Daily Papers

We present E3, an automated review assistant that augments reviewers and engineering teams by identifying decision-relevant technical concerns in research papers. For each concern, E3 reports its nature, its location, its bearing on the contribution, and the analysis or evidence that would resolve it, covering unsupported claims, missing ablations, weak baselines, hidden assumptions, threats to validity, and leakage risks. To evaluate E3 without contamination confounds we adopt an issue-level backtesting protocol: the corpus is restricted to papers postdating the training cutoff of every automated source, and for each paper a meta-judge that observes only anonymised reviews labels every issue-source pair as Caught, Partial, or Missed. Applied to 100 ICLR 2026 papers and 4598 judged issue rows, comparing E3 against the ICLR human reviews and two prompt-matched LLM baselines built on gpt-5.4 from OpenAI and claude-opus-4-6 from Anthropic, with meta-judge gpt-5.5, E3 attains the highest recall on every aggregate metric. Partial-inclusive recall reaches 90.2 percent, which is 15.5 points over GPT, 17.1 points over Claude, and 29.2 points over the human reviews, and strict recall preserves the ordering at 65.8 percent. On concerns raised by the human reviewers, E3 recovers 89.6 percent; on concerns the human reviewers missed it surfaces 1635 additional rows admitted into the judged union, 406 above the next-best source. Corpus, baseline prompts, judge prompt template, and evaluation code are released.

A benchmark is not merely a collection of test questions; it naturally induces an empirical measure over difficulty. In this work, we develop this measure-based view of benchmark evaluation. This perspective allows us to identify and formalize two central failure modes: measure mismatch, where the benchmark difficulty distribution differs from the intended difficulty distribution, and coverage gaps, where uncovered regions along the difficulty axis prevent benchmarks from detecting meaningful localized training progress. We propose two diagnostic metrics that capture these two failure modes and provide rigorous theoretical guarantees. Empirically, we analyze 25 popular benchmarks spanning 7 domains using carefully estimated item difficulties. Our results show that many benchmarks implicitly overweight certain difficulty regions, so their leaderboard conclusions should be interpreted with caution; others leave substantial portions of the difficulty axis uncovered, limiting their ability to monitor the model improvement process. Finally, we turn diagnosis into action by introducing BenchFill, a simple difficulty-targeted item rewriting algorithm that effectively reduces local coverage gaps.

Understanding how and why large language models (LLMs) fail is becoming a central challenge as models rapidly evolve and static evaluations fall behind. While automated probing has been enabled by dynamic test generation, existing approaches often discover isolated failure cases, lack principled control over exploration, and provide limited insight into the underlying structure of model weaknesses. We propose ProbeLLM, a benchmark-agnostic automated probing framework that elevates weakness discovery from individual failures to structured failure modes. ProbeLLM formulates probing as a hierarchical Monte Carlo Tree Search, explicitly allocating limited probing budgets between global exploration of new failure regions and local refinement of recurring error patterns. By restricting probing to verifiable test cases and leveraging tool-augmented generation and verification, ProbeLLM grounds failure discovery in reliable evidence. Discovered failures are further consolidated into interpretable failure modes via failure-aware embeddings and boundary-aware induction. Across diverse benchmarks and LLMs, ProbeLLM reveals substantially broader, cleaner, and more fine-grained failure landscapes than static benchmarks and prior automated methods, supporting a shift from case-centric evaluation toward principled weakness discovery.

Automated issue solving aims to resolve real-world issues in software repositories. The most popular benchmarks for automated issue solving are SWE-bench and its human-filtered subset SWE-bench Verified. These benchmarks leverage testing to validate generated patches. However, because testing is rarely exhaustive, a patch may pass the tests but nevertheless fail to match the developers' expectations. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear to what extent evaluations performed with SWE-bench suffer from such plausible but incorrect patches. This paper presents an in-depth empirical study of the correctness of plausible patches generated by three state-of-the-art issue-solving tools evaluated on SWE-bench Verified. We extensively test and inspect generated patches, and compare them against human-written ground truth patches. The core of our methodology is a novel technique PatchDiff for differential patch testing, which automatically exposes behavioral discrepancies between two patches. Our findings reveal critical weaknesses in SWE-bench's patch validation mechanism, which causes 7.8% of all patches to count as correct while failing the developer-written test suite. Moreover, our novel automated technique reveals that even more (29.6%) plausible patches induce different behavior than the ground truth patches. These behavioral differences are often due to similar, but divergent implementations (46.8%) and due to generated patches that adapt more behavior than the ground truth patches (27.3%). Our manual inspection shows that 28.6% of behaviorally divergent patches are certainly incorrect. Combined, the different weaknesses lead to an inflation of reported resolution rates by 6.2 absolute percent points. Our findings are a call to arms for more robust and reliable evaluation of issue-solving tools. We envision our automated differential patch testing technique to be useful for this purpose.

Accurate project localization (e.g., files and functions) for issue resolution is a critical first step in software maintenance. However, existing benchmarks for issue localization, such as SWE-Bench and LocBench, are limited. They focus predominantly on pull-request issues and code locations, ignoring other evidence and non-code files such as commits, comments, configurations, and documentation. To address this gap, we introduce MULocBench, a comprehensive dataset of 1,100 issues from 46 popular GitHub Python projects. Comparing with existing benchmarks, MULocBench offers greater diversity in issue types, root causes, location scopes, and file types, providing a more realistic testbed for evaluation. Using this benchmark, we assess the performance of state-of-the-art localization methods and five LLM-based prompting strategies. Our results reveal significant limitations in current techniques: even at the file level, performance metrics (Acc@5, F1) remain below 40%. This underscores the challenge of generalizing to realistic, multi-faceted issue resolution. To enable future research on project localization for issue resolution, we publicly release MULocBench at https://huggingface.co/datasets/somethingone/MULocBench.

Recent Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable progress on task-specific benchmarks, yet their evaluation methods remain constrained by isolated problem-solving paradigms. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess single-question reasoning through sequential testing, resulting critical limitations: (1) vulnerability to data contamination and less challenging (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 achieves 97.0% on MATH500), forcing costly and perpetual creation of new questions with large human efforts, (2) failure to evaluate models under multi-context pressure, a key requirement for real-world deployment. To bridge this gap, we present REST (Reasoning Evaluation through Simultaneous Testing), a stress-testing framework that concurrently exposes LRMs to multiple problems simultaneously. Beyond basic reasoning, REST specifically evaluates several under-tested capabilities: contextual priority allocation, cross-problem interference resistance, and dynamic cognitive load management. Our evaluation reveals several striking findings: Even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models like DeepSeek-R1 exhibit substantial performance degradation under stress testing. Crucially, REST demonstrates stronger discriminative power than existing benchmarks, revealing pronounced performance differences among models that exhibit similar, near-ceiling performance under single-question evaluations. Some key mechanistic insights emerge from our analysis: (1) the "overthinking trap" is a critical factor contributing to the performance degradation; (2) the models trained with "long2short" technique preserve more accuracy of their single-problem performance under REST, outperforming standard-trained counterparts. These results establish REST as a cost-efficient, future-proof evaluation paradigm that better reflects real-world reasoning demands while reducing reliance on continuous human annotation.

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.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLM) capable of processing extremely long texts highlight the need for a dedicated evaluation benchmark to assess their long-context capabilities. However, existing methods, like the needle-in-a-haystack test, do not effectively assess whether these models fully utilize contextual information, raising concerns about the reliability of current evaluation techniques. To thoroughly examine the effectiveness of existing benchmarks, we introduce a new metric called information coverage (IC), which quantifies the proportion of the input context necessary for answering queries. Our findings indicate that current benchmarks exhibit low IC; although the input context may be extensive, the actual usable context is often limited. To address this, we present ETHIC, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' ability to leverage the entire context. Our benchmark comprises 2,648 test instances spanning four long-context tasks with high IC scores in the domains of books, debates, medicine, and law. Our evaluations reveal significant performance drops in contemporary LLMs, highlighting a critical challenge in managing long contexts. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/dmis-lab/ETHIC.

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

Although measuring held-out accuracy has been the primary approach to evaluate generalization, it often overestimates the performance of NLP models, while alternative approaches for evaluating models either focus on individual tasks or on specific behaviors. Inspired by principles of behavioral testing in software engineering, we introduce CheckList, a task-agnostic methodology for testing NLP models. CheckList includes a matrix of general linguistic capabilities and test types that facilitate comprehensive test ideation, as well as a software tool to generate a large and diverse number of test cases quickly. We illustrate the utility of CheckList with tests for three tasks, identifying critical failures in both commercial and state-of-art models. In a user study, a team responsible for a commercial sentiment analysis model found new and actionable bugs in an extensively tested model. In another user study, NLP practitioners with CheckList created twice as many tests, and found almost three times as many bugs as users without it.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on benchmark scores, yet aggregate metrics can obscure whether individual items serve their intended measurement purpose. BSDProbe provides an item-level framework for benchmark structural diagnosis that jointly characterizes correctness transitions and their supporting response evidence. Repeated responses along an empirically ordered model axis yield complementary correctness and normalized entropy trajectories, from which four-dimensional profiles of boundary position, boundary width, boundary-signal validity, and order consistency are constructed for benchmark-level aggregation. Experiments on six benchmarks identify varying proportions of potentially anomalous items. With Qwen3 as both the selection and reference axis, BSDProbe achieves a 17.9\% mean relative improvement in normalized discrimination ratio over the best baseline per benchmark and matches or exceeds all baselines in ranking agreement with the full benchmark.

Large language models (LLMs) are helping millions of users write texts about diverse issues, and in doing so expose users to different ideas and perspectives. This creates concerns about issue bias, where an LLM tends to present just one perspective on a given issue, which in turn may influence how users think about this issue. So far, it has not been possible to measure which issue biases LLMs actually manifest in real user interactions, making it difficult to address the risks from biased LLMs. Therefore, we create IssueBench: a set of 2.49m realistic prompts for measuring issue bias in LLM writing assistance, which we construct based on 3.9k templates (e.g. "write a blog about") and 212 political issues (e.g. "AI regulation") from real user interactions. Using IssueBench, we show that issue biases are common and persistent in state-of-the-art LLMs. We also show that biases are remarkably similar across models, and that all models align more with US Democrat than Republican voter opinion on a subset of issues. IssueBench can easily be adapted to include other issues, templates, or tasks. By enabling robust and realistic measurement, we hope that IssueBench can bring a new quality of evidence to ongoing discussions about LLM biases and how to address them.

Deep research requires models to retrieve, connect, and synthesize evidence from large-scale heterogeneous sources to answer complex queries and produce analytical reports. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final outcomes, such as answer correctness, report quality, or citation alignment, while providing limited visibility into whether evidence is correctly selected, linked, and aggregated into supported claims and conclusions. To address this gap, we introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research. HiEviDR-Bench covers open-domain and academic-domain settings under both text-only and multimodal conditions, and represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation from evidence to intermediate claims and final conclusions. Based on this formulation, we develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness, together with a progressive gating mechanism for fine-grained error localization. HiEviDR-Bench contains 2,000 human-validated questions with evidence graphs across multiple difficulty levels. Experiments on 16 representative multimodal large language models show that, although many systems achieve strong report quality, their performance drops markedly on citation accuracy, claim construction, and answer correctness. Further analysis shows that the main bottlenecks lie in evidence identification and intermediate claim construction, revealing that strong surface-level report quality does not necessarily imply grounded multi-stage reasoning on our benchmark.

Factual question answering (QA) typically assumes a single canonical answer, obscuring whether large language models (LLMs) retain divergent accounts of long-tail facts. To address this gap, we introduce ElephantBench, a closed-book knowledge probe comprising 1,094 questions generated through an auditable graph-based pipeline. The pipeline retrieves related documents from a low-exposure web corpus, identifies naturally occurring disagreements, and converts them into multi-account QA records. Each answer is verified against the originating documents and authoritative public web sources and is then reviewed by human annotators. Across 32 models, even the strongest model recovers both accounts on only 52.4% of questions, while on nearly all remaining questions it recalls one account but omits the other. Scaling model size and inference-time reasoning improve recall but do not eliminate this incompleteness. Corpus analysis further shows that exposure imbalance favors the dominant account, whereas greater minority-side exposure is associated with more complete recall. These findings establish ElephantBench as a reproducible knowledge probe for diagnosing epistemic myopia in parametric memory. More broadly, our graph-based benchmark construction pipeline provides an efficient and scalable way to turn long-tail corpora into source-traceable knowledge probes, supporting efforts to evaluate and advance the epistemic rigour of next-generation LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/Tencent/ElephantBench.

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.

Automated agent design improves agent harnesses through iterative revision, evaluation, and feedback summarization. Existing methods are largely candidate-centric: cross-round experience is organized around candidate agents, which leaves the repair progress implicit. This causes inefficient repair targeting, slow consolidation of partial progress, and propagation of ineffective interventions across rounds. Therefore, we formulate issue-centric agent optimization, in which repair progress is carried forward as an explicit persistent issue state to guide optimization, rather than re-derived from candidate history in each round. We instantiate the formulation in ADIAS, a framework for automated full-code agent design with two mechanisms. A persistent issue state maintains stable issue identities, lifecycle status, supporting evidence, and intervention-outcome histories. Issue-guided optimization uses this state to jointly propose repair targets and revision directions for subsequent focused full-code modification. Across five interactive benchmarks, ADIAS outperforms the strongest baseline by 25.2% on average and achieves consistent gains across four backbone models. Controlled ablations further show that removing persistent issue state or replacing issue-centric revision with candidate-centric policies leads to performance drops of up to 40.7%.

