Daily Papers

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

We present VRBench, the first long narrative video benchmark crafted for evaluating large models' multi-step reasoning capabilities, addressing limitations in existing evaluations that overlook temporal reasoning and procedural validity. It comprises 1,010 long videos (with an average duration of 1.6 hours), along with 9,468 human-labeled multi-step question-answering pairs and 30,292 reasoning steps with timestamps. These videos are curated via a multi-stage filtering process including expert inter-rater reviewing to prioritize plot coherence. We develop a human-AI collaborative framework that generates coherent reasoning chains, each requiring multiple temporally grounded steps, spanning seven types (e.g., event attribution, implicit inference). VRBench designs a multi-phase evaluation pipeline that assesses models at both the outcome and process levels. Apart from the MCQs for the final results, we propose a progress-level LLM-guided scoring metric to evaluate the quality of the reasoning chain from multiple dimensions comprehensively. Through extensive evaluations of 12 LLMs and 16 VLMs on VRBench, we undertake a thorough analysis and provide valuable insights that advance the field of multi-step reasoning.

High-quality articulated assets are essential for embodied perception, simulation, and manipulation, yet constructing them at scale remains difficult. Manual annotation and procedural modeling require substantial human effort. Recent agentic systems automate asset construction through program synthesis, but repeat costly reasoning and refinement for every new asset. Our key observation is that assets within a category can share construction logic despite variations in structure and appearance. Agentic synthesis and procedural generation are therefore complementary: agents can construct reusable programs, while procedural execution reuses the resulting logic across many samples. We therefore present RFW-A, which combines the two in a new articulated-asset generation paradigm. Starting from existing articulated programs, RFW-A organizes reusable components and their dependencies into category-level generators. Agents test and refine these generators across sampled configurations and motion states. Once constructed and validated, the generators produce diverse assets through procedural execution with no further model calls or token charges. The estimated API cost of generator authoring averages 10.62, amortizing to 0.05 per asset over 200 assets, versus $1.24 for the sampled per-asset agentic synthesis baseline. Using RFW-A, we built RFW-A-400K, containing over 400K sim-ready articulated assets across more than 500 categories. Experiments show high structural and kinematic validity and stable execution across physics simulators. Beyond asset validity, training with RFW-A-400K improves part-level articulation estimation on seen and unseen categories, while policies trained in simulation with retrieved and program-edited assets transfer zero-shot to real articulated objects.

Procedural generators produce useful verifiable reasoning problems at scale, but have received less attention as data for completion-supervised fine-tuning. We introduce Reasoning Core, a collection of 50 generators spanning mathematics, logic, planning, state tracking, formal languages, structured data, games, causality, and code, with semantic scorers, difficulty controls, and task evaluators. Under a matched completion-supervised protocol, we compare Reasoning Core with Procedural Warmup, Reasoning Gym, and SynLogic across four base-model settings and multiple training durations. In the primary 3B comparison, Reasoning Core achieves the highest mean scores on DROP, LogiQA, and ARC-Challenge, exceeding both the baseline without procedural data and all three alternative procedural collections. Task-level analyses show that semantic validity alone does not ensure training utility, highlighting compact targets and calibrated difficulty as important design factors. We ran audits combining model-assisted review, human adjudication, and regression testing. Applied throughout Reasoning Core development and to the other collections, they reveal subtle mismatches among generation, rendering, targets, and scoring, a reminder that procedural generation alone does not guarantee correctness. The library, generated datasets, and audit material are publicly available.

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

Jailbreak robustness has become central to large language model (LLM) safety evaluation, yet prevailing methodologies rely primarily on refusal behavior, semantic resemblance, and intent-matching heuristics that emphasize linguistic plausibility rather than correctness. We identify a key limitation in existing evaluations: many jailbreak intents depend on instructional validity rather than epistemic factuality, allowing realistic-looking responses to be labeled successful despite being factually or procedurally incorrect. To address this gap, we propose Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness. SEAV combines LLM-as-a-judge mechanisms for semantic interpretation with retrieval-grounded verification using external knowledge sources, assessing whether generated content is factually correct, structurally consistent, and operationally capable of advancing harmful objectives. Empirically, SEAV cuts the false-positive rate on SD-A (a curated strategic-dishonesty diagnostic) by 14.9\,pp vs. the strongest baseline, and reclassifies 22.1\%--51.0\% of sampled prior-labeled successes as invalid across three of four public benchmarks. Together, these results show that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness: many previously labeled jailbreak successes are reclassified as invalid, and results are stable across the tested search backends and evaluator models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ardor-Wu/SEAV.

