluation methodologies that reflect production realities. Existing benchmarks measure agent capabilities through retrospectively curated tasks with well-specified requirements and deterministic metrics -- conditions that diverge fundamentally from production environments where requirements contain implicit constraints, inputs are heterogeneous multi-modal documents with information fragmented across sources, tasks demand undeclared domain expertise, outputs are long-horizon professional deliverables, and success is judged by domain experts whose standards evolve over time. We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business, spanning six O*NET (Occupational Information Network) domains. Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products -- Claude Code, Codex, etc. -- as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation. Our evaluation framework covers multiple paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reference-driven metrics, formal verification, rubric-based assessment, automated UI testing, etc.), with individual domains composing multiple paradigms. Beyond the benchmark itself, we contribute a requirement-to-benchmark construction framework -- a systematic methodology that transforms authentic production requirements into executable evaluation tasks in minimal time. This framework standardizes the entire pipeline from requirement to evaluation, providing a reproducible, modular process that any organization can adopt to construct production-grounded benchmarks for their own domains.

Many methods now exist for conditioning model outputs on task instructions, retrieved documents, and user-provided explanations and feedback. Rather than relying solely on examples of task inputs and outputs, these approaches use valuable additional data for improving model correctness and aligning learned models with human priors. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence suggests that some language models can (1) store a large amount of knowledge in their parameters, and (2) perform inference over tasks in textual inputs at test time. These results raise the possibility that, for some tasks, humans cannot explain to a model any more about the task than it already knows or could infer on its own. In this paper, we study the circumstances under which explanations of individual data points can (or cannot) improve modeling performance. In order to carefully control important properties of the data and explanations, we introduce a synthetic dataset for experiments, and we also make use of three existing datasets with explanations: e-SNLI, TACRED, and SemEval. We first give a formal framework for the available modeling approaches, in which explanation data can be used as model inputs, as targets, or as a prior. After arguing that the most promising role for explanation data is as model inputs, we propose to use a retrieval-based method and show that it solves our synthetic task with accuracies upwards of 95%, while baselines without explanation data achieve below 65% accuracy. We then identify properties of datasets for which retrieval-based modeling fails. With the three existing datasets, we find no improvements from explanation retrieval. Drawing on findings from our synthetic task, we suggest that at least one of six preconditions for successful modeling fails to hold with these datasets. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/peterbhase/ExplanationRoles

Large Language Models (LLM) benchmarks tell us when models fail, but not why they fail. A wrong answer on a reasoning dataset may stem from formatting issues, calculation errors, or dataset noise rather than weak reasoning. Without disentangling such causes, benchmarks remain incomplete and cannot reliably guide model improvement. We introduce ErrorMap, the first method to chart the sources of LLM failure. It extracts a model's unique "failure signature", clarifies what benchmarks measure, and broadens error identification to reduce blind spots. This helps developers debug models, aligns benchmark goals with outcomes, and supports informed model selection. ErrorMap works on any model or dataset with the same logic. Applying our method to 35 datasets and 83 models we generate ErrorAtlas, a taxonomy of model errors, revealing recurring failure patterns. ErrorAtlas highlights error types that are currently underexplored in LLM research, such as omissions of required details in the output and question misinterpretation. By shifting focus from where models succeed to why they fail, ErrorMap and ErrorAtlas enable advanced evaluation - one that exposes hidden weaknesses and directs progress. Unlike success, typically measured by task-level metrics, our approach introduces a deeper evaluation layer that can be applied globally across models and tasks, offering richer insights into model behavior and limitations. We make the taxonomy and code publicly available with plans to periodically update ErrorAtlas as new benchmarks and models emerge.

Large Language Models (LLMs) for code are a family of high-parameter, transformer-based neural networks pre-trained on massive datasets of both natural and programming languages. These models are rapidly being employed in commercial AI-based developer tools, such as GitHub CoPilot. However, measuring and explaining their effectiveness on programming tasks is a challenging proposition, given their size and complexity. The methods for evaluating and explaining LLMs for code are inextricably linked. That is, in order to explain a model's predictions, they must be reliably mapped to fine-grained, understandable concepts. Once this mapping is achieved, new methods for detailed model evaluations are possible. However, most current explainability techniques and evaluation benchmarks focus on model robustness or individual task performance, as opposed to interpreting model predictions. To this end, this paper introduces ASTxplainer, an explainability method specific to LLMs for code that enables both new methods for LLM evaluation and visualizations of LLM predictions that aid end-users in understanding model predictions. At its core, ASTxplainer provides an automated method for aligning token predictions with AST nodes, by extracting and aggregating normalized model logits within AST structures. To demonstrate the practical benefit of ASTxplainer, we illustrate the insights that our framework can provide by performing an empirical evaluation on 12 popular LLMs for code using a curated dataset of the most popular GitHub projects. Additionally, we perform a user study examining the usefulness of an ASTxplainer-derived visualization of model predictions aimed at enabling model users to explain predictions. The results of these studies illustrate the potential for ASTxplainer to provide insights into LLM effectiveness, and aid end-users in understanding predictions.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on final-answer correctness is the dominant paradigm. This approach, however, provides a coarse signal for model improvement and overlooks the quality of the underlying reasoning process. We argue that a more granular evaluation of reasoning offers a more effective path to building robust models. We decompose reasoning quality into two dimensions: relevance and coherence. Relevance measures if a step is grounded in the problem; coherence measures if it follows logically from prior steps. To measure these aspects reliably, we introduce causal stepwise evaluation (CaSE). This method assesses each reasoning step using only its preceding context, which avoids hindsight bias. We validate CaSE against human judgments on our new expert-annotated benchmarks, MRa-GSM8K and MRa-MATH. More importantly, we show that curating training data with CaSE-evaluated relevance and coherence directly improves final task performance. Our work provides a scalable framework for analyzing, debugging, and improving LLM reasoning, demonstrating the practical value of moving beyond validity checks.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where reasoning, such as multi-step problem solving and chain-of-thought, is essential. Yet, current evaluation practices overwhelmingly report single-run accuracy while ignoring the intrinsic uncertainty that naturally arises from stochastic decoding. This omission creates a blind spot because practitioners cannot reliably assess whether a method's reported performance is stable, reproducible, or cost-consistent. We introduce ReasonBENCH, the first benchmark designed to quantify the underlying instability in LLM reasoning. ReasonBENCH provides (i) a modular evaluation library that standardizes reasoning frameworks, models, and tasks, (ii) a multi-run protocol that reports statistically reliable metrics for both quality and cost, and (iii) a public leaderboard to encourage variance-aware reporting. Across tasks from different domains, we find that the vast majority of reasoning strategies and models exhibit high instability. Notably, even strategies with similar average performance can display confidence intervals up to four times wider, and the top-performing methods often incur higher and less stable costs. Such instability compromises reproducibility across runs and, consequently, the reliability of reported performance. To better understand these dynamics, we further analyze the impact of prompts, model families, and scale on the trade-off between solve rate and stability. Our results highlight reproducibility as a critical dimension for reliable LLM reasoning and provide a foundation for future reasoning methods and uncertainty quantification techniques. ReasonBENCH is publicly available at https://github.com/au-clan/ReasonBench .

Mechanistic interpretability identifies internal circuits responsible for model behaviors, yet translating these findings into human-understandable explanations remains an open problem. We present a pipeline that bridges circuit-level analysis and natural language explanations by (i) identifying causally important attention heads via activation patching, (ii) generating explanations using both template-based and LLM-based methods, and (iii) evaluating faithfulness using ERASER-style metrics adapted for circuit-level attribution. We evaluate on the Indirect Object Identification (IOI) task in GPT-2 Small (124M parameters), identifying six attention heads accounting for 61.4% of the logit difference. Our circuit-based explanations achieve 100% sufficiency but only 22% comprehensiveness, revealing distributed backup mechanisms. LLM-generated explanations outperform template baselines by 64% on quality metrics. We find no correlation (r = 0.009) between model confidence and explanation faithfulness, and identify three failure categories explaining when explanations diverge from mechanisms.

Agent benchmarks typically report only final outcomes: pass or fail. This threatens evaluation credibility in three ways. First, scores may be inflated or deflated by shortcuts and benchmark artifacts, misrepresenting capability. Second, benchmark performance may fail to predict real-world utility due to scaffold limitations and recurring failure modes. Finally, capability scores may conceal dangerous or catastrophic actions taken by the agent. We argue that log analysis -- the systematic tracking and analysis of the inputs, execution, and outputs of an AI agent -- is necessary to overcome these validity threats and promote credible agent evaluation. In this paper, we (1) present a taxonomy of threats to credible evaluation documented through log analysis, and (2) develop a set of guiding principles for log analysis. We illustrate these principles on tau-Bench Airline, revealing that pass^5 performance was under-elicited by nearly 50% and surfacing deployment failure modes invisible to outcome metrics. We conclude with pragmatic recommendations to increase uptake of log analysis, directed at diverse stakeholders including benchmark creators, model developers, independent evaluators, and deployers.

While Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) have become masterly capable in reasoning over human prompts and visual inputs, they are still prone to producing responses that contain misinformation. Identifying incorrect responses that are not grounded in evidence has become a crucial task in building trustworthy AI. Explainability methods such as gradient-based relevancy maps on LVLM outputs can provide an insight on the decision process of models, however these methods are often computationally expensive and not suited for on-the-fly validation of outputs. In this work, we propose FastRM, an effective way for predicting the explainable Relevancy Maps of LVLM models. Experimental results show that employing FastRM leads to a 99.8% reduction in compute time for relevancy map generation and an 44.4% reduction in memory footprint for the evaluated LVLM, making explainable AI more efficient and practical, thereby facilitating its deployment in real-world applications.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly relies on other LLMs acting as judges. However, current evaluation paradigms typically yield a single score or ranking, answering which model is better but not why. While essential for benchmarking, these top-level scores obscure the specific, actionable reasons behind a model's performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce CLEAR, an interactive, open-source package for LLM-based error analysis. CLEAR first generates per-instance textual feedback, then it creates a set of system-level error issues, and quantifies the prevalence of each identified issue. Our package also provides users with an interactive dashboard that allows for a comprehensive error analysis through aggregate visualizations, applies interactive filters to isolate specific issues or score ranges, and drills down to the individual instances that exemplify a particular behavioral pattern. We demonstrate CLEAR analysis for RAG and Math benchmarks, and showcase its utility through a user case study.

Over the last decade, explainable AI has primarily focused on interpreting individual model predictions, producing post-hoc explanations that relate inputs to outputs under a fixed decision structure. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled agentic AI systems whose behaviour unfolds over multi-step trajectories. In these settings, success and failure are determined by sequences of decisions rather than a single output. While useful, it remains unclear how explanation approaches designed for static predictions translate to agentic settings where behaviour emerges over time. In this work, we bridge the gap between static and agentic explainability by comparing attribution-based explanations with trace-based diagnostics across both settings. To make this distinction explicit, we empirically compare attribution-based explanations used in static classification tasks with trace-based diagnostics used in agentic benchmarks (TAU-bench Airline and AssistantBench). Our results show that while attribution methods achieve stable feature rankings in static settings (Spearman ρ= 0.86), they cannot be applied reliably to diagnose execution-level failures in agentic trajectories. In contrast, trace-grounded rubric evaluation for agentic settings consistently localizes behaviour breakdowns and reveals that state tracking inconsistency is 2.7times more prevalent in failed runs and reduces success probability by 49\%. These findings motivate a shift towards trajectory-level explainability for agentic systems when evaluating and diagnosing autonomous AI behaviour. Resources: https://github.com/VectorInstitute/unified-xai-evaluation-framework https://vectorinstitute.github.io/unified-xai-evaluation-framework

Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs), with rapid advances from both academic and industrial labs. However, this progress often outpaces methodological rigor, with many evaluations relying on benchmarking practices that lack transparency, robustness, or statistical grounding. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices - including decoding parameters, random seeds, prompt formatting, and even hardware and software-framework configurations. Performance gains reported in recent studies frequently hinge on unclear comparisons or unreported sources of variance. To address these issues, we propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards. Using this framework, we reassess recent methods and find that reinforcement learning (RL) approaches yield only modest improvements - far below prior claims - and are prone to overfitting, especially on small-scale benchmarks like AIME24. In contrast, supervised finetuning (SFT) methods show consistently stronger generalization. To foster reproducibility, we release all code, prompts, and model outputs, for reasoning benchmarks, establishing more rigorous foundations for future work.

Building effective AI systems increasingly depends on writing high-quality task requirements, yet users often struggle to articulate the constraints, preferences, and edge cases that determine success. This problem is especially acute in AI development, where behavior is shaped not only by human expectations but also by data characteristics. We present AREAs-Lab, an interactive environment for AI-driven Requirement Elicitation for AI systems. In AREAs-Lab, an assistant iteratively refines an initially incomplete requirement by analyzing the underlying dataset and asking targeted clarification questions to uncover the user's latent intent. To study this setting systematically, we construct a synthetic benchmark grounded in 16 public datasets spanning diverse domains and task types. Each benchmark instance includes a user profile, a complete reference requirement, and an intentionally underspecified version that serves as the assistant's starting point. We further introduce an automated evaluation pipeline based on an AI-simulated user that reveals hidden information only when appropriately prompted, enabling scalable and reproducible assessment of interactive elicitation quality. AREAs-Lab provides a controlled testbed for studying how AI assistants can transform vague user goals into actionable requirements for AI systems.

Evaluating the quality and variability of text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) poses a significant, yet unresolved research challenge. Traditional evaluation methods, such as ROUGE and BERTScore, which measure token similarity, often fail to capture the holistic semantic equivalence. This results in a low correlation with human judgments and intuition, which is especially problematic in high-stakes applications like healthcare and finance where reliability, safety, and robust decision-making are highly critical. This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of LLM-generated texts using a divide-conquer-reasoning approach. Unlike existing LLM-based evaluators that operate at the paragraph level, our method employs a divide-and-conquer evaluator (DCE) that breaks down the paragraph-to-paragraph comparison between two generated responses into individual sentence-to-paragraph comparisons, each evaluated based on predefined criteria. To facilitate this approach, we introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Beyond the consistency evaluation, we further present a reason-assisted improver (RAI) that leverages the analytical reasons with explanations identified by DCE to generate new responses aimed at reducing these inconsistencies. Through comprehensive and systematic empirical analysis, we show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin (e.g., +19.3% and +24.3% on the SummEval dataset) in evaluating the consistency of LLM generation across multiple benchmarks in semantic, factual, and summarization consistency tasks. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable success in open-book question answering (QA), where the task requires generating answers grounded in a provided external context. A critical challenge in open-book QA is to ensure that model responses are based on the provided context rather than its parametric knowledge, which can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect. Existing evaluation methods, primarily based on the LLM-as-a-judge approach, face significant limitations, including biases, scalability issues, and dependence on costly external systems. To address these challenges, we propose a novel metric that contrasts the perplexity of the model response under two conditions: when the context is provided and when it is not. The resulting score quantifies the extent to which the model's answer relies on the provided context. The validity of this metric is demonstrated through a series of experiments that show its effectiveness in identifying whether a given answer is grounded in the provided context. Unlike existing approaches, this metric is computationally efficient, interpretable, and adaptable to various use cases, offering a scalable and practical solution to assess context utilization in open-book QA systems.

We introduce Rank1, the first reranking model trained to take advantage of test-time compute. Rank1 demonstrates the applicability within retrieval of using a reasoning language model (i.e. OpenAI's o1, Deepseek's R1, etc.) for distillation in order to rapidly improve the performance of a smaller model. We gather and open-source a dataset of more than 600,000 examples of R1 reasoning traces from queries and passages in MS MARCO. Models trained on this dataset show: (1) state-of-the-art performance on advanced reasoning and instruction following datasets; (2) work remarkably well out of distribution due to the ability to respond to user-input prompts; and (3) have explainable reasoning chains that can be given to users or RAG-based systems. Further, we demonstrate that quantized versions of these models retain strong performance while using less compute/memory. Overall, Rank1 shows that test-time compute allows for a fundamentally new type of explainable and performant reranker model for search.

Evaluating data-text alignment remains challenging: existing metrics often provide limited explanations for the scores, while prompt-based LLM-as-Judge methods can be expensive and unreliable. We present an end-to-end explainable evaluation metric that fine-tunes a language model to identify omitted, extra, incorrect, and correct data units in a data-text pair. These local judgements are aggregated into precision, recall, and F1 scores, providing both fine-grained diagnostic feedback and an interpretable measure of alignment quality. Across benchmarks, our fine-tuned models outperform LLM-as-Judge methods in error prediction and achieve competitive precision, recall, and F1 scores, while maintaining strong correlation with human judgements. Beyond evaluation, our verifier outputs also provide useful feedback signals for downstream correction and refinement, supporting alignment-oriented improvement of data-to-text and text-to-data. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/guihuzhang/xqdt.

Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa

As the focus in LLM-based coding shifts from static single-step code generation to multi-step agentic interaction with tools and environments, understanding which tasks will challenge agents and why becomes increasingly difficult. This is compounded by current practice: agent performance is typically measured by aggregate pass rates on benchmarks, but single-number metrics obscure the diversity of tasks within a benchmark. We present a framework for predicting success or failure on individual tasks tailored to the agentic coding regime. Our approach augments Item Response Theory (IRT) with rich features extracted from tasks, including issue statements, repository contexts, solutions, and test cases, and introduces a novel decomposition of agent ability into LLM and scaffold ability components. This parameterization enables us to aggregate evaluation data across heterogeneous leaderboards and accurately predict task-level performance for unseen benchmarks, as well as unseen LLM-scaffold combinations. Our methods have practical utility for benchmark designers, who can better calibrate the difficulty of their new tasks without running computationally expensive agent evaluations.

As machine learning systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as criminal justice, finance, and healthcare, the demand for interpretable and trustworthy models has intensified. Despite the proliferation of local explanation techniques, including SHAP, LIME, and counterfactual methods, there exists no standardized, reproducible framework for their comparative evaluation, particularly in fairness-sensitive settings. We introduce ExplainBench, an open-source benchmarking suite for systematic evaluation of local model explanations across ethically consequential datasets. ExplainBench provides unified wrappers for popular explanation algorithms, integrates end-to-end pipelines for model training and explanation generation, and supports evaluation via fidelity, sparsity, and robustness metrics. The framework includes a Streamlit-based graphical interface for interactive exploration and is packaged as a Python module for seamless integration into research workflows. We demonstrate ExplainBench on datasets commonly used in fairness research, such as COMPAS, UCI Adult Income, and LendingClub, and showcase how different explanation methods behave under a shared experimental protocol. By enabling reproducible, comparative analysis of local explanations, ExplainBench advances the methodological foundations of interpretable machine learning and facilitates accountability in real-world AI systems.

AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute important tasks. While rising accuracy scores on standard benchmarks suggest rapid progress, many agents still continue to fail in practice. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental limitation of current evaluations: compressing agent behavior into a single success metric obscures critical operational flaws. Notably, it ignores whether agents behave consistently across runs, withstand perturbations, fail predictably, or have bounded error severity. Grounded in safety-critical engineering, we provide a holistic performance profile by proposing twelve concrete metrics that decompose agent reliability along four key dimensions: consistency, robustness, predictability, and safety. Evaluating 14 agentic models across two complementary benchmarks, we find that recent capability gains have only yielded small improvements in reliability. By exposing these persistent limitations, our metrics complement traditional evaluations while offering tools for reasoning about how agents perform, degrade, and fail.

Metrics like FactScore and VeriScore that evaluate long-form factuality operate by decomposing an input response into atomic claims and then individually verifying each claim. While effective and interpretable, these methods incur numerous LLM calls and can take upwards of 100 seconds to evaluate a single response, limiting their practicality in large-scale evaluation and training scenarios. To address this, we propose VeriFastScore, which leverages synthetic data to fine-tune Llama3.1 8B for simultaneously extracting and verifying all verifiable claims within a given text based on evidence from Google Search. We show that this task cannot be solved via few-shot prompting with closed LLMs due to its complexity: the model receives ~4K tokens of evidence on average and needs to concurrently decompose claims, judge their verifiability, and verify them against noisy evidence. However, our fine-tuned VeriFastScore model demonstrates strong correlation with the original VeriScore pipeline at both the example level (r=0.80) and system level (r=0.94) while achieving an overall speedup of 6.6x (9.9x excluding evidence retrieval) over VeriScore. To facilitate future factuality research, we publicly release our VeriFastScore model and synthetic datasets.

Large language models show improved downstream task performance when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness (independent of the final answer) is difficult without reliable methods for automatic evaluation. We simply do not know how often the stated reasoning steps actually support the final end task predictions. In this work, we present ROSCOE, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics. To evaluate ROSCOE against baseline metrics, we design a typology of reasoning errors and collect synthetic and human evaluation scores on commonly used reasoning datasets. In contrast with existing metrics, ROSCOE can measure semantic consistency, logicality, informativeness, fluency, and factuality - among other traits - by leveraging properties of step-by-step rationales. We empirically verify the strength of our metrics on five human annotated and six programmatically perturbed diagnostics datasets - covering a diverse set of tasks that require reasoning skills and show that ROSCOE can consistently outperform baseline metrics.

Quantization methods are widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs). While prior research has extensively investigated the degradation of various LLM capabilities due to quantization, its effects on model explainability and interpretability, which are crucial for understanding decision-making processes, remain unexplored. To address this gap, we conduct comprehensive experiments using three common quantization techniques at distinct bit widths, in conjunction with two explainability methods, counterfactual examples and natural language explanations, as well as two interpretability approaches, knowledge memorization analysis and latent multi-hop reasoning analysis. We complement our analysis with a thorough user study, evaluating selected explainability methods. Our findings reveal that, depending on the configuration, quantization can significantly impact model explainability and interpretability. Notably, the direction of this effect is not consistent, as it strongly depends on (1) the quantization method, (2) the explainability or interpretability approach, and (3) the evaluation protocol. In some settings, human evaluation shows that quantization degrades explainability, while in others, it even leads to improvements. Our work serves as a cautionary tale, demonstrating that quantization can unpredictably affect model transparency. This insight has important implications for deploying LLMs in applications where transparency is a critical requirement.

Manual curation of evaluation datasets is struggling to keep up with the rapidly expanding capabilities and deployment scenarios of language models. Towards scalable model profiling, we introduce and validate a framework for evaluating LLMs, called Adaptive Evaluations. Adaptive evaluations use scaffolded language models (evaluator agents) to search through a target model's behavior on a domain dataset and create difficult questions (tasks) that can discover and probe the model's failure modes. We find that frontier models lack consistency when adaptively probed with our framework on a diverse suite of datasets and tasks, including but not limited to legal reasoning, forecasting, and online harassment. Generated questions pass human validity checks and often transfer to other models with different capability profiles, demonstrating that adaptive evaluations can also be used to create difficult domain-specific datasets.

Evaluating generative AI models is increasingly resource-intensive due to slow inference, expensive raters, and a rapidly growing landscape of models and benchmarks. We propose ProEval, a proactive evaluation framework that leverages transfer learning to efficiently estimate performance and identify failure cases. ProEval employs pre-trained Gaussian Processes (GPs) as surrogates for the performance score function, mapping model inputs to metrics such as the severity of errors or safety violations. By framing performance estimation as Bayesian quadrature (BQ) and failure discovery as superlevel set sampling, we develop uncertainty-aware decision strategies that actively select or synthesize highly informative inputs for testing. Theoretically, we prove that our pre-trained GP-based BQ estimator is unbiased and bounded. Empirically, extensive experiments on reasoning, safety alignment, and classification benchmarks demonstrate that ProEval is significantly more efficient than competitive baselines. It requires 8-65x fewer samples to achieve estimates within 1% of the ground truth, while simultaneously revealing more diverse failure cases under a stricter evaluation budget.

Currently, process reward models (PRMs) have exhibited remarkable potential for test-time scaling. Since large language models (LLMs) regularly generate flawed intermediate reasoning steps when tackling a broad spectrum of reasoning and decision-making tasks, PRMs are required to possess capabilities for detecting process-level errors in real-world scenarios. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on mathematical reasoning, thereby failing to comprehensively evaluate the error detection ability of PRMs across diverse reasoning scenarios. To mitigate this gap, we introduce GR-Ben, a process-level benchmark specifically designed for assessing PRM's performance across two primary reasoning domains (science and logic) and nine subdomains. We conduct extensive experiments on a diverse set of 22 models, encompassing both PRMs and LLMs, and derive two key findings: (1) In domains beyond mathematical reasoning, the error-detection ability of existing PRMs and LLMs is found to be markedly weaker by comparison.(2) In general, PRMs are less adept at identifying knowledge-based errors, whereas LLMs exhibit poorer performance in detecting computational errors. We hope GR-Ben can foster future researches on PRMs for general domains, thereby enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software engineering workflows, yet current benchmarks provide only coarse performance summaries that obscure the diverse capabilities and limitations of these models. This paper investigates whether LLMs' code-comprehension performance aligns with traditional human-centric software metrics or instead reflects distinct, non-human regularities. We introduce a diagnostic framework that reframes code understanding as a binary input-output consistency task, enabling the evaluation of classification and generative models. Using a large-scale dataset, we correlate model performance with traditional, human-centric complexity metrics, such as lexical size, control-flow complexity, and abstract syntax tree structure. Our analyses reveal minimal correlation between human-defined metrics and LLM success (AUROC 0.63), while shadow models achieve substantially higher predictive performance (AUROC 0.86), capturing complex, partially predictable patterns beyond traditional software measures. These findings suggest that LLM comprehension reflects model-specific regularities only partially accessible through either human-designed or learned features, emphasizing the need for benchmark methodologies that move beyond aggregate accuracy and toward instance-level diagnostics, while acknowledging fundamental limits in predicting correct outcomes.

This survey paper delves into the burgeoning field of explainability for Large Language Models (LLMs), a critical yet challenging aspect of natural language processing. With LLMs playing a pivotal role in various applications, their "black-box" nature raises concerns about transparency and ethical use. This paper emphasizes the necessity for enhanced explainability in LLMs, addressing both the general public's trust and the technical community's need for a deeper understanding of these models. We concentrate on pre-trained Transformer-based LLMs, such as LLaMA, which present unique interpretability challenges due to their scale and complexity. Our review categorizes existing explainability methods and discusses their application in improving model transparency and reliability. We also discuss representative evaluation methods, highlighting their strengths and limitations. The goal of this survey is to bridge the gap between theoretical understanding and practical application, offering insights for future research and development in the field of LLM explainability.

Code LLMs still struggle with code execution reasoning, especially in smaller models. Existing methods rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with teacher-generated explanations, primarily in two forms: (1) input-output (I/O) prediction chains and (2) natural-language descriptions of execution traces. However, intermediate execution steps cannot be explicitly verified during SFT, so the training objective can reduce to merely matching teacher explanations. Moreover, training data is typically collected without explicit control over task difficulty. We introduce ExecVerify, which goes beyond text imitation by incorporating verifiable white-box rewards derived from execution traces, including next-statement prediction and variable value/type prediction. Our work first builds a dataset with multiple difficulty levels via constraint-based program synthesis. Then, we apply reinforcement learning (RL) to reward correct answers about both intermediate execution steps and final outputs, aligning the training objective with semantic correctness at each execution step. Finally, we adopt a two-stage training pipeline that first enhances execution reasoning and then transfers to code generation. Experiments demonstrate that a 7B model trained with ExecVerify achieves performance comparable to 32B models on code reasoning benchmarks and improves pass@1 by up to 5.9\% on code generation tasks over strong post-training baselines.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

System logs are crucial for monitoring and diagnosing modern computing infrastructure, but their scale and complexity require reliable and efficient automated interpretation. Since severity levels are predefined metadata in system log messages, having a model merely classify them offers limited standalone practical value, revealing little about its underlying ability to interpret system logs. We argue that severity classification is more informative when treated as a benchmark for probing runtime log comprehension rather than as an end task. Using real-world journalctl data from Linux production servers, we evaluate nine small language models (SLMs) and small reasoning language models (SRLMs) under zero-shot, few-shot, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) prompting. The results reveal strong stratification. Qwen3-4B achieves the highest accuracy at 95.64% with RAG, while Gemma3-1B improves from 20.25% under few-shot prompting to 85.28% with RAG. Notably, the tiny Qwen3-0.6B reaches 88.12% accuracy despite weak performance without retrieval. In contrast, several SRLMs, including Qwen3-1.7B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, degrade substantially when paired with RAG. Efficiency measurements further separate models: most Gemma and Llama variants complete inference in under 1.2 seconds per log, whereas Phi-4-Mini-Reasoning exceeds 228 seconds per log while achieving <10% accuracy. These findings suggest that (1) architectural design, (2) training objectives, and (3) the ability to integrate retrieved context under strict output constraints jointly determine performance. By emphasizing small, deployable models, this benchmark aligns with real-time requirements of digital twin (DT) systems and shows that severity classification serves as a lens for evaluating model competence and real-time deployability, with implications for root cause analysis (RCA) and broader DT integration.