Issue localization, the process of identifying code locations that need modification to resolve software issues, is a critical yet challenging task in software development. The semantic gap between natural language issue descriptions and faulty code requires complex multi-hop reasoning through code dependencies. Existing LLM-based agents attempt to address this by integrating repository retrieval tools. However, this transforms issue localization into a demanding task we call Repo Deep Search, which requires the LLM to effectively utilize various repository retrieval tools throughout a multi-step reasoning and navigation process. To tackle this challenge, we present ToolTrain, a two-stage tool-integrated training framework combining rejection-sampled supervised fine-tuning and tool-integrated reinforcement learning to enhance LLMs' ability to use retrieval tools for issue localization. Experimental results show that ToolTrain-trained models achieve state-of-the-art performance, with our 32B model even surpassing Claude-3.7 on function-level localization. The results also show that improved localization performance translates to better end-to-end issue resolution performance. This further demonstrates that training for issue localization is a viable and effective strategy for improving automated software development.

Current AI systems are optimized for answering questions; the scientific enterprise is bottlenecked earlier, at discovering the questions worth investigating. We present a framework that turns a traceable, reproducible, scope controlled research corpus into ranked, falsifiable research questions: evidence is represented as provenance carrying claims; cross paper tensions are detected, typed, and human adjudicated; surviving signals are refined into questions and ranked by a two stage protocol separating scientific priority from execution priority. We instantiate the framework on exoplanet atmospheres, a domain that uniquely combines literature, structured catalogs, and space telescope archives. In a historical backtest, all questions generated from evidence available before 2021 were substantively engaged by the 2021 to 2026 literature the sys?tem never saw: two were answered, including one whose premise the community later explicitly refuted and the top ranked question is independently posed and still open. These results sug?gest that systematic question discovery from evidence tensions surfaces the questions working scientists subsequently invest in.

Recent advancements in large language models have significantly improved their reasoning abilities, particularly through techniques involving search and backtracking. Backtracking naturally scales test-time compute by enabling sequential, linearized exploration via long chain-of-thought (CoT) generation. However, this is not the only strategy for scaling test-time compute: parallel sampling with best-of-n selection provides an alternative that generates diverse solutions simultaneously. Despite the growing adoption of sequential search, its advantages over parallel sampling--especially under a fixed compute budget remain poorly understood. In this paper, we systematically compare these two approaches on two challenging reasoning tasks: CountDown and Sudoku. Surprisingly, we find that sequential search underperforms parallel sampling on CountDown but outperforms it on Sudoku, suggesting that backtracking is not universally beneficial. We identify two factors that can cause backtracking to degrade performance: (1) training on fixed search traces can lock models into suboptimal strategies, and (2) explicit CoT supervision can discourage "implicit" (non-verbalized) reasoning. Extending our analysis to reinforcement learning (RL), we show that models with backtracking capabilities benefit significantly from RL fine-tuning, while models without backtracking see limited, mixed gains. Together, these findings challenge the assumption that backtracking universally enhances LLM reasoning, instead revealing a complex interaction between task structure, training data, model scale, and learning paradigm.

We present two different methods for estimating the cost of solving SAT problems. The methods focus on the online behaviour of the backtracking solver, as well as the structure of the problem. Modern SAT solvers present several challenges to estimate search cost including coping with nonchronological backtracking, learning and restarts. Our first method adapt an existing algorithm for estimating the size of a search tree to deal with these challenges. We then suggest a second method that uses a linear model trained on data gathered online at the start of search. We compare the effectiveness of these two methods using random and structured problems. We also demonstrate that predictions made in early restarts can be used to improve later predictions. We conclude by showing that the cost of solving a set of problems can be reduced by selecting a solver from a portfolio based on such cost estimations.

Agentic repository-level code understanding is essential for automating complex software engineering tasks, yet the field lacks reliable benchmarks. Existing evaluations often overlook the long tail topics and rely on popular repositories where Large Language Models (LLMs) can cheat via memorized knowledge. To address this, we introduce SWE-QA-Pro, a benchmark constructed from diverse, long-tail repositories with executable environments. We enforce topical balance via issue-driven clustering to cover under-represented task types and apply a rigorous difficulty calibration process: questions solvable by direct-answer baselines are filtered out. This results in a dataset where agentic workflows significantly outperform direct answering (e.g., a ~13-point gap for Claude Sonnet 4.5), confirming the necessity of agentic codebase exploration. Furthermore, to tackle the scarcity of training data for such complex behaviors, we propose a scalable synthetic data pipeline that powers a two-stage training recipe: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) followed by Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF). This approach allows small open models to learn efficient tool usage and reasoning. Empirically, a Qwen3-8B model trained with our recipe surpasses GPT-4o by 2.3 points on SWE-QA-Pro and substantially narrows the gap to state-of-the-art proprietary models, demonstrating both the validity of our evaluation and the effectiveness of our agentic training workflow.

The performance of large language models (LLMs) on existing reasoning benchmarks has significantly improved over the past years. In response, we present JEEBench, a considerably more challenging benchmark dataset for evaluating the problem solving abilities of LLMs. We curate 515 challenging pre-engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry problems from the highly competitive IIT JEE-Advanced exam. Long-horizon reasoning on top of deep in-domain knowledge is essential for solving problems in this benchmark. Our evaluation on various open-source and proprietary models reveals that the highest performance, even after using techniques like self-consistency, self-refinement and chain-of-thought prompting, is less than 40%. The typical failure modes of GPT-4, the best model, are errors in algebraic manipulation, difficulty in grounding abstract concepts into mathematical equations accurately and failure in retrieving relevant domain-specific concepts. We also observe that by mere prompting, GPT-4 is unable to assess risk introduced by negative marking for incorrect answers. For this, we develop a post-hoc confidence-thresholding method over self-consistency, which enables effective response selection. We hope that our challenging benchmark will guide future re-search in problem-solving using LLMs.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for high-stakes medical applications, there has emerged a critical need for reliable and accurate evaluation methodologies. Traditional accuracy metrics fail inadequately as they neither capture question characteristics nor offer topic-specific insights. To address this gap, we introduce MedIRT, a rigorous evaluation framework grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT), the gold standard in high-stakes educational testing. Unlike previous research relying on archival data, we prospectively gathered fresh responses from 80 diverse LLMs on a balanced, 1,100-question USMLE-aligned benchmark. Using one unidimensional two-parameter logistic IRT model per topic, we estimate LLM's latent model ability jointly with question difficulty and discrimination, yielding more stable and nuanced performance rankings than accuracy alone. Notably, we identify distinctive ``spiky'' ability profiles, where overall rankings can be misleading due to highly specialized model abilities. While GPT-5 was the top performer in a majority of domains (8 of 11), it was outperformed in Social Science and Communication by Claude-3-opus, demonstrating that even an overall 23rd-ranked model can hold the top spot for specific competencies. Furthermore, we demonstrate IRT's utility in auditing benchmarks by identifying flawed questions. We synthesize these findings into a practical decision-support framework that integrates our multi-factor competency profiles with operational metrics. This work establishes a robust, psychometrically grounded methodology essential for the safe, effective, and trustworthy deployment of LLMs in healthcare.

Test-Time Scaling (TTS) improves the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by using additional inference-time computation to explore multiple reasoning paths through search. Yet how to allocate a fixed rollout budget most effectively during search remains underexplored, often resulting in inefficient use of compute at test time. To bridge this gap, we formulate test-time search as a resource allocation problem and derive the optimal allocation strategy that maximizes the probability of obtaining a correct solution under a fixed rollout budget. Within this formulation, we reveal a core limitation of existing search methods: solution-level allocation tends to favor reasoning directions with more candidates, leading to theoretically suboptimal and inefficient use of compute. To address this, we propose Direction-Oriented Resource Allocation (DORA), a provably optimal method that mitigates this bias by decoupling direction quality from candidate count and allocating resources at the direction level. To demonstrate DORA's effectiveness, we conduct extensive experiments on challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks including MATH500, AIME2024, and AIME2025. The empirical results show that DORA consistently outperforms strong baselines with comparable computational cost, achieving state-of-the-art accuracy. We hope our findings contribute to a broader understanding of optimal TTS for LLMs.

Banking assistants must use account-specific information to answer requests and, in many cases, take actions through tools. Evaluating only the final response misses important errors. An assistant may ask for information it already has, rely on stale context, select the wrong account, or write an invalid value after stating the correct one. We introduce IndicBankBench, a 799-case benchmark for Indian retail banking spanning five operational domains, a capability/refusal domain, and twenty primary axes. Cases are evaluated at four stages: safety, action and tool use, response adequacy, and advisory quality. Tool use and most safety checks are deterministic. A narrow resolver handles only ambiguous confirmation-before-write cases, while a separate LLM judge evaluates semantic response adequacy. We run every case three times and report strict pass^3, which requires success on all trials. Across the eleven evaluated models, strict reliability ranges from 43.7% to 58.2%, whereas at-least-once success ranges from 60% to 74%. This gap shows that at-least-once success can overstate dependable banking behavior. The case-level diagnostics also distinguish systems that ask unnecessary questions from those that act but fail to reconcile customer context or fully resolve the request. We release the cases, mock environment, and evaluation harness.

Amid the expanding use of pre-training data, the phenomenon of benchmark dataset leakage has become increasingly prominent, exacerbated by opaque training processes and the often undisclosed inclusion of supervised data in contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs). This issue skews benchmark effectiveness and fosters potentially unfair comparisons, impeding the field's healthy development. To address this, we introduce a detection pipeline utilizing Perplexity and N-gram accuracy, two simple and scalable metrics that gauge a model's prediction precision on benchmark, to identify potential data leakages. By analyzing 31 LLMs under the context of mathematical reasoning, we reveal substantial instances of training even test set misuse, resulting in potentially unfair comparisons. These findings prompt us to offer several recommendations regarding model documentation, benchmark setup, and future evaluations. Notably, we propose the "Benchmark Transparency Card" to encourage clear documentation of benchmark utilization, promoting transparency and healthy developments of LLMs. we have made our leaderboard, pipeline implementation, and model predictions publicly available, fostering future research.

Software issue localization, the task of identifying the precise code locations (files, classes, or functions) relevant to a natural language issue description (e.g., bug report, feature request), is a critical yet time-consuming aspect of software development. While recent LLM-based agentic approaches demonstrate promise, they often incur significant latency and cost due to complex multi-step reasoning and relying on closed-source LLMs. Alternatively, traditional code ranking models, typically optimized for query-to-code or code-to-code retrieval, struggle with the verbose and failure-descriptive nature of issue localization queries. To bridge this gap, we introduce SweRank, an efficient and effective retrieve-and-rerank framework for software issue localization. To facilitate training, we construct SweLoc, a large-scale dataset curated from public GitHub repositories, featuring real-world issue descriptions paired with corresponding code modifications. Empirical results on SWE-Bench-Lite and LocBench show that SweRank achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming both prior ranking models and costly agent-based systems using closed-source LLMs like Claude-3.5. Further, we demonstrate SweLoc's utility in enhancing various existing retriever and reranker models for issue localization, establishing the dataset as a valuable resource for the community.

We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification. Since whole-trace evaluation often obscures decisive errors due to signal dilution from routine tokens, CLR condenses each reasoning trace into a compact set of decision-critical claims, thereby isolating its logical anchors. Furthermore, recognizing the inherent difficulty of generating entirely correct solutions under fixed model capabilities, CLR shifts the focus to semantic falsification. This approach exploits a fundamental asymmetry between solution construction and claim refutation. Constructing a valid solution requires a flawless reasoning path, whereas refuting an incorrect claim requires identifying only a single decisive flaw. This targeted search for negative evidence systematically compresses the survival space of high-confidence incorrect traces, effectively suppressing erroneous consensus via nonlinear reliability scoring. Across four LLMs and four reasoning benchmarks under matched budgets, CLR generally improves upon pass@1 and self-consistency. On GPT-OSS-20B/CMIMC25, for instance, CLR exceeds pass@1 by 27.15 percentage-points and raises self-consistency accuracy from 77.50\% to 82.19\% with 37.0\% fewer tokens.

LLM search agents increasingly rely on tools at inference time, but their trajectories are often constrained by hard limits on both tool calls and generated tokens. Under such dual budgets, better answers require not only stronger models, but also explicit control over which search action should receive the next budget unit and when the accumulated evidence is sufficient to commit a final answer. We study this problem in multi-hop question answering (QA) and formulate it as two-stage inference-time budget control. At search time, our controller assigns each feasible action a task-level Value-of-Information (VOI) score, defined as an operational estimate of marginal task value per unit budget under the current search state and remaining dual budget, and uses this score to choose among retrieval, decomposition, and answer commitment. After search, a selective evidence-grounded finalizer compares the trajectory answer with a refined candidate and rewrites only when the residual error appears to be a low-risk answer-form error. Across four multi-hop QA benchmarks, three LLM backbones, and four budget levels, the method yields positive aggregate gains over four audited baselines under the same hard dual-budget protocol. Ablations show that search-time budget control, especially budget-dependent penalty, provides the main performance gain, while answer-time control helps mainly when the retrieval path is already adequate. These results suggest that inference-time budget control for LLM search agents should govern both how budget is spent during search and how the final answer is committed.