Clinical research over electronic health records depends on derived variables whose definitions sit outside the schema, in item codes, time windows, missingness rules, and output-grain choices that change cohorts and downstream conclusions. We introduce M4Bench, 28 clinical derivation tasks across 15 task families on MIMIC-IV and eICU, to test whether AI coding agents can reproduce such derivations and how clinician-reviewed agent skills change their results. Its controls decompose the value of skills into specification completeness, delivery format, and schema familiarity. In a Docker-isolated Codex campaign (GPT 5.4 Mini and GPT 5.5), skills raise reward by 0.136 over the no-skill baseline, with 26 of 28 tasks improving. Specification completeness accounts for most of this gain: on an eight-task control subset, an operational spec alone raises reward by 0.162, and skills add only 0.024 on top, indistinguishable from zero. On a ten-task subset, decoy skills score like no skill and raw reference SQL nearly matches targeted skills, arguing against generic context or the skill format as the explanation. Schema obfuscation and restructuring preserve 86% and 70% of the skill gain (GPT 5.4 Mini, 26 MIMIC-IV tasks), a descriptive robustness check rather than a bound on memorization. A descriptive Claude Code replication on all 28 tasks (Opus 4.7 and Sonnet 4.6, 560 runs) is directionally consistent (+0.120, 21 of 28 tasks improving). These gains are partial agreement with the reference, not completed tasks: only 25 of 280 with-skill and 13 of 280 no-skill Codex runs pass every strict check, and skills barely change which rows agents return (key F1 +0.003). Skills are released as a versioned, clinician-reviewable markdown delivery format, with a family-level reference-validity audit. M4Bench releases tasks, skills, evaluation code, and sanitized per-run evidence as an open-source benchmark.

Self-correction is particularly useful when a failure constrains the next repair. Coding agents benefit from this property because compilers, tests, and execution traces turn many failures into typed recovery signals, but broad language-agent tasks often expose only a coarse task failure. This creates a tension for generic recovery playbooks: they broaden the agent's context precisely when the system needs a narrower repair interface, mixing incompatible signals for invalid actions, missing procedures, and strict-format errors. Our insight is that development-set failures can recover part of the missing diagnostic substrate by deciding which recovery interventions are admissible before test-time correction. We propose DARC, a diagnosis-guided recovery harness that profiles task-family failure modes, prunes mismatched interventions from a shared recovery library, and freezes a verifier-selected success-cost policy for deployment. This causal order makes correction selective: the harness first determines what kind of failure can be repaired, then decides how much recovery evidence to spend. In ALFWorld, AppWorld, and XBRL Finance, the same protocol yields an action-validity harness, a procedural-recovery fallback, and a format-precision retrieval policy; in each evaluated setting it improves average task performance over base agents and broad playbooks while reducing environment steps or retrieval budget. Our experiments show that failures need not trigger uniformly more context: DARC turns self-correction from prompt expansion into recovery-interface design. DARC provides a practical route toward more reliable agents in domains where compiler-like feedback is absent: making failures actionable before making contexts larger.

Large language models have achieved remarkable success on final-answer mathematical problems, largely due to the ease of applying reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. However, the reasoning underlying these solutions is often flawed. Advancing to rigorous proof-based mathematics requires reliable proof verification capabilities. We begin by analyzing multiple evaluation setups and show that focusing on a single benchmark can lead to brittle or misleading conclusions. To address this, we evaluate both proof-based and final-answer reasoning to obtain a more reliable measure of model performance. We then scale two major generative verification methods (GenSelect and LLM-as-a-Judge) to millions of tokens and identify their combination as the most effective framework for solution verification and selection. We further show that the choice of prompt for LLM-as-a-Judge significantly affects the model's performance, but reinforcement learning can reduce this sensitivity. However, despite improving proof-level metrics, reinforcement learning does not enhance final-answer precision, indicating that current models often reward stylistic or procedural correctness rather than mathematical validity. Our results establish practical guidelines for designing and evaluating scalable proof-verification and selection systems.