As the field progresses toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), there is a pressing need for more comprehensive and insightful evaluation frameworks that go beyond aggregate performance metrics. This paper introduces a unified rating system that jointly models the difficulty of individual test cases and the competency of AI models (or humans) across vision, language, and action domains. Unlike existing metrics that focus solely on models, our approach allows for fine-grained, difficulty-aware evaluations through competitive interactions between models and tasks, capturing both the long-tail distribution of real-world challenges and the competency gap between current models and full task mastery. We validate the generalizability and robustness of our system through extensive experiments on multiple established datasets and models across distinct AGI domains. The resulting rating distributions offer novel perspectives and interpretable insights into task difficulty, model progression, and the outstanding challenges that remain on the path to achieving full AGI task mastery.

Thousands of diverse benchmarks have been developed to measure the quality of large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work has demonstrated that LLM performance is often sufficiently explained by a small set of latent factors, or abilities. This suggests the potential for more efficient and principled benchmarking, but it remains difficult to compare the quality of different methods. Motivated by predictive validity, we argue that the quality of a benchmarking framework should be grounded in how efficiently it enables the prediction of model performance on unseen tasks. To analyze this objective, we collect the "Wide-scale Item Level Dataset" (WILD), a dataset of item-model response pairs, comprising evaluations of 65 models on 109,564 unique items spanning 163 tasks drawn from 27 datasets. This dataset enables the first analysis of how different techniques can predict a model's performance on a large, diverse collection of unseen tasks under different budget constraints. We demonstrate that combining a modified multidimensional item response theory (IRT) model with adaptive item selection driven by optimal experimental design can predict performance on 112 held-out benchmark tasks with a mean absolute error (MAE) of less than 7%, and can do so after observing only 16 items. We further demonstrate that incorporating cost-aware discount factors into our selection criteria can reduce the total tokens needed to reach 7% MAE from 141,000 tokens to only 22,000, an 85% reduction in evaluation cost.

Training language models for formal theorem proving requires large numbers of verifier calls. Slow checks and timeouts often leave GPUs waiting and withhold rewards from potentially correct proofs. We train neural evaluators to predict Lean 4 verdicts and compiler feedback on GPUs using 4.84M labelled programs. We compare two validity classifiers with a feedback model that annotates proof attempts with predicted goal states and error messages. A two-stage evaluator that screens candidates with a classifier and scores its positive predictions with the feedback model reaches 87.8% accuracy in predicting whether Lean accepts a candidate proof, evaluated on a 68,932-program benchmark collected from public provers. The combined evaluator processes 3.5 candidates per second on one H100, 4.2x the throughput of our 64-worker Lean baseline with environment reuse. Finally, we combine our evaluator with Lean verdicts to obtain a hybrid reward system that shortens GRPO training steps by approximately 31%. After one GRPO epoch with hybrid rewards, the prover achieves nearly the same miniF2F pass@1 as with Lean-only rewards (62.2% versus 62.4%) and a pass@32 of 72.4% versus 71.3%.

Mechanistic interpretability is often motivated for alignment auditing, where a model's verbal explanations can be absent, incomplete, or misleading. Yet many evaluations do not control whether black-box prompting alone can recover the target behavior, so apparent gains from white-box tools may reflect elicitation rather than internal signal; we call this the elicitation confounder. We introduce Pando, a model-organism benchmark that breaks this confound via an explanation axis: models are trained to produce either faithful explanations of the true rule, no explanation, or confident but unfaithful explanations of a disjoint distractor rule. Across 720 finetuned models implementing hidden decision-tree rules, agents predict held-out model decisions from 10 labeled query-response pairs, optionally augmented with one interpretability tool output. When explanations are faithful, black-box elicitation matches or exceeds all white-box methods; when explanations are absent or misleading, gradient-based attribution improves accuracy by 3-5 percentage points, and relevance patching, RelP, gives the largest gains, while logit lens, sparse autoencoders, and circuit tracing provide no reliable benefit. Variance decomposition suggests gradients track decision computation, which fields causally drive the output, whereas other readouts are dominated by task representation, biases toward field identity and value. We release all models, code, and evaluation infrastructure.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities as AI agents. However, existing methods for enhancing LLM-agent abilities often lack a focus on data quality, leading to inefficiencies and suboptimal results in both fine-tuning and prompt engineering. To address this issue, we introduce EDGE, a novel approach for identifying informative samples without needing golden answers. We propose the Guideline Effectiveness (GE) metric, which selects challenging samples by measuring the impact of human-provided guidelines in multi-turn interaction tasks. A low GE score indicates that the human expertise required for a sample is missing from the guideline, making the sample more informative. By selecting samples with low GE scores, we can improve the efficiency and outcomes of both prompt engineering and fine-tuning processes for LLMs. Extensive experiments validate the performance of our method. Our method achieves competitive results on the HotpotQA and WebShop and datasets, requiring 75\% and 50\% less data, respectively, while outperforming existing methods. We also provide a fresh perspective on the data quality of LLM-agent fine-tuning.

Large language models (LLMs) can act as both problem solvers and solution verifiers, where the latter select high-quality answers from a pool of solver-generated candidates. This raises the question of under what conditions verification pays off in solver-verifier systems. Prior work has conducted only limited studies of the factors influencing verification performance, focusing primarily on self-verification and examining neither the relationship between solver and verifier model families nor the effects of reasoning post-training. To rectify this, we present a systematic study across 37 models spanning multiple families, sizes, and base vs. post-trained variants, evaluated on 9 benchmarks covering logical reasoning, structured puzzles, symbolic computation, mathematics, commonsense, factual recall, and domain knowledge. In order to support our analysis, we introduce and empirically validate verifier gain, a metric that predicts the performance improvements from test-time verifier-based rejection sampling. Our experiments find that 1) verification across model families is more effective than either self-verification or verification within the same family, and more generally that the benefits of verification decrease as the solver and verifier become more similar, 2) reasoning post-training weakens self-improvement abilities but strengthens cross-family improvement, and 3) some tasks are inherently more amenable to improvement through verification, particularly mathematical and logical tasks.

While mechanistic interpretability has developed powerful tools to analyze the internal workings of Large Language Models (LLMs), their complexity has created an accessibility gap, limiting their use to specialists. We address this challenge by designing, building, and evaluating ELIA (Explainable Language Interpretability Analysis), an interactive web application that simplifies the outcomes of various language model component analyses for a broader audience. The system integrates three key techniques -- Attribution Analysis, Function Vector Analysis, and Circuit Tracing -- and introduces a novel methodology: using a vision-language model to automatically generate natural language explanations (NLEs) for the complex visualizations produced by these methods. The effectiveness of this approach was empirically validated through a mixed-methods user study, which revealed a clear preference for interactive, explorable interfaces over simpler, static visualizations. A key finding was that the AI-powered explanations helped bridge the knowledge gap for non-experts; a statistical analysis showed no significant correlation between a user's prior LLM experience and their comprehension scores, suggesting that the system reduced barriers to comprehension across experience levels. We conclude that an AI system can indeed simplify complex model analyses, but its true power is unlocked when paired with thoughtful, user-centered design that prioritizes interactivity, specificity, and narrative guidance.

Natural language explanations represent a proxy for evaluating explanation-based and multi-step Natural Language Inference (NLI) models. However, assessing the validity of explanations for NLI is challenging as it typically involves the crowd-sourcing of apposite datasets, a process that is time-consuming and prone to logical errors. To address existing limitations, this paper investigates the verification and refinement of natural language explanations through the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Theorem Provers (TPs). Specifically, we present a neuro-symbolic framework, named Explanation-Refiner, that integrates TPs with LLMs to generate and formalise explanatory sentences and suggest potential inference strategies for NLI. In turn, the TP is employed to provide formal guarantees on the logical validity of the explanations and to generate feedback for subsequent improvements. We demonstrate how Explanation-Refiner can be jointly used to evaluate explanatory reasoning, autoformalisation, and error correction mechanisms of state-of-the-art LLMs as well as to automatically enhance the quality of explanations of variable complexity in different domains.

Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have brought about a plethora of new challenges in terms of governance and regulation. AI systems are being integrated into various industries and sectors, creating a demand from decision-makers to possess a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the capabilities and limitations of these systems. One critical aspect of this demand is the ability to explain the results of machine learning models, which is crucial to promoting transparency and trust in AI systems, as well as fundamental in helping machine learning models to be trained ethically. In this paper, we present novel metrics to quantify the degree of which AI model predictions can be easily explainable by its features. Our metrics summarize different aspects of explainability into scalars, providing a more comprehensive understanding of model predictions and facilitating communication between decision-makers and stakeholders, thereby increasing the overall transparency and accountability of AI systems.