Publishing a large language model (LLM) benchmark on the Internet risks contaminating future LLMs: the benchmark may be unintentionally (or intentionally) used to train or select a model. A common mitigation is to keep the benchmark private and let participants submit their models or predictions to the organizers. However, this strategy will require trust in a single organization and still permits test-set overfitting through repeated queries. To overcome this issue, we propose a way to publish benchmarks without completely disclosing the ground-truth answers to the questions, while still maintaining the ability to openly evaluate LLMs. The main underlying idea is to reduces the best possible accuracy, i.e., Bayes accuracy, by injecting randomness to the answers by preparing several logically correct answers, and only include one of them as the solution in the benchmark. Not only is this helpful to keep us from disclosing the ground truth, but this also offers a test for detecting data contamination. In principle, even fully capable models should not surpass the Bayes accuracy. If a model surpasses this ceiling despite this expectation, this is a strong signal of data contamination. We present experimental evidence that our method can detect data contamination accurately on a wide range of benchmarks, models, and training methodologies.

Large language models (LLMs) struggle with multi-step reasoning, where inference-time scaling has emerged as a promising strategy for performance improvement. Verifier-guided search outperforms repeated sampling when sample size is limited by selecting and prioritizing valid reasoning paths. However, we identify a critical limitation: scaling flaws, prevalent across different models (Mistral 7B and DeepSeekMath 7B), benchmarks (GSM8K and MATH), and verifiers (outcome value models and process reward models). As sample size increases, verifier-guided search exhibits diminishing advantages and eventually underperforms repeated sampling. Our analysis attributes this to verifier failures, where imperfect verifiers misrank candidates and erroneously prune all valid paths. These issues are further exacerbated in challenging and out-of-distribution problems, restricting search effectiveness. To mitigate verifier failures, we explore reducing reliance on verifiers and conduct preliminary investigations using two simple methods. Our findings reveal fundamental limitations in verifier-guided search and suggest future directions.

We introduce DeepSearchQA, a 900-prompt benchmark for evaluating agents on difficult multi-step information-seeking tasks across 17 different fields. Unlike traditional benchmarks that target single answer retrieval or broad-spectrum factuality, DeepSearchQA features a dataset of challenging, handcrafted tasks designed to evaluate an agent's ability to execute complex search plans to generate exhaustive answer lists. This shift in design explicitly tests three critical, yet under-evaluated capabilities: 1) systematic collation of fragmented information from disparate sources, 2) de-duplication and entity resolution to ensure precision, and 3) the ability to reason about stopping criteria within an open-ended search space. Each task is structured as a causal chain, where discovering information for one step is dependent on the successful completion of the previous one, stressing long-horizon planning and context retention. All tasks are grounded in the open web with objectively verifiable answer sets. Our comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art agent architectures reveals significant performance limitations: even the most advanced models struggle to balance high recall with precision. We observe distinct failure modes ranging from premature stopping (under-retrieval) to hedging behaviors, where agents cast an overly wide net of low-confidence answers to artificially boost recall. These findings highlight critical headroom in current agent designs and position DeepSearchQA as an essential diagnostic tool for driving future research toward more robust, deep-research capabilities.

DARTS search space (DSS) has become a canonical benchmark for NAS whereas some emerging works pointed out the issue of narrow accuracy range and claimed it would hurt the method ranking. We observe some recent studies already suffer from this issue that overshadows the meaning of scores. In this work, we first propose and orchestrate a suite of improvements to frame a larger and harder DSS, termed LHD, while retaining high efficiency in search. We step forward to renovate a LHD-based new benchmark, taking care of both discernibility and accessibility. Specifically, we re-implement twelve baselines and evaluate them across twelve conditions by combining two underexpolored influential factors: transductive robustness and discretization policy, to reasonably construct a benchmark upon multi-condition evaluation. Considering that the tabular benchmarks are always insufficient to adequately evaluate the methods of neural architecture search (NAS), our work can serve as a crucial basis for the future progress of NAS. https://github.com/chaoji90/LHD

An ideal model evaluation should achieve two goals: identifying where the model fails and providing actionable improvement guidance. Toward these goals for Language Model (LM) evaluations, we formulate the problem of generating a weakness profile, a set of weaknesses expressed in natural language, given an LM's performance on every individual instance in a benchmark. We introduce a suite of quantitative assessments to compare different weakness profiling methods. We also propose a weakness profiling method EvalTree. It constructs a capability tree where each node represents a capability described in natural language and is linked to a subset of benchmark instances that specifically evaluate this capability; it then extracts nodes where the LM performs poorly to generate a weakness profile. On the MATH and WildChat benchmarks, we show that EvalTree outperforms baseline weakness profiling methods by identifying weaknesses more precisely and comprehensively. Weakness profiling further enables weakness-guided data collection, and training data collection guided by EvalTree-identified weaknesses improves LM performance more than other data collection strategies. We also show how EvalTree exposes flaws in Chatbot Arena's human-voter-based evaluation practice. To facilitate future work, we release our code and an interface that allows practitioners to interactively explore the capability trees built by EvalTree.

Many modern software projects evolve rapidly to incorporate new features and security patches. It is important for users to update their dependencies to safer versions, but many still use older, vulnerable package versions because upgrading can be difficult and may break their existing codebase. Software developers can mitigate this problem by backporting security patches to older releases. However, manually backporting is time-consuming and error-prone. The effectiveness of existing automated backporting techniques on general software remains unclear since they typically target only code-hunk or function-level patch porting scenarios and are evaluated with imperfect metrics. To facilitate the development and evaluation of automated backporting techniques, we introduce BackportBench, the first comprehensive benchmark suite for patch backporting problem. BackportBench is a multilingual benchmark that contains 202 patch backporting problems from PyPI, Maven, and npm, each with executable Docker environments and relevant test cases. We evaluated existing patch porting methods and LLM-based techniques that have the potential to adapt to this task using BackportBench. The results show that the agentic method has outperformed traditional patch porting methods, especially on cases that require logical and structural changes. However, the performance varies across different programming languages. Based on the findings, we draw several implications for researchers and software practitioners in future work on automated backporting.

Information tasks such as writing surveys or analytical reports require complex search and reasoning, and have recently been grouped under the umbrella of deep research -- a term also adopted by recent models targeting these capabilities. Despite growing interest, the scope of the deep research task remains underdefined and its distinction from other reasoning-intensive problems is poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a formal characterization of the deep research (DR) task and introduce a benchmark to evaluate the performance of DR systems. We argue that the core defining feature of deep research is not the production of lengthy report-style outputs, but rather the high fan-out over concepts required during the search process, i.e., broad and reasoning-intensive exploration. To enable objective evaluation, we define DR using an intermediate output representation that encodes key claims uncovered during search-separating the reasoning challenge from surface-level report generation. Based on this formulation, we propose a diverse, challenging benchmark LiveDRBench with 100 challenging tasks over scientific topics (e.g., datasets, materials discovery, prior art search) and public interest events (e.g., flight incidents, movie awards). Across state-of-the-art DR systems, F1 score ranges between 0.02 and 0.72 for any sub-category. OpenAI's model performs the best with an overall F1 score of 0.55. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals the distribution over the number of referenced sources, branching, and backtracking events executed by current DR systems, motivating future directions for improving their search mechanisms and grounding capabilities. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/microsoft/LiveDRBench.

Numerous benchmarks have been established to assess the performance of foundation models on open-ended question answering, which serves as a comprehensive test of a model's ability to understand and generate language in a manner similar to humans. Most of these works focus on proposing new datasets, however, we see two main issues within previous benchmarking pipelines, namely testing leakage and evaluation automation. In this paper, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, Language-Model-as-an-Examiner, where the LM serves as a knowledgeable examiner that formulates questions based on its knowledge and evaluates responses in a reference-free manner. Our framework allows for effortless extensibility as various LMs can be adopted as the examiner, and the questions can be constantly updated given more diverse trigger topics. For a more comprehensive and equitable evaluation, we devise three strategies: (1) We instruct the LM examiner to generate questions across a multitude of domains to probe for a broad acquisition, and raise follow-up questions to engage in a more in-depth assessment. (2) Upon evaluation, the examiner combines both scoring and ranking measurements, providing a reliable result as it aligns closely with human annotations. (3) We additionally propose a decentralized Peer-examination method to address the biases in a single examiner. Our data and benchmarking results are available at: https://lmexam.com.

Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Yet terminal correctness assigns equal credit to direct answers from parametric knowledge, evidence-grounded answers, and answers recalled after redundant search. Process supervision and LLM judges provide richer feedback but can require high-cost annotation or inference; low-cost, non-contrastive policy confidence signals do not directly identify whether retrieved evidence changes an answer. We propose Search-G1, a reward framework that couples retrieval necessity with evidence reliance through two intervention-calibrated hidden-state readouts for selective grounded search. A prompt readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement proxies policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout predicts evidence reliance as sensitivity to evidence deletion conditional on the realized reasoning prefix. A correctness-first reward gates evidence-reliance credit by retrieval necessity, rewards sufficient direct answers, and penalizes repeated search. After calibration, scoring needs neither process annotations nor LLM-judge inference. As policy-relative targets, trajectory distributions, and representations may drift, Search-G1 periodically regenerates targets and refits its readouts. Across four QA benchmarks and two scales, Search-G1 achieves competitive task accuracy, with stronger counterfactual evidence dependence and fewer searches in the main comparisons, complemented by independent human audits of answer support.

Test-Time Scaling (TTS) is an important method for improving the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by using additional computation during the inference phase. However, current studies do not systematically analyze how policy models, Process Reward Models (PRMs), and problem difficulty influence TTS. This lack of analysis limits the understanding and practical use of TTS methods. In this paper, we focus on two core questions: (1) What is the optimal approach to scale test-time computation across different policy models, PRMs, and problem difficulty levels? (2) To what extent can extended computation improve the performance of LLMs on complex tasks, and can smaller language models outperform larger ones through this approach? Through comprehensive experiments on MATH-500 and challenging AIME24 tasks, we have the following observations: (1) The compute-optimal TTS strategy is highly dependent on the choice of policy model, PRM, and problem difficulty. (2) With our compute-optimal TTS strategy, extremely small policy models can outperform larger models. For example, a 1B LLM can exceed a 405B LLM on MATH-500. Moreover, on both MATH-500 and AIME24, a 0.5B LLM outperforms GPT-4o, a 3B LLM surpasses a 405B LLM, and a 7B LLM beats o1 and DeepSeek-R1, while with higher inference efficiency. These findings show the significance of adapting TTS strategies to the specific characteristics of each task and model and indicate that TTS is a promising approach for enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs.

Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details. Current solutions typically treat this as a direct-to-text generation problem, suffering from hallucination, overlooked critiques, and a lack of verifiable grounding. To address these limitations, we introduce RebuttalAgent, the first multi-agents framework that reframes rebuttal generation as an evidence-centric planning task. Our system decomposes complex feedback into atomic concerns and dynamically constructs hybrid contexts by synthesizing compressed summaries with high-fidelity text while integrating an autonomous and on-demand external search module to resolve concerns requiring outside literature. By generating an inspectable response plan before drafting, RebuttalAgent ensures that every argument is explicitly anchored in internal or external evidence. We validate our approach on the proposed RebuttalBench and demonstrate that our pipeline outperforms strong baselines in coverage, faithfulness, and strategic coherence, offering a transparent and controllable assistant for the peer review process. Code will be released.

Models of various NLP tasks have been shown to exhibit stereotypes, and the bias in the question answering (QA) models is especially harmful as the output answers might be directly consumed by the end users. There have been datasets to evaluate bias in QA models, while bias mitigation technique for the QA models is still under-explored. In this work, we propose BMBI, an approach to mitigate the bias of multiple-choice QA models. Based on the intuition that a model would lean to be more biased if it learns from a biased example, we measure the bias level of a query instance by observing its influence on another instance. If the influenced instance is more biased, we derive that the query instance is biased. We then use the bias level detected as an optimization objective to form a multi-task learning setting in addition to the original QA task. We further introduce a new bias evaluation metric to quantify bias in a comprehensive and sensitive way. We show that our method could be applied to multiple QA formulations across multiple bias categories. It can significantly reduce the bias level in all 9 bias categories in the BBQ dataset while maintaining comparable QA accuracy.

There is growing interest in hypothesis generation with large language models (LLMs). However, fundamental questions remain: what makes a good hypothesis, and how can we systematically evaluate methods for hypothesis generation? To address this, we introduce HypoBench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs and hypothesis generation methods across multiple aspects, including practical utility, generalizability, and hypothesis discovery rate. HypoBench includes 7 real-world tasks and 5 synthetic tasks with 194 distinct datasets. We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs combined with six existing hypothesis-generation methods. Overall, our results suggest that existing methods are capable of discovering valid and novel patterns in the data. However, the results from synthetic datasets indicate that there is still significant room for improvement, as current hypothesis generation methods do not fully uncover all relevant or meaningful patterns. Specifically, in synthetic settings, as task difficulty increases, performance significantly drops, with best models and methods only recovering 38.8% of the ground-truth hypotheses. These findings highlight challenges in hypothesis generation and demonstrate that HypoBench serves as a valuable resource for improving AI systems designed to assist scientific discovery.