The recent application of LLMs to the legal field has spurred the creation of benchmarks across various jurisdictions and languages. However, no benchmark has yet been specifically designed for the Portuguese legal system. In this work, we present LegalBench.PT, the first comprehensive legal benchmark covering key areas of Portuguese law. To develop LegalBench.PT, we first collect long-form questions and answers from real law exams, and then use GPT-4o to convert them into multiple-choice, true/false, and matching formats. Once generated, the questions are filtered and processed to improve the quality of the dataset. To ensure accuracy and relevance, we validate our approach by having a legal professional review a sample of the generated questions. Although the questions are synthetically generated, we show that their basis in human-created exams and our rigorous filtering and processing methods applied result in a reliable benchmark for assessing LLMs' legal knowledge and reasoning abilities. Finally, we evaluate the performance of leading LLMs on LegalBench.PT and investigate potential biases in GPT-4o's responses. We also assess the performance of Portuguese lawyers on a sample of questions to establish a baseline for model comparison and validate the benchmark.

We reveal and address the frequently overlooked yet important issue of disguised procedural unfairness, namely, the potentially inadvertent alterations on the behavior of neutral (i.e., not problematic) aspects of data generating process, and/or the lack of procedural assurance of the greatest benefit of the least advantaged individuals. Inspired by John Rawls's advocacy for pure procedural justice, we view automated decision-making as a microcosm of social institutions, and consider how the data generating process itself can satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. We propose a framework that decouples the objectionable data generating components from the neutral ones by utilizing reference points and the associated value instantiation rule. Our findings highlight the necessity of preventing disguised procedural unfairness, drawing attention not only to the objectionable data generating components that we aim to mitigate, but also more importantly, to the neutral components that we intend to keep unaffected.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering legal workflows, yet we lack a jurisdiction-specific framework to assess their baseline competence therein. We use India's public legal examinations as a transparent proxy. Our multi-year benchmark assembles objective screens from top national and state exams and evaluates open and frontier LLMs under real-world exam conditions. To probe beyond multiple-choice questions, we also include a lawyer-graded, paired-blinded study of long-form answers from the Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record exam. This is, to our knowledge, the first exam-grounded, India-specific yardstick for LLM court-readiness released with datasets and protocols. Our work shows that while frontier systems consistently clear historical cutoffs and often match or exceed recent top-scorer bands on objective exams, none surpasses the human topper on long-form reasoning. Grader notes converge on three reliability failure modes: procedural or format compliance, authority or citation discipline, and forum-appropriate voice and structure. These findings delineate where LLMs can assist (checks, cross-statute consistency, statute and precedent lookups) and where human leadership remains essential: forum-specific drafting and filing, procedural and relief strategy, reconciling authorities and exceptions, and ethical, accountable judgment.

U.S. immigration law spans thousands of pages of official policy, federal regulations, and procedural guidance that change frequently and carry high stakes for petitioners who lack legal representation. We describe the construction of ImmigrationQA, a source-grounded question-answering dataset of 17,058 pairs across 13 immigration subdomains, and the fine-tuning of a Llama 3.2 3B Instruct model on that dataset using parameter-efficient LoRA. The corpus was assembled from 11 primary and secondary sources -- including the USCIS Policy Manual, 8 CFR, BIA precedent decisions, and community Q&A -- yielding 10,056 validated canonical documents and 18,308 text chunks. Structured QA pairs were generated from these chunks using Claude Sonnet 4.6 via five mode-specific prompts, with 22 pairs rejected for insufficient source-span overlap. The fine-tuned model was evaluated against a held-out split of 993 pairs using LLM-as-judge scoring on a 101-example stratified sample. The fine-tuned model scored a mean of 1.08/3.0 (16.8% fully correct; 101-example stratified eval) versus the Llama 3 8B base model at 0.85/3.0 (4% fully correct), a relative improvement of 27% in mean score; a zero-shot Claude Sonnet baseline scored 1.52/3.0 (25% fully correct). The fine-tuned model shows concentrated improvement in procedural subdomains (travel documents, adjustment of status, nonimmigrant visas) while remaining weak on complex legal reasoning and time-sensitive statistics. The full pipeline ran for approximately $29 in cloud compute. All artifacts -- dataset, model, code, and prompt templates -- are publicly released. The system is not a substitute for legal counsel and does not reflect regulatory changes after the corpus crawl date.