Recent advances in reasoning and tool-calling capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have enabled increasingly capable agentic systems. However, existing benchmarks remain limited in task complexity, realism, and domain diversity, and often fail to capture interactions that span multiple domains, limiting their ability to evaluate agents in realistic multi-step settings that require sustained reasoning and coordination. To address these limitations, we introduce T1-Bench, a high-fidelity, comprehensive benchmark for evaluating agentic systems in realistic customer-facing, multi-domain environments, featuring interleaved scenarios that require structured reasoning across multi-turn user-assistant interactions and substantially increasing both compositional complexity and evaluative rigor across 25 domains of varying difficulty. We evaluate T1-Bench using 12 proprietary and open-weight models, providing a reproducible and standardized framework for assessing agent behavior, tool utilization, and conversational quality in complex, multi-step environments. We further complement automatic evaluation with human judgments to strengthen the assessment of qualitative performance. Overall, T1-Bench substantially advances prior benchmarks by increasing task complexity, interaction depth, and domain coverage in simulated multi-domain environments. To facilitate future research on agentic systems, we will publicly release data and evaluation code as open source.

As machine learning systems become ubiquitous, there has been a surge of interest in interpretable machine learning: systems that provide explanation for their outputs. These explanations are often used to qualitatively assess other criteria such as safety or non-discrimination. However, despite the interest in interpretability, there is very little consensus on what interpretable machine learning is and how it should be measured. In this position paper, we first define interpretability and describe when interpretability is needed (and when it is not). Next, we suggest a taxonomy for rigorous evaluation and expose open questions towards a more rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) changed the way we design and interact with software systems. Their ability to process and extract information from text has drastically improved productivity in a number of routine tasks. Developers that want to include these models in their software stack, however, face a dreadful challenge: debugging LLMs' inconsistent behavior across minor variations of the prompt. We therefore introduce two metrics for classification tasks, namely sensitivity and consistency, which are complementary to task performance. First, sensitivity measures changes of predictions across rephrasings of the prompt, and does not require access to ground truth labels. Instead, consistency measures how predictions vary across rephrasings for elements of the same class. We perform an empirical comparison of these metrics on text classification tasks, using them as guideline for understanding failure modes of the LLM. Our hope is that sensitivity and consistency will be helpful to guide prompt engineering and obtain LLMs that balance robustness with performance.

Enhancing the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex instructions is critical for their deployment in real-world applications. However, existing evaluation methods often oversimplify instruction complexity as a mere additive combination of atomic constraints, failing to adequately capture the high-dimensional complexity arising from the intricate interplay of content and format, logical workflow control, and real-world applications. This leads to a significant gap between current evaluation practices and practical demands. To bridge this gap, we introduce CCR-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' adherence to complex instructions. CCR-Bench is characterized by: (1) deep entanglement of content and formatting requirements in task specifications; (2) instructions that involve intricate task decomposition, conditional reasoning, and procedural planning; and (3) evaluation samples derived entirely from real-world industrial scenarios. Extensive experiments on CCR-Bench demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models exhibit substantial performance deficiencies, clearly quantifying the gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of realworld instruction understanding. We believe that CCR-Bench offers a more rigorous and realistic evaluation framework, advancing the development of LLMs toward the next generation of models capable of understanding and executing complex tasks in industrial applications.

Traditionally, data selection has been studied in settings where all samples from prospective sources are fully revealed to a machine learning developer. However, in practical data exchange scenarios, data providers often reveal only a limited subset of samples before an acquisition decision is made. Recently, there have been efforts to fit scaling laws that predict model performance at any size and data source composition using the limited available samples. However, these scaling functions are black-box, computationally expensive to fit, highly susceptible to overfitting, or/and difficult to optimize for data selection. This paper proposes a framework called <projektor>, which predicts model performance and supports data selection decisions based on partial samples of prospective data sources. Our approach distinguishes itself from existing work by introducing a novel *two-stage* performance inference process. In the first stage, we leverage the Optimal Transport distance to predict the model's performance for any data mixture ratio within the range of disclosed data sizes. In the second stage, we extrapolate the performance to larger undisclosed data sizes based on a novel parameter-free mapping technique inspired by neural scaling laws. We further derive an efficient gradient-based method to select data sources based on the projected model performance. Evaluation over a diverse range of applications demonstrates that <projektor> significantly improves existing performance scaling approaches in terms of both the accuracy of performance inference and the computation costs associated with constructing the performance predictor. Also, <projektor> outperforms by a wide margin in data selection effectiveness compared to a range of other off-the-shelf solutions.

Modern web dashboards and enterprise applications increasingly rely on complex, distributed microservices architectures. While these architectures offer scalability, they introduce significant challenges in debugging and observability. When failures occur, they often manifest as opaque error messages to the end-user such as Something went wrong. This masks the underlying root cause which may reside in browser side exceptions, API contract violations, or server side logic failures. Existing monitoring tools capture these events in isolation but fail to correlate them effectively or provide intelligible explanations to non technical users. This paper proposes a novel system for Automated Multi Source Debugging and Natural Language Error Explanation. The proposed framework automatically collects and correlates error data from disparate sources such as browser, API, server logs and validates API contracts in real time, and utilizes Large Language Models to generate natural language explanations. This approach significantly reduces Mean Time to Resolution for support engineers and improves the user experience by transforming cryptic error codes into actionable insights.

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

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have seen rapid adoption in software engineering. As agents take a greater role in the actual generation of code, they are making larger changes, spanning tens to hundreds of lines. This makes manual review of agent results increasingly infeasible, leading developers to turn to explanations to understand enacted changes. Despite this, there are no benchmarks that evaluate the trustworthiness of agent-generated explanations. To bridge this gap, we propose ExplainBench, a benchmark to automatically evaluate explanations from coding agents. ExplainBench is based on the intuition that informative explanations should enable an LLM to correctly answer questions, allowing quantitative comparison of explanation quality between agents. With this observation, we construct a suite of questions that evaluates whether explanations accurately describe (1) the intended behavior of buggy code and (2) the effect of applying the agent patch itself. Experiments first reveal that explanation quality is a distinct axis of agent evaluation: ExplainBench ranks agents differently from the widely-used SWE-bench Verified benchmark. A deeper breakdown of explanation quality in agents shows frequent problems in explanations, such that explanations often claim that a patch is correct when it is not. Based on this insight, we implement and evaluate an explanation audit agent which runs additional tests to validate and refine explanations. This agent improved the explanations of all evaluated agents, demonstrating agent explanations can be automatically made more trustworthy.

Prompt design is a primary control interface for large language models (LLMs), yet standard evaluations largely reduce performance to answer correctness, obscuring why a prompt succeeds or fails and providing little actionable guidance. We propose PEEM (Prompt Engineering Evaluation Metrics), a unified framework for joint and interpretable evaluation of both prompts and responses. PEEM defines a structured rubric with 9 axes: 3 prompt criteria (clarity/structure, linguistic quality, fairness) and 6 response criteria (accuracy, coherence, relevance, objectivity, clarity, conciseness), and uses an LLM-based evaluator to output (i) scalar scores on a 1-5 Likert scale and (ii) criterion-specific natural-language rationales grounded in the rubric. Across 7 benchmarks and 5 task models, PEEM's accuracy axis strongly aligns with conventional accuracy while preserving model rankings (aggregate Spearman rho about 0.97, Pearson r about 0.94, p < 0.001). A multi-evaluator study with four models shows consistent relative judgments (pairwise rho = 0.68-0.85), supporting evaluator-agnostic deployment. Beyond alignment, PEEM captures complementary linguistic failure modes and remains informative under prompt perturbations: prompt-quality trends track downstream accuracy under iterative rewrites, semantic adversarial manipulations induce clear score degradation, and meaning-preserving paraphrases yield high stability (robustness rate about 76.7-80.6%). Finally, using only PEEM scores and rationales as feedback, a zero-shot prompt rewriting loop improves downstream accuracy by up to 11.7 points, outperforming supervised and RL-based prompt-optimization baselines. Overall, PEEM provides a reproducible, criterion-driven protocol that links prompt formulation to response behavior and enables systematic diagnosis and optimization of LLM interactions.

Existing evaluation frameworks for large language models -- including HELM, MT-Bench, AgentBench, and BIG-bench -- are designed for controlled, single-session, lab-scale settings. They do not address the evaluation challenges that emerge when agentic AI systems operate continuously in production: compounding decision errors, tool failure cascades, non-deterministic output drift, and the absence of ground truth for long-horizon tasks. This paper makes three contributions. First, we present a taxonomy of seven failure modes unique to production agentic systems, each grounded in observations from systems operating at billion-event scale. Second, we demonstrate empirically where standard metrics -- ROUGE, BERTScore, accuracy/AUC, and the agentic benchmarks above -- fail to detect each failure mode. Third, we propose PAEF (Production Agentic Evaluation Framework), a five-dimension evaluation framework with an open-source reference implementation, designed for continuous evaluation on production traffic rather than episodic benchmark runs. Our analysis shows that standard metrics fail to detect four of the seven failure modes entirely and detect three others only after a lag of multiple evaluation cycles.

With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), general-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements. However, evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks. We observe that current agent benchmarks are heavily confounded by extraneous factors, including system prompts, toolset configurations, and environmental dynamics. Existing evaluations often rely on fragmented, researcher-specific frameworks where the prompt engineering for reasoning and tool usage varies significantly, making it difficult to attribute performance gains to the model itself. Additionally, the lack of standardized environmental data leads to untraceable errors and non-reproducible results. This lack of standardization introduces substantial unfairness and opacity into the field. We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation. To this end, we introduce a proposal aimed at standardizing agent evaluation.

Reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently shown strong potential in enhancing generative recommendation through deep understanding of complex user preference. Existing approaches follow a {reason-then-recommend} paradigm, where LLMs perform step-by-step reasoning before item generation. However, this paradigm inevitably suffers from reasoning degradation (i.e., homogeneous or error-accumulated reasoning) due to the lack of intermediate verification, thus undermining the recommendation. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel \textit{reason-verify-recommend} paradigm, which interleaves reasoning with verification to provide reliable feedback, guiding the reasoning process toward more faithful user preference understanding. To enable effective verification, we establish two key principles for verifier design: 1) reliability ensures accurate evaluation of reasoning correctness and informative guidance generation; and 2) multi-dimensionality emphasizes comprehensive verification across multi-dimensional user preferences. Accordingly, we propose an effective implementation called VRec. It employs a mixture of verifiers to ensure multi-dimensionality, while leveraging a proxy prediction objective to pursue reliability. Experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that VRec substantially enhances recommendation effectiveness and scalability without compromising efficiency. The codes can be found at https://github.com/Linxyhaha/Verifiable-Rec.

Large Language Models (LLMs) ) have demonstrated promise in boosting productivity across AI-powered tools, yet existing benchmarks like Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) inadequately assess enterprise-specific task complexities. We propose a 14-task framework grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy to holistically evaluate LLM capabilities in enterprise contexts. To address challenges of noisy data and costly annotation, we develop a scalable pipeline combining LLM-as-a-Labeler, LLM-as-a-Judge, and corrective retrieval-augmented generation (CRAG), curating a robust 9,700-sample benchmark. Evaluation of six leading models shows open-source contenders like DeepSeek R1 rival proprietary models in reasoning tasks but lag in judgment-based scenarios, likely due to overthinking. Our benchmark reveals critical enterprise performance gaps and offers actionable insights for model optimization. This work provides enterprises a blueprint for tailored evaluations and advances practical LLM deployment.

Generating step-by-step "how-to" procedures is a key LLM capability: how-to advice is commonly requested in chatbots, and step-by-step planning is critical for reasoning over complex tasks. Yet, measuring and improving procedural validity at scale on real-world tasks remains challenging and understudied. To address this, we introduce How2Everything, a scalable framework to evaluate and improve goal-conditioned procedure generation. Our framework includes How2Mine, which mines 351K procedures from 980K web pages across 14 topics and readily scales to larger corpora. From this pool we build How2Bench, a 7K-example evaluation set balanced across topics. To reliably score model outputs, we develop How2Score, an evaluation protocol that uses an LLM judge to detect whether a generation contains any critical failure that would prevent achieving the goal. For low-cost, reproducible evaluation, we distill a frontier model into an open 8B model, achieving 80.5% agreement with human annotators. How2Bench reveals clear scaling trends across model sizes and training stages, providing signal early in pretraining. Finally, RL using How2Score as a reward improves performance on How2Bench by >10 points across three models without systematic regressions on standard benchmarks, with gains robust to superficial source-document memorization or format compliance. Taken together, How2Everything shows how pretraining web data can support a closed loop of capability evaluation and improvement at scale.

We argue that robustness of explanations---i.e., that similar inputs should give rise to similar explanations---is a key desideratum for interpretability. We introduce metrics to quantify robustness and demonstrate that current methods do not perform well according to these metrics. Finally, we propose ways that robustness can be enforced on existing interpretability approaches.

Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples. We introduce a dataset-centric meta-evaluation framework that audits benchmark datasets at the sample level along five latent dimensions: 1. Cognitive and Knowledge Demands, 2. Language and Content Quality, 3. Task Properties, 4. Context, and 5. Ethics, Safety, and Fairness. Applying this framework, we annotate five influential benchmarks -- MMLU, ARC, WinoGrande, HellaSwag, and TruthfulQA -- revealing pronounced internal heterogeneity that is not captured by aggregate accuracy scores. We show how these annotations enable criterion-driven orchestration of composite benchmark subsets across datasets, supporting targeted evaluation of model capabilities such as Reasoning Depth or Ethical Sensitivity. This approach reframes benchmark evaluation as dataset introspection, providing a principled methodology for analyzing and re-composing existing benchmarks to better reflect diverse evaluation needs.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance toward open-ended autonomous agents, the mechanisms used to evaluate and guide their behavior must evolve accordingly. This work introduces the rubric as a unifying framework capturing this evolution, characterizing rubrics as a dynamic response to successive LLM paradigm shifts that recurs across otherwise independent efforts in evaluation, reinforcement learning, and safety alignment. We define rubrics as explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards, and demonstrate that their recurrence across these research threads is not coincidental. We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training. Rubrics manifest at three progressively deeper levels: at the evaluative level, they decompose holistic judgments into verifiable dimensions; at the training level, they serve as dense feedback signals providing process-level guidance where scalar rewards fall short; at the intrinsic level, they emerge dynamically from model behaviors, driving self-improvement. We further assess rubric reliability across generation quality, execution fidelity, theoretical constraints, and security threats, before surveying rubric-based benchmarks across diverse domains. By rendering assessment transparent and decomposable, rubrics translate human value expectations into machine-learnable signals, serving as the enduring bridge between human intentions and machine behavior.

Standard evaluation protocols reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon: on 7.7% of benchmark problems spanning five datasets, larger language models underperform smaller ones by 28.4 percentage points despite 10-100x more parameters. Through systematic evaluation of 31 models (0.5B-405B parameters) across 1,485 problems, we identify the mechanism as spontaneous scale-dependent verbosity that introduces errors through overelaboration. Causal intervention experiments demonstrate this reflects correctable prompt design rather than fundamental capability limitations. Constraining large models to produce brief responses improves accuracy by 26 percentage points and reduces performance gaps by up to two-thirds. Most critically, brevity constraints completely reverse performance hierarchies on mathematical reasoning and scientific knowledge benchmarks, with large models achieving 7.7-15.9 percentage point advantages over small models -- direct inversions of the original gaps. These reversals prove large models possess superior latent capabilities that universal prompting masks. We validate findings through three independent contamination tests and demonstrate inverse scaling operates continuously across the full parameter spectrum, with dataset-specific optimal scales ranging from 0.5B to 3.0B parameters. Our results establish that maximizing large model performance requires scale-aware prompt engineering rather than universal evaluation protocols, with immediate implications for deployment: prompt adaptation simultaneously improves accuracy and reduces computational costs.

Streaming video understanding requires models to interpret evidence as it arrives, yet current evaluations often report task scores without specifying when evidence becomes valid, how visual history is maintained, or how responses are triggered. As a result, similar scores may correspond to different workloads, failure modes, and operational behavior. We introduce TRACE (Temporal Audit and Condition-aware Evaluation), a condition-aware benchmark and evaluation framework that makes these factors explicit. TRACE combines temporally audited visual tasks with evidence timing and instruction-dependent trigger annotations, a unified causal Core--Adapter protocol that controls information availability while recording actual history processing and response events, and multidimensional reporting of answer quality, timeliness, response-selection behavior, workload, completion, and reliability. On 1,240 records from 517 videos, we evaluate eight publicly available models or systems in eight configurations. We find that nearly identical QA accuracy can mask substantial differences in completion, answer validity, and generation workload, while proactive performance separates into response quality, response delay, false alarms (responses emitted while no target window is currently valid and a later one remains), and missed target windows. These results show that streaming-video performance should be interpreted as execution-conditioned system behavior rather than a single score. Our benchmark and code can be accessed at https://github.com/om-ai-lab/trace-bench{https://github.com/om-ai-lab/trace-bench}.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly versatile, numerous large scale benchmarks have been developed to thoroughly assess their capabilities. These benchmarks typically consist of diverse datasets and prompts to evaluate different aspects of LLM performance. However, comprehensive evaluations on hundreds or thousands of prompts incur tremendous costs in terms of computation, money, and time. In this work, we investigate strategies to improve evaluation efficiency by selecting a subset of examples from each benchmark using a learned policy. Our approach models the dependencies across test examples, allowing accurate prediction of the evaluation outcomes for the remaining examples based on the outcomes of the selected ones. Consequently, we only need to acquire the actual evaluation outcomes for the selected subset. We rigorously explore various subset selection policies and introduce a novel RL-based policy that leverages the captured dependencies. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach significantly reduces the number of evaluation prompts required while maintaining accurate performance estimates compared to previous methods.