Real repository issues routinely include visual evidence such as screenshots, error dialogs, rendered UI states, and logs, yet repository-level issue localization is evaluated mostly as a text-only task. Existing multimodal SE benchmarks evaluate end-to-end repair, entangling localization with patch synthesis and obscuring whether visual input helped, hurt, or was ignored. We introduce MM-IssueLoc, a controlled benchmark and evaluation protocol for repository-level localization with visual evidence. MM-IssueLoc contains 652 issue-PR instances across 23 languages, with annotations for 7 image categories and 4 relevance levels. It provides file-level and function-level gold labels, paired text-only and with-image evaluation, and VCE-based diagnostics that convert images into structured textual evidence. We evaluate LLM-based and retrieval-based systems, including MM-IssueLoc-VL-Emb as a controlled multimodal retriever. Results show that existing systems remain far from reliable multimodal repository localization: the strongest agent reaches 38.96 file Acc@5 and 22.45 function Acc@10, while the strongest retriever reaches 33.86 function Acc@10. Cross-benchmark comparisons show that high localization scores on text-dominant SWE benchmarks do not transfer cleanly to multimodal issue localization. MM-IssueLoc turns visual evidence into an explicit evaluation variable, enabling future work to test whether systems improve by using visual evidence for localization, rather than by relying on text-only cues or downstream patch-generation effects.

With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), distributed training and inference frameworks like DeepSpeed have become essential for scaling model training and inference across multiple GPUs or nodes. However, the increasing complexity of these frameworks brings non-trivial software bugs, which may degrade training performance, cause unexpected failures, and result in significant resource waste. Understanding framework bugs' characteristics is fundamental for quality assurance, allowing the design of more effective debugging and repair methods. Thus, our paper conducts the first large-scale empirical analysis of 308 fixed bugs across three popular distributed training/inference frameworks: DeepSpeed, Megatron-LM, and Colossal-AI. We examine bug symptoms, root causes, bug identification and fixing efforts, and common low-effort fixing strategies. Additionally, the distributed nature of these frameworks introduces unique bug root causes, such as allocation strategy error and distributed communication error. Diagnosing and fixing complex bugs remains challenging due to factors like the disconnect between symptoms and root causes, high bug reproduction costs, and low-level or cross-component interactions. Interestingly, we observe that 48% of bug fixes require minimal code changes (<=10 LOC) and follow simple strategies such as conditional logic optimization, parameter handling enhancement, or version compatibility handling, indicating potential for automation. Based on these insights, we offer several implications for improving the reliability of both distributed training and inference frameworks and their dependent LLM projects, while also identifying opportunities to leverage LLM-based tools for automated debugging and repair.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in most NLP tasks but also require expensive cloud servers for deployment due to their size, while smaller models that can be deployed on lower cost (e.g., edge) devices, tend to lag behind in terms of response quality. Therefore in this work we propose a hybrid inference approach which combines their respective strengths to save cost and maintain quality. Our approach uses a router that assigns queries to the small or large model based on the predicted query difficulty and the desired quality level. The desired quality level can be tuned dynamically at test time to seamlessly trade quality for cost as per the scenario requirements. In experiments our approach allows us to make up to 40% fewer calls to the large model, with no drop in response quality.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in code generation tasks, but their performance in tackling programming problems with complex data structures and algorithms remains suboptimal. To address this issue, we propose an in-context learning approach that guides LLMs to debug by using a "print debugging" method, which involves inserting print statements to trace and analysing logs for fixing the bug. We collect a Leetcode problem dataset and evaluate our method using the Leetcode online judging system. Experiments with GPT-4 demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, outperforming rubber duck debugging in easy and medium-level Leetcode problems by 1.5% and 17.9%.

Managing issue reports is essential for the evolution and maintenance of software systems. However, manual issue management tasks such as triaging, prioritizing, localizing, and resolving issues are highly resource-intensive for projects with large codebases and users. To address this challenge, we present SPRINT, a GitHub application that utilizes state-of-the-art deep learning techniques to streamline issue management tasks. SPRINT assists developers by: (i) identifying existing issues similar to newly reported ones, (ii) predicting issue severity, and (iii) suggesting code files that likely require modification to solve the issues. We evaluated SPRINT using existing datasets and methodologies, measuring its predictive performance, and conducted a user study with five professional developers to assess its usability and usefulness. The results show that SPRINT is accurate, usable, and useful, providing evidence of its effectiveness in assisting developers in managing issue reports. SPRINT is an open-source tool available at https://github.com/sea-lab-wm/sprint_issue_report_assistant_tool.

Software testing is a critical, yet resource-intensive phase of the software development lifecycle. Over the years, various automated tools have been developed to aid in this process. Search-based approaches typically achieve high coverage but produce tests with low readability, whereas large language model (LLM)-based methods generate more human-readable tests but often suffer from low coverage and compilability. While the majority of research efforts have focused on improving test coverage and readability, little attention has been paid to enhancing the robustness of bug detection, particularly in exposing corner cases and vulnerable execution paths. To address this gap, we propose AdverTest, a novel adversarial framework for LLM-powered test case generation. AdverTest comprises two interacting agents: a test case generation agent (T) and a mutant generation agent (M). These agents engage in an adversarial loop, where M persistently creates new mutants "hacking" the blind spots of T's current test suite, while T iteratively refines its test cases to "kill" the challenging mutants produced by M. This interaction loop is guided by both coverage and mutation scores, enabling the system to co-evolve toward both high test coverage and bug detection capability. Experimental results in the Defects4J dataset show that our approach improves fault detection rates by 8.56% over the best existing LLM-based methods and by 63.30% over EvoSuite, while also improving line and branch coverage.

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.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced autonomous software engineering, leading to a growing number of software engineering agents that assist developers in automatic program repair. Issue localization forms the basis for accurate patch generation. However, because of limitations caused by the context window length of LLMs, existing issue localization methods face challenges in balancing concise yet effective contexts and adequately comprehensive search spaces. In this paper, we introduce CoSIL, an LLM driven, simple yet powerful function level issue localization method without training or indexing. CoSIL reduces the search space through module call graphs, iteratively searches the function call graph to obtain relevant contexts, and uses context pruning to control the search direction and manage contexts effectively. Importantly, the call graph is dynamically constructed by the LLM during search, eliminating the need for pre-parsing. Experiment results demonstrate that CoSIL achieves a Top-1 localization success rate of 43 percent and 44.6 percent on SWE bench Lite and SWE bench Verified, respectively, using Qwen2.5 Coder 32B, outperforming existing methods by 8.6 to 98.2 percent. When CoSIL is applied to guide the patch generation stage, the resolved rate further improves by 9.3 to 31.5 percent.

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

Reasoning language models increasingly use test-time compute to improve performance, but existing evaluations typically study this compute one question at a time. Yet when multiple problems share an end-to-end cost or latency constraint, models must decide how to divide limited inference compute among them. We introduce an exam-style evaluation framework for studying this setting, in which a model must distribute one shared token budget across questions with different difficulty and point values to maximize its total score. Across several open and frontier reasoning models, we find that models fail to allocate a shared budget strategically across questions of varying difficulties and values. Models behave largely as greedy sequential solvers: they prioritize questions by presentation order, front-load effort on early questions, and remain insensitive to value, with these tendencies becoming more pronounced as the number of questions grows. Explicit planning prompts spread compute more evenly but do not produce value- or difficulty-aware prioritization. The same behavioral pattern extends from mathematical to code reasoning. These findings establish global budget allocation as a distinct capability that is not captured by conventional per-question evaluation and remains a challenge for current reasoning models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in downstream software engineering tasks such as Automated Program Repair (APR). In particular, there has been a lot of research on repository-level issue-resolution benchmarks such as SWE-Bench. Although there has been significant progress on this topic, we notice that in the process of solving such issues, existing agentic systems tend to hyper-localize on immediately suspicious lines of code and fix them in isolation, without a deeper understanding of the issue semantics, code semantics, or execution semantics. Consequently, many existing systems generate patches that overfit to the user issue, even when a more general fix is preferable. To address this limitation, we introduce SemAgent, a novel workflow-based procedure that leverages issue, code, and execution semantics to generate patches that are complete - identifying and fixing all lines relevant to the issue. We achieve this through a novel pipeline that (a) leverages execution semantics to retrieve relevant context, (b) comprehends issue-semantics via generalized abstraction, (c) isolates code-semantics within the context of this abstraction, and (d) leverages this understanding in a two-stage architecture: a repair stage that proposes fine-grained fixes, followed by a reviewer stage that filters relevant fixes based on the inferred issue-semantics. Our evaluations show that our methodology achieves a solve rate of 44.66% on the SWEBench-Lite benchmark beating all other workflow-based approaches, and an absolute improvement of 7.66% compared to our baseline, which lacks such deep semantic understanding. We note that our approach performs particularly well on issues requiring multi-line reasoning (and editing) and edge-case handling, suggesting that incorporating issue and code semantics into APR pipelines can lead to robust and semantically consistent repairs.

Multi-agent document assessment for retrieval-augmented generation is computationally expensive, driving practitioners toward smaller, deployable models whose assessment mechanisms remain poorly understood. We conduct a controlled study of training-free interventions on 7B-9B instruction-tuned models across diverse QA benchmarks, revealing a sharp dichotomy in how models benefit from assessment. For weaker baselines, the dominant mechanism is per-document isolation. Astoundingly, assessment-free isolation matches full multi-agent assessment, demonstrating that resolving multi-document context confusion, rather than scoring quality, drives outsized gains of up to 50 percentage points. Conversely, for strong baselines where scoring quality matters, we introduce Reasoning-Score Coupling, a label-free perturbation probe that classifies scoring behavior. Integrating these findings, we propose MADARA, a model-adaptive routing architecture. Crucially, MADARA's diagnostic thresholds derived from a single pilot model generalize zero-shot to four unseen model families, providing a robust, lightweight pipeline to eliminate computational overhead.

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.

One of the most challenging problems facing NLP today is evaluation. Some of the most pressing issues pertain to benchmark saturation, data contamination, and diversity in the quality of test examples. To address these concerns, we propose Selection Methodology for Accurate, Reduced, and Targeted (SMART) filtering, a novel approach to select a high-quality subset of examples from existing benchmark datasets by systematically removing less informative and less challenging examples. Our approach applies three filtering criteria, removing (i) easy examples, (ii) data-contaminated examples, and (iii) examples that are similar to each other based on distance in an embedding space. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SMART on three multiple choice QA datasets, where our methodology increases efficiency by reducing dataset size by 48\% on average, while increasing Pearson correlation with rankings from ChatBot Arena, a more open-ended human evaluation setting. Our method enables us to be more efficient, whether using SMART to make new benchmarks more challenging or to revitalize older datasets, while still preserving the relative model rankings.

Academic survey writing, which distills vast literature into a coherent and insightful narrative, remains a labor-intensive and intellectually demanding task. While recent approaches, such as general DeepResearch agents and survey-specialized methods, can generate surveys automatically (a.k.a. LLM4Survey), their outputs often fall short of human standards and there lacks a rigorous, reader-aligned benchmark for thoroughly revealing their deficiencies. To fill the gap, we propose a fine-grained, quiz-driven evaluation framework SurveyBench, featuring (1) typical survey topics source from recent 11,343 arXiv papers and corresponding 4,947 high-quality surveys; (2) a multifaceted metric hierarchy that assesses the outline quality (e.g., coverage breadth, logical coherence), content quality (e.g., synthesis granularity, clarity of insights), and non-textual richness; and (3) a dual-mode evaluation protocol that includes content-based and quiz-based answerability tests, explicitly aligned with readers' informational needs. Results show SurveyBench effectively challenges existing LLM4Survey approaches (e.g., on average 21% lower than human in content-based evaluation).

Bug bounty platforms (e.g., HackerOne, BugCrowd) leverage crowd-sourced vulnerability discovery to improve continuous coverage, reduce the cost of discovery, and serve as an integral complement to internal red teams. With the rise of AI-generated bug reports, little work exists to help bug hunters understand why these reports are labeled as invalid. To improve report quality and reduce reviewers' burden, it is critical to predict invalid reports and interpret invalid reasons. In this work, we conduct an empirical study with the purpose of helping bug hunters understand the validity of reports. We collect a dataset of 9,942 disclosed bug bounty reports, including 1,400 invalid reports, and evaluate whether state-of-the-art large language models can identify invalid reports. While models such as GPT-5, DeepSeek, and a fine-tuned RoBERTa achieve strong overall accuracy, they consistently struggle to detect invalid cases, showing a tendency to over-accept reports. To improve invalidity detection, we build a taxonomy of rejection reasons for Information Disclosure vulnerabilities and incorporate it into a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. This approach substantially improves classification consistency and reduces bias. We also examine whether reviewer decisions may be influenced by factors beyond the content of the report. Our analysis shows that reporters with higher reputations tend to receive more favorable outcomes in borderline cases, suggesting that perceived expertise can influence review judgments. Overall, our findings highlight the challenges of invalid report identification and show that combining LLMs with structured reviewer knowledge can support more transparent and consistent vulnerability report review.

Readers of academic research papers often read with the goal of answering specific questions. Question Answering systems that can answer those questions can make consumption of the content much more efficient. However, building such tools requires data that reflect the difficulty of the task arising from complex reasoning about claims made in multiple parts of a paper. In contrast, existing information-seeking question answering datasets usually contain questions about generic factoid-type information. We therefore present QASPER, a dataset of 5,049 questions over 1,585 Natural Language Processing papers. Each question is written by an NLP practitioner who read only the title and abstract of the corresponding paper, and the question seeks information present in the full text. The questions are then answered by a separate set of NLP practitioners who also provide supporting evidence to answers. We find that existing models that do well on other QA tasks do not perform well on answering these questions, underperforming humans by at least 27 F1 points when answering them from entire papers, motivating further research in document-grounded, information-seeking QA, which our dataset is designed to facilitate.

The issue-resolving task, where a model generates patches to fix real-world bugs, has emerged as a critical benchmark for evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). While SWE-bench and its variants have become standard in this domain, they suffer from key limitations: they have not been updated since their initial releases, cover a narrow set of repositories, and depend heavily on manual effort for instance construction and environment setup. These factors hinder scalability and introduce risks of overfitting and data contamination. In this work, we present SWE-bench-Live, a live-updatable benchmark designed to overcome these challenges. Our initial release consists of 1,319 tasks derived from real GitHub issues created since 2024, spanning 93 repositories. Each task is accompanied by a dedicated Docker image to ensure reproducible execution. Central to our benchmark is \method, an automated curation pipeline that streamlines the entire process from instance creation to environment setup, removing manual bottlenecks and enabling scalability and continuous updates. We evaluate a range of state-of-the-art agent frameworks and LLMs on SWE-bench-Live, revealing a substantial performance gap compared to static benchmarks like SWE-bench, even under controlled evaluation conditions. To better understand this discrepancy, we perform detailed analyses across repository origin, issue recency, and task difficulty. By providing a fresh, diverse, and executable benchmark grounded in live repository activity, SWE-bench-Live facilitates rigorous, contamination-resistant evaluation of LLMs and agents in dynamic, real-world software development settings.

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.

Robust benchmarks are crucial for evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). Yet we find that models can ace many multimodal benchmarks without strong visual understanding, instead exploiting biases, linguistic priors, and superficial patterns. This is especially problematic for vision-centric benchmarks that are meant to require visual inputs. We adopt a diagnostic principle for benchmark design: if a benchmark can be gamed, it will be. Designers should therefore try to ``game'' their own benchmarks first, using diagnostic and debiasing procedures to systematically identify and mitigate non-visual biases. Effective diagnosis requires directly ``training on the test set'' -- probing the released test set for its intrinsic, exploitable patterns. We operationalize this standard with two components. First, we diagnose benchmark susceptibility using a ``Test-set Stress-Test'' (TsT) methodology. Our primary diagnostic tool involves fine-tuning a powerful Large Language Model via k-fold cross-validation on exclusively the non-visual, textual inputs of the test set to reveal shortcut performance and assign each sample a bias score s(x). We complement this with a lightweight Random Forest-based diagnostic operating on hand-crafted features for fast, interpretable auditing. Second, we debias benchmarks by filtering high-bias samples using an ``Iterative Bias Pruning'' (IBP) procedure. Applying this framework to four benchmarks -- VSI-Bench, CV-Bench, MMMU, and VideoMME -- we uncover pervasive non-visual biases. As a case study, we apply our full framework to create VSI-Bench-Debiased, demonstrating reduced non-visual solvability and a wider vision-blind performance gap than the original.

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

Root cause analysis (RCA) is essential for diagnosing failures within complex software systems to ensure system reliability. The highly distributed and interdependent nature of modern cloud-based systems often complicates RCA efforts, particularly for multi-hop fault propagation, where symptoms appear far from their true causes. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to enhance automated RCA. However, their practical value for RCA depends on the fidelity of reasoning and decision-making. Existing work relies on historical incident corpora, operates directly on high-volume telemetry beyond current LLM capacity, or embeds reasoning inside complex multi-agent pipelines -- conditions that obscure whether failures arise from reasoning itself or from peripheral design choices. We present a focused empirical evaluation that isolates an LLM's reasoning behavior. We design a controlled experimental framework that foregrounds the LLM by using a simplified experimental setting. We evaluate six LLMs under two agentic workflows (ReAct and Plan-and-Execute) and a non-agentic baseline on two real-world case studies (GAIA and OpenRCA). In total, we executed 48,000 simulated failure scenarios, totaling 228 days of execution time. We measure both root-cause accuracy and the quality of intermediate reasoning traces. We produce a labeled taxonomy of 16 common RCA reasoning failures and use an LLM-as-a-Judge for annotation. Our results clarify where current open-source LLMs succeed and fail in multi-hop RCA, quantify sensitivity to input data modalities, and identify reasoning failures that predict final correctness. Together, these contributions provide transparent and reproducible empirical results and a failure taxonomy to guide future work on reasoning-driven system diagnosis.

Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.

AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment. We present LegalHalluLens, an auditing framework with three components: typed hallucination profiles across four legally-motivated claim categories (numeric, temporal, obligation/entitlement, factual) over CUAD (Hendrycks et al., 2021); a Risk Direction Index (RDI) that reduces omission-versus-invention bias to a single deployment-comparable scalar; and a typed debate pipeline calibrated to both magnitudes and directions. Across 510 contracts and 249,252 clause-level instances we measure a within-model gap of approximately 38-40 pp between obligation/numeric and temporal claims that aggregate reporting hides, and show that two systems with matched 52% rates can carry opposite RDIs. The debate pipeline reduces fabricated detections by 45% with per-category gains tracking the diagnosis, matching commercial APIs with a substantially smaller backbone (4B active parameters). Typed profiles and RDI surface failure modes that aggregate metrics hide; we further show these diagnostics serve as calibration inputs for multi-agent debate pipelines, where Skeptic challenges and asymmetric gates targeted at measured failure modes outperform generically-tuned debate. The framework supports direction-aware procurement, accountability, and agent design for legal AI deployed in the wild.

The ability of language models in RAG systems to selectively refuse to answer based on flawed context is critical for safety, yet remains a significant failure point. Our large-scale study reveals that even frontier models struggle in this setting, with refusal accuracy dropping below 50% on multi-document tasks, while exhibiting either dangerous overconfidence or overcaution. Static benchmarks fail to reliably evaluate this capability, as models exploit dataset-specific artifacts and memorize test instances. We introduce RefusalBench, a generative methodology that programmatically creates diagnostic test cases through controlled linguistic perturbation. Our framework employs 176 distinct perturbation strategies across six categories of informational uncertainty and three intensity levels. Evaluation of over 30 models uncovers systematic failure patterns: refusal comprises separable detection and categorization skills, and neither scale nor extended reasoning improves performance. We find that selective refusal is a trainable, alignment-sensitive capability, offering a clear path for improvement. We release two benchmarks -- RefusalBench-NQ (single document) and RefusalBench-GaRAGe (multi-document) -- and our complete generation framework to enable continued, dynamic evaluation of this critical capability.

Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute. The term "test-time scaling," however, now covers diverse inference algorithms that extend deliberation along a single trajectory, sample completed candidates and aggregate them through voting or verification, or search over unfinished partial states. These algorithms differ in their statistical structure, compute accounting, and failure modes. Treating these procedures as interchangeable under a single scalar "budget," or reporting accuracy without the inference protocol that produced it, makes results difficult to compare across studies. We develop a systematic account of test-time scaling along three axes. First, we formalize test-time scaling as budgeted inference over the implicit prefix tree of an autoregressive model and distinguish three structural regimes: single-trajectory sequential scaling, leaf-level scaling with terminal reduction, and prefix-level scaling. Second, we treat the evaluated object as the entire inference system and develop evaluation principles that separate end-to-end system performance from candidate-bank diagnostics. We introduce an evaluation profile whose coordinates and simple functionals recover or bound common repeated-sampling metrics, and prescribe protocol-matched reporting of compute and uncertainty. Third, we specify reproducibility requirements for inference protocols, distinguishing exact replay from distributional reproducibility and identifying the artifacts needed to support each. We also organize the open-weight reasoning ecosystem by model-side and interface mechanisms, apply these principles to broad-knowledge, symbolic-reasoning, and competition-mathematics benchmarks, and assemble over 2 billion full reasoning traces for release with progressively richer verifier and token-level signals.

Context: Test-driven development (TDD) is a widely employed software development practice that involves developing test cases based on requirements prior to writing the code. Although various methods for automated test case generation have been proposed, they are not specifically tailored for TDD, where requirements instead of code serve as input. Objective: In this paper, we introduce a text-to-testcase generation approach based on a large language model (GPT-3.5) that is fine-tuned on our curated dataset with an effective prompt design. Method: Our approach involves enhancing the capabilities of basic GPT-3.5 for text-to-testcase generation task that is fine-tuned on our curated dataset with an effective prompting design. We evaluated the effectiveness of our approach using a span of five large-scale open-source software projects. Results: Our approach generated 7k test cases for open source projects, achieving 78.5% syntactic correctness, 67.09% requirement alignment, and 61.7% code coverage, which substantially outperforms all other LLMs (basic GPT-3.5, Bloom, and CodeT5). In addition, our ablation study demonstrates the substantial performance improvement of the fine-tuning and prompting components of the GPT-3.5 model. Conclusions: These findings lead us to conclude that fine-tuning and prompting should be considered in the future when building a language model for the text-to-testcase generation task

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

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

Large language model (LLM)-based search agents synthesize open-web content into actionable recommendations on behalf of users, creating a risk that attacker-published pages are transformed into endorsed claims. We introduce SearchGEO, a controlled evaluation framework for measuring endorsement corruption in LLM-based web-search agents, combining a web-evidence manipulation pipeline, a five-mode attack taxonomy, and multiple output-level metrics. We evaluate 13 LLM backends on 308 cases each. Results show that vulnerability patterns vary across backends: overall attack success rate (ASR) ranges from 0.0% on Claude-Sonnet-4.6 to 31.4% on Gemini-3-Flash, the strongest attack mode differs by model family, and the same deployment scaffold could amplify or decrease ASR on different backends. An auxiliary agent-skill probe, where endorsement becomes an install command, exposes a sharp split among otherwise robust backends: Claude over-rejects while GPT over-trusts. These findings argue for treating recommendation reliability under adversarial search content as a first-class dimension of backend safety evaluation.

Large language model (LLM) based agents have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in automated software issue resolution, yet they often struggle to resolve issues in a specific repository because they lack project-specific knowledge. Existing self-evolving approaches acquire such knowledge from repository history or online repair trajectories, but they either depend on available historical issue-resolution signals or incur substantial per-issue test-time exploration cost. In this paper, we propose SkillForge, a self-distillation framework that proactively acquires project-specific knowledge from the repository itself. Instead of waiting for real issues to expose project-specific knowledge gaps, SkillForge synthesizes project-specific issues by re-implementing test-covered core functionalities of the repository. By resolving these synthetic issues, SkillForge distills reusable project-specific knowledge into entity-grounded skills and associates them with relevant repository entities for future issue resolution. Extensive experiments using both open-source and closed-source models show that SkillForge consistently improves issue resolution performance over strong baselines. These results demonstrate that proactively acquiring project-specific knowledge before solving real issues substantially improves downstream software issue resolution.

Test-time scaling (TTS) -- the dynamic allocation of compute during inference -- is a promising direction for improving reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, a systematic comparison of well-known TTS strategies under identical conditions is missing, and the influence of model type and problem difficulty on performance remains unclear. To address these gaps, we conduct the first large-scale study of TTS, spanning over thirty billion tokens generated using eight open-source LLMs (7B to 235B parameters), across four reasoning datasets. We observe three consistent trends: (1) no single TTS strategy universally dominates; (2) reasoning models exhibit distinct trace-quality patterns across problem difficulty and trace length, forming short-horizon and long-horizon categories; and (3) for a given model type, the optimal TTS performance scales monotonically with compute budget. Based on these insights, we provide a practical recipe for selecting the best TTS strategy, considering problem difficulty, model type, and compute budget, providing a practical guide to effective inference-time scaling.

Large Language Model (LLM) code agents increasingly resolve repository-level issues by iteratively editing code, invoking tools, and validating candidate patches. In these workflows, agents often write tests on the fly, a paradigm adopted by many high-ranking agents on the SWE-bench leaderboard. However, we observe that GPT-5.2, which writes almost no new tests, can even achieve performance comparable to top-ranking agents. This raises the critical question: whether such tests meaningfully improve issue resolution or merely mimic human testing practices while consuming a substantial interaction budget. To reveal the impact of agent-written tests, we present an empirical study that analyzes agent trajectories across six state-of-the-art LLMs on SWE-bench Verified. Our results show that while test writing is commonly adopted, but resolved and unresolved tasks within the same model exhibit similar test-writing frequencies Furthermore, these tests typically serve as observational feedback channels, where agents prefer value-revealing print statements significantly more than formal assertion-based checks. Based on these insights, we perform a controlled experiment by revising the prompts of four agents to either increase or reduce test writing. The results suggest that changes in the volume of agent-written tests do not significantly change final outcomes. Taken together, our study reveals that current test-writing practices may provide marginal utility in autonomous software engineering tasks.

Software testing is a critical aspect of software development, yet generating test cases remains a routine task for engineers. This paper presents a benchmark, CLOVER, to evaluate models' capabilities in generating and completing test cases under specific conditions. Spanning from simple assertion completions to writing test cases that cover specific code blocks across multiple files, these tasks are based on 12 python repositories, analyzing 845 problems with context lengths ranging from 4k to 128k tokens. Utilizing code testing frameworks, we propose a method to construct retrieval contexts using coverage information. While models exhibit comparable performance with short contexts, notable differences emerge with 16k contexts. Notably, models like GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 can effectively leverage relevant snippets; however, all models score below 35\% on the complex Task III, even with the oracle context provided, underscoring the benchmark's significance and the potential for model improvement. The benchmark is containerized for code execution across tasks, and we will release the code, data, and construction methodologies.