Capability evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly shadowed by rising concerns of data contamination that cast doubts on whether static benchmarks measure genuine reasoning or mere memorization. We present an empirical study using an infinitely scalable framework to synthesize research-level QA directly from arXiv papers, harnessing the natural temporal structure of research publications where performance decay after knowledge cutoffs may indicate potential contamination. We evaluated 4 frontier model represented by 2 models of different knowledge cutoff dates per family on 1,643 multi-step reasoning questions synthesized from 20,277 arXiv papers stratified over 26 months, covering at least 6 months before and after all cutoff dates. Our results consistently showed a lack of significant performance decay near knowledge cutoff dates for models of various sizes, developers, and release dates. We further performed a comparative analysis with previous longitudinal studies that reported significant post-cutoff performance decay using directly retrieved questions based on public data. we hypothesize that the multi-step reasoning required by our synthesis pipeline offered additional complexity that goes deeper than shallow memorization, which effectively serves a mitigation strategy against benchmark contamination. We fully open source our code and dataset to aid reproducibility and advocate for a paradigm shift that prioritize reasoning-driven synthesis to construct benchmarks over simply collecting newly released questions periodically.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Despite widespread deployment of Large Language Models, systematic evaluation of instruction-following capabilities remains challenging. While comprehensive benchmarks exist, focused assessments that quickly diagnose specific instruction adherence patterns are valuable. As newer models may be trained on existing benchmarks, novel evaluation approaches are needed to assess genuine capabilities rather than memorized performance. This paper presents a streamlined evaluation framework using twenty carefully designed prompts to assess LLM instruction-following across diverse task categories. We demonstrate this framework through a large-scale empirical study conducted on October 14, 2025, testing 256 verified working models from 331 available via OpenRouter. To ensure methodological rigor and prevent selection bias, we first verified each model's basic functionality before inclusion. Unlike large-scale benchmarks requiring extensive computational resources, our approach offers a practical diagnostic tool researchers and practitioners can readily apply. Our methodology builds upon verifiable instructions while introducing a compact test suite balancing comprehensiveness with efficiency. Each prompt targets distinct aspects of instruction following, including format compliance, content constraints, logical sequencing, and multi-step task execution. We evaluate models from major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Mistral) and emerging implementations (Qwen, DeepSeek, community models), providing comparative performance analysis. Our findings reveal consistent failure modes and identify specific instruction types posing particular challenges. This work contributes both a practical evaluation tool and one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses of instruction-following capabilities across the contemporary LLM landscape.

Interpretability and explainability have gained more and more attention in the field of machine learning as they are crucial when it comes to high-stakes decisions and troubleshooting. Since both provide information about predictors and their decision process, they are often seen as two independent means for one single end. This view has led to a dichotomous literature: explainability techniques designed for complex black-box models, or interpretable approaches ignoring the many explainability tools. In this position paper, we challenge the common idea that interpretability and explainability are substitutes for one another by listing their principal shortcomings and discussing how both of them mitigate the drawbacks of the other. In doing so, we call for a new perspective on interpretability and explainability, and works targeting both topics simultaneously, leveraging each of their respective assets.

Large language models (LLMs) often respond even when prompts omit critical details or include misleading information, leading to hallucinations or reinforced misconceptions. We study how to evaluate and improve LLMs' ability to decide when and what to ask for clarification without sacrificing task performance. We introduce AskBench, an interactive benchmark that converts standard QA pairs into multi-turn interactions with explicit checkpoints. A unified judge loop evaluates final answers and simulates user responses as needed. AskBench covers two settings: AskMind, with intent-deficient queries requiring clarification, and AskOverconfidence, with queries containing false premises that must be identified and corrected. We further propose rubric-guided reinforcement learning with verifier-based rewards (RLVR), which uses structured rubrics to encourage targeted clarification. Experiments show consistent improvements in accuracy, rubric adherence, and interaction efficiency, with strong generalization to unseen domains.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in various tasks but often fail to handle queries that exceed their knowledge and capabilities, leading to incorrect or fabricated responses. This paper addresses the need for LLMs to recognize and refuse infeasible tasks due to the required skills surpassing their capabilities. We first systematically conceptualize infeasible tasks for LLMs, providing formal definitions and categorizations that cover a spectrum of related hallucinations. We develop and benchmark a new dataset comprising diverse infeasible and feasible tasks to test multiple LLMs' abilities on task feasibility. Furthermore, we explore the potential of training enhancements to increase LLMs' refusal capabilities with fine-tuning. Experiments validate the effectiveness of our methods, offering promising directions for refining the operational boundaries of LLMs in real applications.

LLM-based software engineering is influencing modern software development. In addition to correctness, prior studies have also examined the performance of software artifacts generated by AI agents. However, it is unclear how exactly the agentic AI systems address performance concerns in practice. In this paper, we present an empirical study of performance-related pull requests generated by AI agents. Using LLM-assisted detection and BERTopic-based topic modeling, we identified 52 performance-related topics grouped into 10 higher-level categories. Our results show that AI agents apply performance optimizations across diverse layers of the software stack and that the type of optimization significantly affects pull request acceptance rates and review times. We also found that performance optimization by AI agents primarily occurs during the development phase, with less focus on the maintenance phase. Our findings provide empirical evidence that can support the evaluation and improvement of agentic AI systems with respect to their performance optimization behaviors and review outcomes.

Instruction-tuning data are judged by quality metrics, and tuned models are judged by benchmarks, but both judgments pass through an output interface: the surface format in which an answer is written. Using gradient signatures across 12 tasks, four semantically equivalent interfaces, three model families, and controlled corruptions, we show that this interface confounds both measurements. Spectral statistics such as effective rank are provably invariant to interface rotation and empirically blind to semantic corruption, while the direction of the update carries the quality signal. The interface-varying residual is not noise: it identifies each unit's own target task perfectly across all three families. Capability itself is stored relative to the training interface: a skill that raises accuracy by more than 40 points under the training format can be nearly invisible under every other, and correcting a single generation budget flips the measured effect of fine-tuning on GSM8K from a gain into a large loss. Pre-registered interventions delimit where this geometry stops short of control. Data quality and model capability are interface-conditioned quantities, and current practice often reports the interface instead of the content.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to provide insight into opaque model reasoning to humans and as such is an interdisciplinary field by nature. In this paper, we interviewed 10 practitioners to understand the possible usability of training data attribution (TDA) explanations and to explore the design space of such an approach. We confirmed that training data quality is often the most important factor for high model performance in practice and model developers mainly rely on their own experience to curate data. End-users expect explanations to enhance their interaction with the model and do not necessarily prioritise but are open to training data as a means of explanation. Within our participants, we found that TDA explanations are not well-known and therefore not used. We urge the community to focus on the utility of TDA techniques from the human-machine collaboration perspective and broaden the TDA evaluation to reflect common use cases in practice.

Various evaluation metrics have been proposed for Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), but many, particularly reference-free metrics, lack explainability. This lack of explainability hinders researchers from analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of GEC models and limits the ability to provide detailed feedback for users. To address this issue, we propose attributing sentence-level scores to individual edits, providing insight into how specific corrections contribute to the overall performance. For the attribution method, we use Shapley values, from cooperative game theory, to compute the contribution of each edit. Experiments with existing sentence-level metrics demonstrate high consistency across different edit granularities and show approximately 70\% alignment with human evaluations. In addition, we analyze biases in the metrics based on the attribution results, revealing trends such as the tendency to ignore orthographic edits. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/naist-nlp/gec-attribute.

As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evolve into sophisticated interactive assistants, their reliability depends not only on following instructions but also on validating them. We define Proactive Critique as the model's autonomous ability to identify, analyze and fix faulty user inputs without extra prompts. However, evaluations mainly test models under ideal circumstances or simple refusal behaviors, largely ignoring active error processing. To fill this gap, we propose MMPCBench, a comprehensive framework for evaluating MLLMs' proactive critique competence. It features a fine-grained taxonomy of 4 primary error types spanning 12 subcategories, ranging from cross-modal contradictions to missing visual premises. We adopt a hierarchical evaluation protocol to measure models' error detection, diagnosis and resolution performance, and apply alignment-aware metrics to assess the coherence between internal reasoning and final responses. Tests on 14 mainstream MLLMs show obvious weaknesses in proactive critique, especially in dealing with subtle visual anomalies. Notably, we identify a pervasive "consistency gap": reasoning models can often correctly identify and analyze errors during internal reasoning yet suppress these valid insights in final outputs to prioritize response compliance. The code and data is available at https://github.com/ALIENS32/MMPCBench.

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

Interpretable machine learning has exploded as an area of interest over the last decade, sparked by the rise of increasingly large datasets and deep neural networks. Simultaneously, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide array of tasks, offering a chance to rethink opportunities in interpretable machine learning. Notably, the capability to explain in natural language allows LLMs to expand the scale and complexity of patterns that can be given to a human. However, these new capabilities raise new challenges, such as hallucinated explanations and immense computational costs. In this position paper, we start by reviewing existing methods to evaluate the emerging field of LLM interpretation (both interpreting LLMs and using LLMs for explanation). We contend that, despite their limitations, LLMs hold the opportunity to redefine interpretability with a more ambitious scope across many applications, including in auditing LLMs themselves. We highlight two emerging research priorities for LLM interpretation: using LLMs to directly analyze new datasets and to generate interactive explanations.

This paper bridges internal and external analysis approaches to large language models (LLMs) by demonstrating that geometric properties of internal model representations serve as reliable proxies for evaluating generated text quality. We validate a set of metrics including Maximum Explainable Variance, Effective Rank, Intrinsic Dimensionality, MAUVE score, and Schatten Norms measured across different layers of LLMs, demonstrating that Intrinsic Dimensionality and Effective Rank can serve as universal assessments of text naturalness and quality. Our key finding reveals that different models consistently rank text from various sources in the same order based on these geometric properties, indicating that these metrics reflect inherent text characteristics rather than model-specific artifacts. This allows a reference-free text quality evaluation that does not require human-annotated datasets, offering practical advantages for automated evaluation pipelines.

Recent years have witnessed a surge in the number of large language models (LLMs), yet efficiently managing and utilizing these vast resources remains a significant challenge. In this work, we explore how to learn compact representations of LLM abilities that can facilitate downstream tasks, such as model routing and performance prediction on new benchmarks. We frame this problem as estimating the probability that a given model will correctly answer a specific query. Inspired by the item response theory (IRT) in psychometrics, we model this probability as a function of three key factors: (i) the model's multi-skill ability vector, (2) the query's discrimination vector that separates models of differing skills, and (3) the query's difficulty scalar. To learn these parameters jointly, we introduce a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) network that couples model- and query-level embeddings. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach leads to state-of-the-art performance in both model routing and benchmark accuracy prediction. Moreover, analysis validates that the learned parameters encode meaningful, interpretable information about model capabilities and query characteristics.