Large language model (LLM)-based software engineering agents are increasingly developed to resolve software issues by generating patches from issue reports and code repositories. Bug reproduction tests (BRTs) are an important building block for such agents and have been shown useful for patch validation. However, it remains unclear whether BRTs can also help the more central stage of patch generation. We first conduct a preliminary study and find that directly using advanced BRT generators to guide patch generation is not beneficial: fail-to-fail BRTs can mislead agents, while even fail-to-pass BRTs bring limited or negative gains. Our analysis reveals two reasons: fail-to-pass BRTs may cover only one manifestation of the reported issue, leading to partial patches, whereas fail-to-fail BRTs are unreliable as direct patch-generation targets. Motivated by these insights, we propose SWE-Doctor, a software issue resolution agent that guides patch generation with runtime diagnoses derived from multi-faceted BRT executions. SWE-Doctor first generates multi-faceted BRTs for different behavioral requirements stated in the issue, then executes and debugs these BRTs to construct runtime-grounded diagnosis records, and finally uses the diagnoses together with localization information inferred during BRT generation to guide patch generation and reduce partial patches. We evaluate SWE-Doctor on Python bug-fixing issues from the widely adopted SWE-bench Verified and SWE-bench Pro across five LLM backends. SWE-Doctor consistently outperforms existing agents across all 10 LLM-benchmark combinations, achieving average resolution rates of 75.7% on SWE-bench Verified and 59.4% on SWE-bench Pro. In particular, on the more challenging SWE-bench Pro, SWE-Doctor improves the average resolution rate by 8.0-8.9 percentage points over the baseline agents.

Hypernetwork-based methods such as Doc-to-LoRA internalize a document into an LLM's weights in a single forward pass, but they fail systematically on conflicts: when the document contradicts pretraining knowledge, accuracy collapses to 46.4% on the deepest facts. We show the failure is a magnitude problem rather than a representational one. The hypernetwork already targets the right layers, but its adapter margin is approximately constant across documents while the pretrained margin grows with training frequency, so deep conflicts lose by construction. The account predicts that failure should track prior strength: sorting 194 conflicts by the base model's log-probability on the contradicted fact, baseline accuracy falls from 68% on weak-prior questions to 16% on strong-prior ones, a 52 percentage-point gap. The cure is amplitude. Selective Layer Boosting scales the adapter at its top-norm layers, and Conflict-Aware Internalization triggers boosting only when the base model is confident. Both are training-free; together they raise deep-conflict accuracy from 46.4% to 71.0% on Gemma-2B and from 53.6% to 72.5% on Mistral-7B while preserving novel-knowledge recall, and beat vanilla retrieval-augmented generation on medium conflicts by 18 percentage points despite operating entirely in parameter space. We release KID-Bench, a 489-question benchmark that separates novel recall, cross-knowledge combination, and prior-graded conflicts.

Deep Research Agents are increasingly used for automated survey generation. However, whether they can write surveys like human experts remains unclear. Existing benchmarks focus on fluency or citation accuracy, but none evaluates the core capabilities: retrieving essential papers and organizing them into coherent knowledge structures. We introduce TaxoBench, a diagnostic benchmark derived from 72 highly-cited computer science surveys. We manually extract expert-authored taxonomy trees containing 3,815 precisely categorized citations as ground truth. Our benchmark supports two evaluation modes: Deep Research mode tests end-to-end retrieval and organization given only a topic, while Bottom-Up mode isolates structuring capability by providing the exact papers human experts used. We evaluate 7 leading Deep Research agents and 12 frontier LLMs. Results reveal a dual bottleneck: the best agent recalls only 20.9% of expert-selected papers, and even with perfect input, the best model achieves only 0.31 ARI in organization. Current deep research agents remain far from expert-level survey writing. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/KongLongGeFDU/TaxoBench.

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) interleaves retrieval, reasoning, and answer generation across multiple hops. A retrieval error at hop 1 can surface only as a wrong answer at hop 3, while later retrieval can also repair the trajectory. This paper introduces AgenticRAG-FP, an interventional benchmark for causal failure attribution in agentic RAG. The benchmark injects a certified fault at a specified hop, re-executes the downstream trajectory, and evaluates diagnosers against the known intervention. Its central question is whether a post-hoc trace still identifies the injected hop after the suffix changes. In the completed strict dense Claude Haiku 4.5 sweep on 80 three-hop MuSiQue questions, coverage-based diagnosis is 0.91 at hop 1 and 0.00 at hops 2 and 3 (n=43,36,21 failed trajectories). A smaller content-corruption study changes an answer-bearing or bridge fact in topically intact evidence. At depth 2, where 18 failed cases remain after filtering, coverage-based diagnosis is 0.00 and a frozen-hop counterfactual probe is 0.67 in an exploratory pooled comparison. Depth-3 content estimates are descriptive only because they contain three failed cases. These results make propagation depth an explicit evaluation axis for diagnosing agentic RAG failures while distinguishing broad evidence of post-hoc signal loss from small-sample method comparisons.

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4, Claude-3, and Gemini has transformed the field of natural language processing. However, it has also resulted in a significant issue known as Benchmark Data Contamination (BDC). This occurs when language models inadvertently incorporate evaluation benchmark information from their training data, leading to inaccurate or unreliable performance during the evaluation phase of the process. This paper reviews the complex challenge of BDC in LLM evaluation and explores alternative assessment methods to mitigate the risks associated with traditional benchmarks. The paper also examines challenges and future directions in mitigating BDC risks, highlighting the complexity of the issue and the need for innovative solutions to ensure the reliability of LLM evaluation in real-world applications.

As frontier language models attain near-ceiling performance on static mathematical benchmarks, existing evaluations are increasingly unable to differentiate model capabilities, largely because they cast models solely as solvers of fixed problem sets. We introduce MathDuels, a self-play benchmark in which models occupy dual roles: each authors math problems under adversarial prompting and solves problems authored by every other participant. Problems are produced through a three-stage generation pipeline (meta-prompting, problem generation, and difficulty amplification), and validated by an independent verifier that excludes ill-posed questions. A Rasch model (Rasch, 1993) jointly estimates solver abilities and problem difficulties; author quality is derived from the difficulties of each model's authored problems. Experiments across 19 frontier models reveal that authoring and solving capabilities are partially decoupled, and that dual-role evaluation reveals capability separations invisible in single-role benchmarks. As newer models enter the arena, they produce problems that defeat previously dominant solvers, so the benchmark's difficulty co-evolves with participant strength rather than saturating at a fixed ceiling. We host a public leaderboard that updates as new models are released.

WANDR (Wide ANd Deep Research) is a benchmark of 500 realistic, challenging data-collection tasks for research agents. Each task requires a system to discover a large set of entities that satisfy specified criteria (breadth), investigate each entity through multiple coordinated web searches (depth), and return independently verifiable records with supporting sources and excerpts. Tasks are represented as qualification key hierarchies that specify the entities, relationships, evidence, and required count at each level; a hierarchy with n companies, m employees per company, and k sources per employee requires n x m x k records. This structure supports diverse workflows such as market mapping, due diligence, literature review, product comparison, and talent sourcing, with targets ranging from dozens to thousands of records. WANDR replaces static gold answer sets with task-specific judges that refetch cited pages and verify each record against its evidence, allowing evaluation of current and changing facts. Record verdicts are aggregated into soft and hard precision, recall, and F1 scores that distinguish factual quality, coverage, and hierarchical completeness. The tasks are derived from de-identified product-usage logs and produced through a semi-automated pipeline with automated checks, empirical audits, and human review where needed. We evaluate six production research systems and find that the benchmark is far from saturated: at high effort, the strongest system reaches only 0.363 soft F1 and 0.133 hard F1. Performance degrades as target volume and hierarchy depth increase, with incomplete discovery, missing enrichment, and incomplete evidence construction remaining major bottlenecks. The benchmark and evaluation harness are available at https://github.com/perplexityai/wandr.

While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates hallucination and knowledge staleness in Large Language Models (LLMs), existing frameworks often falter on complex, multi-hop queries that require synthesizing information from disparate sources. Current advanced RAG methods, employing iterative or adaptive strategies, lack a robust mechanism to systematically identify and fill evidence gaps, often propagating noise or failing to gather a comprehensive context. We introduce FAIR-RAG, a novel agentic framework that transforms the standard RAG pipeline into a dynamic, evidence-driven reasoning process. At its core is an Iterative Refinement Cycle governed by a module we term Structured Evidence Assessment (SEA). The SEA acts as an analytical gating mechanism: it deconstructs the initial query into a checklist of required findings and audits the aggregated evidence to identify confirmed facts and, critically, explicit informational gaps. These gaps provide a precise signal to an Adaptive Query Refinement agent, which generates new, targeted sub-queries to retrieve missing information. This cycle repeats until the evidence is verified as sufficient, ensuring a comprehensive context for a final, strictly faithful generation. We conducted experiments on challenging multi-hop QA benchmarks, including HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MusiQue. In a unified experimental setup, FAIR-RAG significantly outperforms strong baselines. On HotpotQA, it achieves an F1-score of 0.453 -- an absolute improvement of 8.3 points over the strongest iterative baseline -- establishing a new state-of-the-art for this class of methods on these benchmarks. Our work demonstrates that a structured, evidence-driven refinement process with explicit gap analysis is crucial for unlocking reliable and accurate reasoning in advanced RAG systems for complex, knowledge-intensive tasks.

Enterprise question answering is framed as retrieving internal documents and generating grounded answers. Routine enterprise records, however, are work by-products in which required organizational relations remain implicit across heterogeneous sources. Existing benchmarks provide realistic multi-source evidence, but often materialize a predefined answer path and therefore test the composition of stated facts rather than recovery of a target relation absent from the corpus. We call the latter capability latent organizational reasoning. We introduce ENTLORE, a graph-grounded benchmark construction framework that reconstructs an audited enterprise world from routine documents, authoritative organizational tables, and operational records. Versioned organizational conventions certify derived relations in a truth graph, enabling complete golden answers and proof certificates. The aligned anonymized release exposes only the document corpus while withholding private structure and target relations. ENTLORE contains 2,341 documents from three source types and 907 questions spanning explicit lookup, cross-source composition, and latent organizational reasoning, evaluated across 56 model and access configurations. Structuring the released world as an induced entity graph or navigable knowledge base gives the strongest deployable results. Yet supplying gold documents still leaves 30.4% of latent questions unanswered, versus 12.6% and 6.2% for explicit and compositional questions. Enterprise QA therefore depends not only on document recall, but also on whether implicit organizational relations become usable. The benchmark, data, and code are publicly available at ENTLORE.

Open benchmarks are essential for evaluating and advancing large language models, offering reproducibility and transparency. However, their accessibility makes them likely targets of test set contamination. In this work, we introduce DyePack, a framework that leverages backdoor attacks to identify models that used benchmark test sets during training, without requiring access to the loss, logits, or any internal details of the model. Like how banks mix dye packs with their money to mark robbers, DyePack mixes backdoor samples with the test data to flag models that trained on it. We propose a principled design incorporating multiple backdoors with stochastic targets, enabling exact false positive rate (FPR) computation when flagging every model. This provably prevents false accusations while providing strong evidence for every detected case of contamination. We evaluate DyePack on five models across three datasets, covering both multiple-choice and open-ended generation tasks. For multiple-choice questions, it successfully detects all contaminated models with guaranteed FPRs as low as 0.000073% on MMLU-Pro and 0.000017% on Big-Bench-Hard using eight backdoors. For open-ended generation tasks, it generalizes well and identifies all contaminated models on Alpaca with a guaranteed false positive rate of just 0.127% using six backdoors.

Comprehensive evaluations of language models (LM) during both development and deployment phases are necessary because these models possess numerous capabilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning, legal support, or medical diagnostic) as well as safety risks (e.g., racial bias, toxicity, or misinformation). The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of these LMs in practice. Currently, holistic evaluations are costly due to the large volume of benchmark questions, making frequent evaluations impractical. A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark. This approach, unfortunately, often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset. Item response theory (IRT) was designed to address this challenge, providing a reliable measurement by careful controlling for question difficulty. Unfortunately, question difficulty is expensive to estimate. Facing this challenge, we train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost. In addition, we leverage this difficulty predictor to further improve the evaluation efficiency through training a question generator given a difficulty level. This question generator is essential in adaptive testing, where, instead of using a random subset of the benchmark questions, informative questions are adaptively chosen based on the current estimation of LLM performance. Experiments on 22 common natural language benchmarks and 172 LMs show that this approach is more reliable and efficient compared to current common practice.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) research has primarily focused on closed-book factual question answering (QA), while contextual QA remains unexplored, despite its importance in real-world applications. In this work, we focus on UQ for the contextual QA task and propose a theoretically grounded approach to quantify epistemic uncertainty. We begin by introducing a task-agnostic, token-level uncertainty measure defined as the cross-entropy between the predictive distribution of the given model and the unknown true distribution. By decomposing this measure, we isolate the epistemic component and approximate the true distribution by a perfectly prompted, idealized model. We then derive an upper bound for epistemic uncertainty and show that it can be interpreted as semantic feature gaps in the given model's hidden representations relative to the ideal model. We further apply this generic framework to the contextual QA task and hypothesize that three features approximate this gap: context-reliance (using the provided context rather than parametric knowledge), context comprehension (extracting relevant information from context), and honesty (avoiding intentional lies). Using a top-down interpretability approach, we extract these features by using only a small number of labeled samples and ensemble them to form a robust uncertainty score. Experiments on multiple QA benchmarks in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings show that our method substantially outperforms state-of-the-art unsupervised (sampling-free and sampling-based) and supervised UQ methods, achieving up to a 13-point PRR improvement while incurring a negligible inference overhead.

Scaling the test-time compute of large language models has demonstrated impressive performance on reasoning benchmarks. However, existing evaluations of test-time scaling make the strong assumption that a reasoning system should always give an answer to any question provided. This overlooks concerns about whether a model is confident in its answer, and whether it is appropriate to always provide a response. To address these concerns, we extract confidence scores during reasoning for thresholding model responses. We find that increasing compute budget at inference time not only helps models answer more questions correctly, but also increases confidence in correct responses. We then extend the current paradigm of zero-risk responses during evaluation by considering settings with non-zero levels of response risk, and suggest a recipe for reporting evaluations under these settings.

FinanceBench is a first-of-its-kind test suite for evaluating the performance of LLMs on open book financial question answering (QA). It comprises 10,231 questions about publicly traded companies, with corresponding answers and evidence strings. The questions in FinanceBench are ecologically valid and cover a diverse set of scenarios. They are intended to be clear-cut and straightforward to answer to serve as a minimum performance standard. We test 16 state of the art model configurations (including GPT-4-Turbo, Llama2 and Claude2, with vector stores and long context prompts) on a sample of 150 cases from FinanceBench, and manually review their answers (n=2,400). The cases are available open-source. We show that existing LLMs have clear limitations for financial QA. Notably, GPT-4-Turbo used with a retrieval system incorrectly answered or refused to answer 81% of questions. While augmentation techniques such as using longer context window to feed in relevant evidence improve performance, they are unrealistic for enterprise settings due to increased latency and cannot support larger financial documents. We find that all models examined exhibit weaknesses, such as hallucinations, that limit their suitability for use by enterprises.

Bug reports often lack sufficient detail for developers to reproduce and fix the underlying defects. Bug Reproduction Tests (BRTs), tests that fail when the bug is present and pass when it has been resolved, are crucial for debugging, but they are rarely included in bug reports, both in open-source and in industrial settings. Thus, automatically generating BRTs from bug reports has the potential to accelerate the debugging process and lower time to repair. This paper investigates automated BRT generation within an industry setting, specifically at Google, focusing on the challenges of a large-scale, proprietary codebase and considering real-world industry bugs extracted from Google's internal issue tracker. We adapt and evaluate a state-of-the-art BRT generation technique, LIBRO, and present our agent-based approach, BRT Agent, which makes use of a fine-tuned Large Language Model (LLM) for code editing. Our BRT Agent significantly outperforms LIBRO, achieving a 28% plausible BRT generation rate, compared to 10% by LIBRO, on 80 human-reported bugs from Google's internal issue tracker. We further investigate the practical value of generated BRTs by integrating them with an Automated Program Repair (APR) system at Google. Our results show that providing BRTs to the APR system results in 30% more bugs with plausible fixes. Additionally, we introduce Ensemble Pass Rate (EPR), a metric which leverages the generated BRTs to select the most promising fixes from all fixes generated by APR system. Our evaluation on EPR for Top-K and threshold-based fix selections demonstrates promising results and trade-offs. For example, EPR correctly selects a plausible fix from a pool of 20 candidates in 70% of cases, based on its top-1 ranking.

Reasoning ability, a core component of human intelligence, continues to pose a significant challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) in the pursuit of AGI. Although model performance has improved under the training scaling law, significant challenges remain, particularly with respect to training algorithms, such as catastrophic forgetting, and the limited availability of novel training data. As an alternative, test-time scaling enhances reasoning performance by increasing test-time computation without parameter updating. Unlike prior methods in this paradigm focused on token space, we propose leveraging latent space for more effective reasoning and better adherence to the test-time scaling law. We introduce LatentSeek, a novel framework that enhances LLM reasoning through Test-Time Instance-level Adaptation (TTIA) within the model's latent space. Specifically, LatentSeek leverages policy gradient to iteratively update latent representations, guided by self-generated reward signals. LatentSeek is evaluated on a range of reasoning benchmarks, including GSM8K, MATH-500, and AIME2024, across multiple LLM architectures. Results show that LatentSeek consistently outperforms strong baselines, such as Chain-of-Thought prompting and fine-tuning-based methods. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that LatentSeek is highly efficient, typically converging within a few iterations for problems of average complexity, while also benefiting from additional iterations, thereby highlighting the potential of test-time scaling in the latent space. These findings position LatentSeek as a lightweight, scalable, and effective solution for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides across various tasks, but they remain vulnerable to backdoor attacks, where specific triggers in the prompt cause the LLM to generate adversary-desired responses. While most backdoor research has focused on vision or text classification tasks, backdoor attacks in text generation have been largely overlooked. In this work, we introduce BackdoorLLM, the first comprehensive benchmark for studying backdoor attacks on LLMs. BackdoorLLM features: 1) a repository of backdoor benchmarks with a standardized training pipeline, 2) diverse attack strategies, including data poisoning, weight poisoning, hidden state attacks, and chain-of-thought attacks, 3) extensive evaluations with over 200 experiments on 8 attacks across 7 scenarios and 6 model architectures, and 4) key insights into the effectiveness and limitations of backdoors in LLMs. We hope BackdoorLLM will raise awareness of backdoor threats and contribute to advancing AI safety. The code is available at https://github.com/bboylyg/BackdoorLLM.

False-presupposition QA (FPQA) tests LLMs on their ability to identify false presuppositions in questions and abstain or correct them rather than reinforcing false assumptions. The common approach reduces the task to prompting LLMs to extract presuppositions and fact checking each presupposition. While the performance on dedicated benchmarks keeps improving, evaluation largely focuses on questions with false presuppositions (FPQs) while ignoring the performance on ``normal'' questions (TPQs). Since many benchmarks over-represent FPQs compared to their natural occurrence, the result is that performance on these benchmarks doesn't reflect real-world QA performance. Through extensive experiments across various model families, sizes, and benchmarks, we show that methods that perform better on FPQs tend to perform worse on TPQs. Our analysis reveals this is the result of weak fact checking modules that reject also true presuppositions. We hope our findings will help guide future work toward FPQA methods that generalize well to realistic settings.

In customer service technical support, swiftly and accurately retrieving relevant past issues is critical for efficiently resolving customer inquiries. The conventional retrieval methods in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for large language models (LLMs) treat a large corpus of past issue tracking tickets as plain text, ignoring the crucial intra-issue structure and inter-issue relations, which limits performance. We introduce a novel customer service question-answering method that amalgamates RAG with a knowledge graph (KG). Our method constructs a KG from historical issues for use in retrieval, retaining the intra-issue structure and inter-issue relations. During the question-answering phase, our method parses consumer queries and retrieves related sub-graphs from the KG to generate answers. This integration of a KG not only improves retrieval accuracy by preserving customer service structure information but also enhances answering quality by mitigating the effects of text segmentation. Empirical assessments on our benchmark datasets, utilizing key retrieval (MRR, Recall@K, NDCG@K) and text generation (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR) metrics, reveal that our method outperforms the baseline by 77.6% in MRR and by 0.32 in BLEU. Our method has been deployed within LinkedIn's customer service team for approximately six months and has reduced the median per-issue resolution time by 28.6%.

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

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

The prohibitive cost of evaluating large language models (LLMs) on comprehensive benchmarks necessitates the creation of small yet representative data subsets (i.e., tiny benchmarks) that enable efficient assessment while retaining predictive fidelity. Current methods for this task operate under a model-centric paradigm, selecting benchmarking items based on the collective performance of existing models. Such approaches are limited by large upfront costs, an inability to immediately handle new benchmarks (`cold-start'), and the fragile assumption that future models will share the failure patterns of their predecessors. In this work, we challenge this paradigm and propose a item-centric approach to benchmark subset selection, arguing that selection should be based on the intrinsic properties of the task items themselves, rather than on model-specific failure patterns. We instantiate this item-centric efficient benchmarking approach via a novel method, Scales++, where data selection is based on the cognitive demands of the benchmark samples. Empirically, we show Scales++ reduces the upfront selection cost by over 18x while achieving competitive predictive fidelity. On the Open LLM Leaderboard, using just a 0.5\% data subset, we predict full benchmark scores with a 2.9% mean absolute error. We demonstrate that this item-centric approach enables more efficient model evaluation without significant fidelity degradation, while also providing better cold-start performance and more interpretable benchmarking.

Recently, test-time scaling has garnered significant attention from the research community, largely due to the substantial advancements of the o1 model released by OpenAI. By allocating more computational resources during the inference phase, large language models~(LLMs) can extensively explore the solution space by generating more thought tokens or diverse solutions, thereby producing more accurate responses. However, developing an o1-like reasoning approach is challenging, and researchers have been making various attempts to advance this open area of research. In this paper, we present a preliminary exploration into enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs through reward-guided tree search algorithms. This framework is implemented by integrating the policy model, reward model, and search algorithm. It is primarily constructed around a tree search algorithm, where the policy model navigates a dynamically expanding tree guided by a specially trained reward model. We thoroughly explore various design considerations necessary for implementing this framework and provide a detailed report of the technical aspects. To assess the effectiveness of our approach, we focus on mathematical reasoning tasks and conduct extensive evaluations on four challenging datasets, significantly enhancing the reasoning abilities of LLMs.

Large language models are trained on vast amounts of internet data, prompting concerns and speculation that they have memorized public benchmarks. Going from speculation to proof of contamination is challenging, as the pretraining data used by proprietary models are often not publicly accessible. We show that it is possible to provide provable guarantees of test set contamination in language models without access to pretraining data or model weights. Our approach leverages the fact that when there is no data contamination, all orderings of an exchangeable benchmark should be equally likely. In contrast, the tendency for language models to memorize example order means that a contaminated language model will find certain canonical orderings to be much more likely than others. Our test flags potential contamination whenever the likelihood of a canonically ordered benchmark dataset is significantly higher than the likelihood after shuffling the examples. We demonstrate that our procedure is sensitive enough to reliably prove test set contamination in challenging situations, including models as small as 1.4 billion parameters, on small test sets of only 1000 examples, and datasets that appear only a few times in the pretraining corpus. Using our test, we audit five popular publicly accessible language models for test set contamination and find little evidence for pervasive contamination.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to performance saturation on many established benchmarks, questioning their ability to distinguish frontier models. Concurrently, existing high-difficulty benchmarks often suffer from narrow disciplinary focus, oversimplified answer formats, and vulnerability to data contamination, creating a fidelity gap with real-world scientific inquiry. To address these challenges, we introduce ATLAS (AGI-Oriented Testbed for Logical Application in Science), a large-scale, high-difficulty, and cross-disciplinary evaluation suite composed of approximately 800 original problems. Developed by domain experts (PhD-level and above), ATLAS spans seven core scientific fields: mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, earth science, and materials science. Its key features include: (1) High Originality and Contamination Resistance, with all questions newly created or substantially adapted to prevent test data leakage; (2) Cross-Disciplinary Focus, designed to assess models' ability to integrate knowledge and reason across scientific domains; (3) High-Fidelity Answers, prioritizing complex, open-ended answers involving multi-step reasoning and LaTeX-formatted expressions over simple multiple-choice questions; and (4) Rigorous Quality Control, employing a multi-stage process of expert peer review and adversarial testing to ensure question difficulty, scientific value, and correctness. We also propose a robust evaluation paradigm using a panel of LLM judges for automated, nuanced assessment of complex answers. Preliminary results on leading models demonstrate ATLAS's effectiveness in differentiating their advanced scientific reasoning capabilities. We plan to develop ATLAS into a long-term, open, community-driven platform to provide a reliable "ruler" for progress toward Artificial General Intelligence.

Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named Testset Slot Guessing (TS-Guessing), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the TruthfulQA benchmark, we find that LLMs exhibit notable performance improvement when provided with additional metadata in the benchmark. Further, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52\% and 57\%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.

Issue resolution has made remarkable progress thanks to the advanced reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Recently, agent-based frameworks such as SWE-agent have further advanced this progress by enabling autonomous, tool-using agents to tackle complex software engineering tasks. While existing agent-based issue resolution approaches are primarily based on agents' independent explorations, they often get stuck in local solutions and fail to identify issue patterns that span across different parts of the codebase. To address this limitation, we propose SWE-Debate, a competitive multi-agent debate framework that encourages diverse reasoning paths and achieves more consolidated issue localization. SWE-Debate first creates multiple fault propagation traces as localization proposals by traversing a code dependency graph. Then, it organizes a three-round debate among specialized agents, each embodying distinct reasoning perspectives along the fault propagation trace. This structured competition enables agents to collaboratively converge on a consolidated fix plan. Finally, this consolidated fix plan is integrated into an MCTS-based code modification agent for patch generation. Experiments on the SWE-bench benchmark show that SWE-Debate achieves new state-of-the-art results in open-source agent frameworks and outperforms baselines by a large margin.