Reasoning models can remain capable of solving a task while still defaulting to cheaper but misleading shortcuts. This creates a central oversight problem: when a model gives an answer with plausible but incomplete reasoning, can an overseer determine whether that output should be trusted? To study this problem, we introduce PyINE, a framework for scalable elicitation and oversight using instrumented Python programs as a verifiable execution substrate. In PyINE, programs define task environments, execution traces provide authoritative labels for outcomes and intermediate facts, and task variants can be generated mechanically rather than through static human annotation. We instantiate the framework in PyINE-v1, a first release built from nearly one million deterministic execution traces and over 500,000 matched LLM-generated code variants used for counterfactual evaluation. Using standard RL with verifiable rewards on cue-varied tasks, we train a shortcut-following model that improves substantially at predicting execution outcomes while still making systematic errors when misleading human-facing cues conflict with the program's realized behavior. We then evaluate activation probes, trained text classifiers, prompted judges, and a lightweight debate protocol as overseers of this model. We find that performance pooled at the dataset level can hide weak coverage of the failures that matter most: cheap learned overseers often miss rare shortcut-driven errors, while stronger model-based checks are more balanced but substantially costlier and harder to turn into reliable thresholded decisions. PyINE-v1 turns this failure-mode coverage problem into a reusable experimental setting for developing oversight methods that are verifiable, failure-mode-aware, and cost-sensitive.

The proliferation of misinformation necessitates robust yet computationally efficient fact verification systems. While current state-of-the-art approaches leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating explanatory rationales, these methods face significant computational barriers and hallucination risks in real-world deployments. We present DeReC (Dense Retrieval Classification), a lightweight framework that demonstrates how general-purpose text embeddings can effectively replace autoregressive LLM-based approaches in fact verification tasks. By combining dense retrieval with specialized classification, our system achieves better accuracy while being significantly more efficient. DeReC outperforms explanation-generating LLMs in efficiency, reducing runtime by 95% on RAWFC (23 minutes 36 seconds compared to 454 minutes 12 seconds) and by 92% on LIAR-RAW (134 minutes 14 seconds compared to 1692 minutes 23 seconds), showcasing its effectiveness across varying dataset sizes. On the RAWFC dataset, DeReC achieves an F1 score of 65.58%, surpassing the state-of-the-art method L-Defense (61.20%). Our results demonstrate that carefully engineered retrieval-based systems can match or exceed LLM performance in specialized tasks while being significantly more practical for real-world deployment.

Methods for neural network hyperparameter optimization and meta-modeling are computationally expensive due to the need to train a large number of model configurations. In this paper, we show that standard frequentist regression models can predict the final performance of partially trained model configurations using features based on network architectures, hyperparameters, and time-series validation performance data. We empirically show that our performance prediction models are much more effective than prominent Bayesian counterparts, are simpler to implement, and are faster to train. Our models can predict final performance in both visual classification and language modeling domains, are effective for predicting performance of drastically varying model architectures, and can even generalize between model classes. Using these prediction models, we also propose an early stopping method for hyperparameter optimization and meta-modeling, which obtains a speedup of a factor up to 6x in both hyperparameter optimization and meta-modeling. Finally, we empirically show that our early stopping method can be seamlessly incorporated into both reinforcement learning-based architecture selection algorithms and bandit based search methods. Through extensive experimentation, we empirically show our performance prediction models and early stopping algorithm are state-of-the-art in terms of prediction accuracy and speedup achieved while still identifying the optimal model configurations.

Does prompting a large language model (LLM) like GPT-3 with explanations improve in-context learning? We study this question on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference. We test the performance of four LLMs on three textual reasoning datasets using prompts that include explanations in multiple different styles. For these tasks, we find that including explanations in the prompts for OPT, GPT-3 (davinci), and InstructGPT (text-davinci-001) only yields small to moderate accuracy improvements over standard few-show learning. However, text-davinci-002 is able to benefit more substantially. We further show that explanations generated by the LLMs may not entail the models' predictions nor be factually grounded in the input, even on simple tasks with extractive explanations. However, these flawed explanations can still be useful as a way to verify LLMs' predictions post-hoc. Through analysis in our three settings, we show that explanations judged by humans to be good--logically consistent with the input and the prediction--more likely cooccur with accurate predictions. Following these observations, we train calibrators using automatically extracted scores that assess the reliability of explanations, allowing us to improve performance post-hoc across all of our datasets.

Evaluating Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI, but has been a longstanding research challenge. While human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, it is expensive and lacks scalability. Practical applications have driven the development of various automatic evaluation metrics (AEM), designed to compare the model output with human-written references, generating a score which approximates human judgment. Over time, AEMs have evolved from simple lexical comparisons, to semantic similarity models and, more recently, to LLM-based evaluators. However, it seems that no single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications. This paper aims to show this by conducting a thorough examination of the methodologies of existing metrics, their documented strengths and limitations, validation methods, and correlations with human judgment. We identify several key challenges: metrics often capture only specific aspects of text quality, their effectiveness varies by task and dataset, validation practices remain unstructured, and correlations with human judgment are inconsistent. Importantly, we find that these challenges persist in the most recent type of metric, LLM-as-a-Judge, as well as in the evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), an increasingly relevant task in academia and industry. Our findings challenge the quest for the 'perfect metric'. We propose selecting metrics based on task-specific needs and leveraging complementary evaluations and advocate that new metrics should focus on enhanced validation methodologies.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced question-answering (QA) capabilities, particularly in open-domain contexts. However, in closed-domain scenarios such as education, healthcare, and law, users demand not only accurate answers but also transparent reasoning and explainable decision-making processes. While neural-symbolic (NeSy) frameworks have emerged as a promising solution, leveraging LLMs for natural language understanding and symbolic systems for formal reasoning, existing approaches often rely on large-scale models and exhibit inefficiencies in translating natural language into formal logic representations. To address these limitations, we introduce Text-JEPA (Text-based Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture), a lightweight yet effective framework for converting natural language into first-order logic (NL2FOL). Drawing inspiration from dual-system cognitive theory, Text-JEPA emulates System 1 by efficiently generating logic representations, while the Z3 solver operates as System 2, enabling robust logical inference. To rigorously evaluate the NL2FOL-to-reasoning pipeline, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising three custom metrics: conversion score, reasoning score, and Spearman rho score, which collectively capture the quality of logical translation and its downstream impact on reasoning accuracy. Empirical results on domain-specific datasets demonstrate that Text-JEPA achieves competitive performance with significantly lower computational overhead compared to larger LLM-based systems. Our findings highlight the potential of structured, interpretable reasoning frameworks for building efficient and explainable QA systems in specialized domains.

A benchmark should deliver more than a scalar score: what makes an evaluation trustworthy is the reasoning that justifies the score. This is especially critical for world models, where judging a rollout requires understanding whether physics, causality, and world state evolve correctly. Humans spot such violations naturally, yet no existing benchmark automates this capability: metrics are computed brute-force, leaving no reasoning chain that can be examined or verified. We introduce HarnessEval-W, an agentified evaluation pipeline that brings the harness paradigm from the LLM ecosystem to world model benchmarking. Rather than applying a fixed rubric, HarnessEval-W interprets the context of each evaluation case, decomposes the evaluation question into measurable subproblems, and spawns specialized sub-agents, each equipped with tailored context and diagnostic tools to reason over its own subproblem. The parent agent then validates the gathered evidence and summarizes it into the final verdict. This hierarchical workflow turns every evaluation into a transparent evidence tree whose complete reasoning chain justifies the result. We apply HarnessEval-W to 18 representative world models over 330 evaluation cases. Its judgments closely align with human preferences while providing verifiable, fine-grained diagnoses of every generated rollout. We open-source the full pipeline as a live benchmark and invite the broad community to contribute to grow new skills and evaluation cases as world models evolve.

Tool-calling benchmarks are increasingly used to rank language-model agents, yet their scores are often treated as ground truth without validating the evaluators themselves. We present a systematic validity and reproducibility audit of four major tool-calling benchmark families: BFCL v4, τ2-Bench, LiveMCPBench, and MCP-Atlas. Across 496 expert-reviewed benchmark tasks, we find 92 evaluator-human disagreements, corresponding to an 18.5% misalignment rate. The failures are not isolated annotation mistakes: deterministic benchmarks exhibit brittle state matching, trajectory lock-in, incorrect ground truths, substring-based communication failures, and reward-basis misalignment, while LLM-judge benchmarks exhibit rubric drift, hallucinated completion, answer-only scoring, and substantial run-to-run variance. In LiveMCPBench, 23 repeated evaluations of the same setup produce scores ranging from 57.9% to 76.8%, a spread of 18.9 percentage points, large enough to change leaderboard conclusions. These results show that current tool-calling scores can reflect evaluator artifacts rather than agent capability. We introduce a unified taxonomy of tool-calling evaluation failures, release trace-level audit artifacts and corrected evaluation components, and argue for decomposed metrics that separately measure tool invocation, task completion, and outcome verification. Our findings suggest that progress in tool-using agents requires benchmarks whose evaluators are themselves reproducible, auditable, and aligned with human judgments of task success. We further introduce Tool-Veritas, a configurable benchmark that combines deterministic state verification with optional qualitative judging, and Harness Lab, an open-source system for benchmark execution, trace inspection, repeated-run comparison, and evaluator debugging.