Whether a language model has improved itself is increasingly judged not by mean accuracy but by which individual problems it gains and loses. Tracking these transitions means differencing two noisy estimates, leaving them vulnerable to measurement artifacts. Auditing three rounds of rank-32 LoRA self-training on Qwen3-8B against a frozen control pushed through the identical pipeline, we identify seven measurement failures, each of which inverts a reported finding when its control is absent. Several are standard practice. A ledger built on a single greedy decode manufactures capability changes on an untrained model, largely an artifact of inference batching; the expansion statistic separating acquisition from sharpening assigns that same model a rate of 0.280. The natural threshold repair does not survive replication: estimated across the frozen comparisons such a design already contains, its null stays non-zero. We replace it with a per-problem exact test against a pooled baseline under false-discovery-rate control, which detects nothing on any held-out replicate and is unchanged under the multiple-testing rule, error rate and pool size. Applied to a ladder of arms matched in stream, volume and evaluation, the audit finds that external distillation improves problems the base model rarely reaches while three forms of self-training do not; a regression rejects this asymmetry as a by-product of distillation's larger overall gain (p < 10^{-8}). On the far smaller set of problems the base model never reaches, the evidence is inconclusive, while self-training corrupts problems solved at baseline at rates well above the measured floor. Transition-level auditing therefore requires a separately measured null for every statistic it reports: nulls that cost no new experiments, built from baseline replicates a multi-arm study already owns, though not from as few as most possess.

Large Language Models (LLMs) in Software Engineering (SE) can offer assistance for coding. To facilitate a rigorous evaluation of LLMs in practical coding contexts, Carlos et al. introduced the SWE-bench dataset, which comprises 2,294 real-world GitHub issues and their corresponding pull requests, collected from 12 widely used Python repositories. Several impressive LLM-based toolkits recently are developed and evaluated on this dataset. However, a systematic evaluation of the quality of SWE-bench remains missing. In this paper, we addressed this gap by presenting an empirical analysis of the SWE-bench dataset. We conducted a manual screening of instances where SWEAgent + GPT-4 successfully resolved issues by comparing the model-generated patches with the actual pull requests. SWE-Agent+GPT-4 was at the top of SWE-bench leaderboard during the time of our study. Our analysis reveals some critical issues with the SWE-bench dataset: 1) 32.67% of the successful patches involve cheating as the solutions were directly provided in the issue report or the comments. We refer to as solution leakage problem. 2) 31.08% of the passed patches are suspicious patches due to weak test cases, i.e., the tests were not adequate to verify the correctness of a patch. When we filtered out these problematic issues, the resolution rate of SWE-Agent+GPT-4 dropped from 12.47% to 3.97%. We also observed that the same data quality issues also exist in the two variants of SWE-bench, i.e., SWE-bench Lite and SWE-Bench Verified. In addition, over 94% of the issues were created before LLM's knowledge cutoff dates, posing potential data leakage issues.

Answering open-ended questions remains challenging for AI systems because it requires synthesis, judgment, and exploration beyond factual retrieval, and users often refine answers through multiple iterations rather than accepting a single response. Existing QA benchmarks do not explicitly support this refinement process. To address this gap, we introduce a new task, document-grounded related insight generation, where the goal is to generate additional insights from a document collection that help improve, extend, or rethink an initial answer to an open-ended question, ultimately supporting richer user interaction and a better overall question answering experience. We curate and release SCOpE-QA (Scientific Collections for Open-Ended QA), a dataset of 3,000 open-ended questions across 20 research collections. We present InsightGen, a two-stage approach that first constructs a thematic representation of the document collection using clustering, and then selects related context based on neighborhood selection from the thematic graph to generate diverse and relevant insights using LLMs. Extensive evaluation on 3,000 questions using two generation models and two evaluation settings shows that InsightGen consistently produces useful, relevant, and actionable insights, establishing a strong baseline for this new task.

While self-correction has shown promise in improving LLM outputs in terms of style and quality (e.g. Chen et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023), recent attempts to self-correct logical or reasoning errors often cause correct answers to become incorrect, resulting in worse performances overall (Huang et al., 2023). In this paper, we break down the self-correction process into two core components: mistake finding and output correction. For mistake finding, we release BIG-Bench Mistake, a dataset of logical mistakes in Chain-of-Thought reasoning traces. We provide benchmark numbers for several state-of-the-art LLMs, and demonstrate that LLMs generally struggle with finding logical mistakes. For output correction, we propose a backtracking method which provides large improvements when given information on mistake location. We construe backtracking as a lightweight alternative to reinforcement learning methods, and show that it remains effective with a reward model at 60-70% accuracy.

In this position paper, we argue that the classical evaluation on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks using annotated benchmarks is in trouble. The worst kind of data contamination happens when a Large Language Model (LLM) is trained on the test split of a benchmark, and then evaluated in the same benchmark. The extent of the problem is unknown, as it is not straightforward to measure. Contamination causes an overestimation of the performance of a contaminated model in a target benchmark and associated task with respect to their non-contaminated counterparts. The consequences can be very harmful, with wrong scientific conclusions being published while other correct ones are discarded. This position paper defines different levels of data contamination and argues for a community effort, including the development of automatic and semi-automatic measures to detect when data from a benchmark was exposed to a model, and suggestions for flagging papers with conclusions that are compromised by data contamination.

The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) via benchmarks is widespread, yet inconsistencies between different leaderboards and poor separability among top models raise concerns about their ability to accurately reflect authentic model capabilities. This paper provides a critical analysis of benchmark effectiveness, examining main-stream prominent LLM benchmarks using results from diverse models. We first propose a new framework for accurate and reliable estimations of item characteristics and model abilities. Specifically, we propose Pseudo-Siamese Network for Item Response Theory (PSN-IRT), an enhanced Item Response Theory framework that incorporates a rich set of item parameters within an IRT-grounded architecture. Based on PSN-IRT, we conduct extensive analysis which reveals significant and varied shortcomings in the measurement quality of current benchmarks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that leveraging PSN-IRT is able to construct smaller benchmarks while maintaining stronger alignment with human preference.

AI control relies on monitors to catch a capable model that sabotages its work. These monitors are evaluated on their ability to differentiate honest from backdoored code. We show that on a standard evaluation dataset, simple features beat most monitors without ever running the code, outranking 20 of 24 open-weight models prompted as monitors. The dataset gives its labels away in two ways. People wrote the honest solutions and older language models the backdoors, so the style of the code reveals the class. Additionally, problems that LLMs can backdoor have different characteristics, so basic facts about the problem reveal it too. Swapping one class at a time for code by Claude Sonnet 5 shows that these features reward a contrast between authors, since human code against Sonnet 5's backdoors is easier to separate than the original pairs, 0.95 against 0.79. One in seven backdoors in the standard test set fails our validity checks, which distorts comparisons between attackers. A Sonnet 5 monitor appears to catch 77% of the older models' backdoors but 37% of Sonnet 5's, and 78% against 61% once both are verified. We do not show that published monitors rely on these shortcuts, but our findings suggest that a high score on such a dataset is not by itself evidence of sabotage detection. We release the rebuilt dataset and checks.

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

Recent mixed-policy optimization methods for LLM reasoning that interleave or blend supervised and reinforcement learning signals report improvements over the standard SFT-then-RL pipeline. We show that numerous recently published research papers rely on a faulty baseline caused by two distinct bugs: a CPU-offloaded optimizer bug in DeepSpeed that silently drops intermediate micro-batches during gradient accumulation (affecting multiple downstream frameworks including TRL, OpenRLHF and Llama-Factory), and a loss aggregation bug in OpenRLHF that incorrectly weights per-mini-batch losses. Together they suppress SFT performance, with the optimizer bug accounting for most of the gap and the loss aggregation bug contributing a smaller additional effect. Once corrected, the standard SFT-then-RL pipeline surpasses every published mixed-policy method we evaluate by +3.8 points on math benchmarks with Qwen2.5-Math-7B and by +22.2 points with Llama-3.1-8B. Even a truncated variant with just 50 RL steps outperforms mixed-policy methods on math benchmarks while using fewer FLOPs.

Recent advancements in Language Models (LMs) have catalyzed the creation of multiple benchmarks, designed to assess these models' general capabilities. A crucial task, however, is assessing the validity of the benchmarks themselves. This is most commonly done via Benchmark Agreement Testing (BAT), where new benchmarks are validated against established ones using some agreement metric (e.g., rank correlation). Despite the crucial role of BAT for benchmark builders and consumers, there are no standardized procedures for such agreement testing. This deficiency can lead to invalid conclusions, fostering mistrust in benchmarks and upending the ability to properly choose the appropriate benchmark to use. By analyzing over 40 prominent benchmarks, we demonstrate how some overlooked methodological choices can significantly influence BAT results, potentially undermining the validity of conclusions. To address these inconsistencies, we propose a set of best practices for BAT and demonstrate how utilizing these methodologies greatly improves BAT robustness and validity. To foster adoption and facilitate future research,, we introduce BenchBench, a python package for BAT, and release the BenchBench-leaderboard, a meta-benchmark designed to evaluate benchmarks using their peers. Our findings underscore the necessity for standardized BAT, ensuring the robustness and validity of benchmark evaluations in the evolving landscape of language model research. BenchBench Package: https://github.com/IBM/BenchBench Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/per/BenchBench

Large Language Model (LLM) libraries have emerged as the foundational infrastructure powering today's AI revolution, serving as the backbone for LLM deployment, inference optimization, fine-tuning, and production serving across diverse applications. Despite their critical role in the LLM ecosystem, these libraries face frequent quality issues and bugs that threaten the reliability of AI systems built upon them. To address this knowledge gap, we present the first comprehensive empirical investigation into bug characteristics and testing practices in modern LLM libraries. We examine 313 bug-fixing commits extracted across two widely-adopted LLM libraries: HuggingFace Transformers and vLLM.Through rigorous manual analysis, we establish comprehensive taxonomies categorizing bug symptoms into 5 types and root causes into 14 distinct categories.Our primary discovery shows that API misuse has emerged as the predominant root cause (32.17%-48.19%), representing a notable transition from algorithm-focused defects in conventional deep learning frameworks toward interface-oriented problems. Additionally, we examine 7,748 test functions to identify 7 distinct test oracle categories employed in current testing approaches, with predefined expected outputs (such as specific tensors and text strings) being the most common strategy. Our assessment of existing testing effectiveness demonstrates that the majority of bugs escape detection due to inadequate test cases (41.73%), lack of test drivers (32.37%), and weak test oracles (25.90%). Drawing from these findings, we offer some recommendations for enhancing LLM library quality assurance.

Motivation: Biomedical question answering often requires evidence beyond topically retrieved literature, including gene alias resolution, database identifier normalization, and atlas-derived biological measurements. However, existing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems typically follow a fixed workflow and lack an explicit mechanism for deciding when retrieved text is sufficient, when curated biomedical knowledge is required, or when executable evidence assembly over structured measurements should be invoked. This motivates a substrate-aware large language model (LLM) harness that selectively assembles sufficient evidence across literature, knowledge bases, and biological atlases. Results: We introduce BioHarness, an LLM harness for staged biomedical evidence assembly across literature retrieval, curated biomedical knowledge resources, and atlas-derived structured measurements. BioHarness first attempts to answer from reranked literature evidence and escalates through grounded cascade control to REPL-style evidence assembly only when the current evidence is uncertain, weakly grounded, or substrate-mismatched. Across 19,302 biomedical QA items spanning seven answer formats, BioHarness improves the pooled score from 65.9 to 71.0 over the strongest non-oracle baseline. Ablations, case studies, and backbone-scaling analyses show that these gains arise from repairing evidence-substrate mismatches through reranking, entity grounding, and structured measurement access, rather than from indiscriminately invoking more reasoning steps, retrieving additional literature, or relying on a particular answer-model scale.

Complex reasoning tasks often rely on the ability to consistently and accurately apply simple rules across incremental steps, a foundational capability which we term "level-0" reasoning. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce L0-Bench, a language model benchmark for testing procedural correctness -- the ability to generate correct reasoning processes, complementing existing benchmarks that primarily focus on outcome correctness. Given synthetic Python functions with simple operations, L0-Bench grades models on their ability to generate step-by-step, error-free execution traces. The synthetic nature of L0-Bench enables systematic and scalable generation of test programs along various axes (e.g., number of trace steps). We evaluate a diverse array of recent closed-source and open-weight models on a baseline test set. All models exhibit degradation as the number of target trace steps increases, while larger models and reasoning-enhanced models better maintain correctness over multiple steps. Additionally, we use L0-Bench to explore test-time scaling along three dimensions: input context length, number of solutions for majority voting, and inference steps. Our results suggest substantial room to improve "level-0" reasoning and potential directions to build more reliable reasoning systems.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated strong performance in complex, multi-step reasoning tasks. Existing methods enhance LRMs by sequentially integrating external knowledge retrieval; models iteratively generate queries, retrieve external information, and progressively reason over this information. However, purely sequential querying increases inference latency and context length, diminishing coherence and potentially reducing accuracy. To address these limitations, we introduce HDS-QA (Hybrid Deep Search QA), a synthetic dataset automatically generated from Natural Questions, explicitly designed to train LRMs to distinguish parallelizable from sequential queries. HDS-QA comprises hybrid-hop questions that combine parallelizable independent subqueries (executable simultaneously) and sequentially dependent subqueries (requiring step-by-step resolution), along with synthetic reasoning-querying-retrieval paths involving parallel queries. We fine-tune an LRM using HDS-QA, naming the model HybridDeepSearcher, which outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across multiple benchmarks, notably achieving +15.9 and +11.5 F1 on FanOutQA and a subset of BrowseComp, respectively, both requiring comprehensive and exhaustive search. Experimental results highlight two key advantages: HybridDeepSearcher reaches comparable accuracy with fewer search turns, significantly reducing inference latency, and it effectively scales as more turns are permitted. These results demonstrate the efficiency, scalability, and effectiveness of explicitly training LRMs to leverage hybrid parallel and sequential querying.