Large language models perform strongly on benchmarks in mathematical reasoning, coding and document analysis, suggesting a broad ability to follow instructions. However, it remains unclear whether such success reflects general logical competence, repeated application of learned procedures, or pattern matching that mimics rule execution. We investigate this question by introducing Stable Counting Capacity, an assay in which models count repeated symbols until failure. The assay removes knowledge dependencies, semantics and ambiguity from evaluation, avoids lexical and tokenization confounds, and provides a direct measure of procedural reliability beyond standard knowledge-based benchmarks. Here we show, across more than 100 model variants, that stable counting capacity remains far below advertised context limits. Model behavior is consistent neither with open-ended logic nor with stable application of a learned rule, but instead with use of a finite set of count-like internal states, analogous to counting on fingers. Once this resource is exhausted, the appearance of rule following disappears and exact execution collapses into guessing, even with additional test-time compute. These findings show that fluent performance in current language models does not guarantee general, reliable rule following.

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.

Adding procedural skills to an LLM agent is typically evaluated by average improvement in task success. However, this metric hides an important cost: skills can also make agents worse. We measure both sides by comparing agents with and without skills across nearly 6,000 runs spanning two office automation benchmarks and three model harness stacks. This allows us to distinguish two outcomes. A regression is a task solved without skills but failed after skills are added. A residual failure is a task that fails both with and without skills. We find that regressions are substantial enough that the best performing skills outperform others primarily by regressing less, not by gaining more. We identify three causes of regression: (i) skill description osmosis, a skill changes an agent's behavior simply by being present in context, even when it is never invoked; (ii) grounding displacement, a skill's prescribed procedure overrides how the agent interprets its inputs; and (iii) verification displacement, where the procedure suppresses checks the agent would otherwise perform on its outputs. Analysing persistent failures reveals the same underlying pattern. Existing skills overemphasize procedural guidance the stage least often responsible for failure while under supporting grounding and verification, the dominant sources of remaining errors. After correcting evaluation artifacts and studying traces, we find many regressions and persistent failures recoverable through better grounding and verification. Procedural skills should be evaluated by decomposing their net effect into gains and regressions, not by aggregate improvement alone. We identify three regression modes skills should avoid, and find that reliability depends more on grounding and verification than on procedural skill choice.

Legal reasoning requires not only correct outcomes but also procedurally compliant reasoning processes. However, existing methods lack mechanisms to verify intermediate reasoning steps, allowing errors such as inapplicable statute citations to propagate undetected through the reasoning chain. To address this, we propose LawThinker, an autonomous legal research agent that adopts an Explore-Verify-Memorize strategy for dynamic judicial environments. The core idea is to enforce verification as an atomic operation after every knowledge exploration step. A DeepVerifier module examines each retrieval result along three dimensions of knowledge accuracy, fact-law relevance, and procedural compliance, with a memory module for cross-round knowledge reuse in long-horizon tasks. Experiments on the dynamic benchmark J1-EVAL show that LawThinker achieves a 24% improvement over direct reasoning and an 11% gain over workflow-based methods, with particularly strong improvements on process-oriented metrics. Evaluations on three static benchmarks further confirm its generalization capability. The code is available at https://github.com/yxy-919/LawThinker-agent .

In Brazil, all legal professionals must demonstrate their knowledge of the law and its application by passing the OAB exams, the national bar exams. The OAB exams therefore provide an excellent benchmark for the performance of legal information systems since passing the exam would arguably signal that the system has acquired capacity of legal reasoning comparable to that of a human lawyer. This article describes the construction of a new data set and some preliminary experiments on it, treating the problem of finding the justification for the answers to questions. The results provide a baseline performance measure against which to evaluate future improvements. We discuss the reasons to the poor performance and propose next steps.

Following step-by-step procedures is an essential component of various activities carried out by individuals in their daily lives. These procedures serve as a guiding framework that helps to achieve goals efficiently, whether it is assembling furniture or preparing a recipe. However, the complexity and duration of procedural activities inherently increase the likelihood of making errors. Understanding such procedural activities from a sequence of frames is a challenging task that demands an accurate interpretation of visual information and the ability to reason about the structure of the activity. To this end, we collect a new egocentric 4D dataset, CaptainCook4D, comprising 384 recordings (94.5 hours) of people performing recipes in real kitchen environments. This dataset consists of two distinct types of activity: one in which participants adhere to the provided recipe instructions and another in which they deviate and induce errors. We provide 5.3K step annotations and 10K fine-grained action annotations and benchmark the dataset for the following tasks: supervised error recognition, multistep localization, and procedure learning

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.

Technical hiring has increasingly become a skill system of its own, requiring candidates to prepare for processes that only partially resemble the position being filled. This paper reconstructs how the software-engineering community remembers that process across four eras from 2005 to 2026. Retrospective ratings from 911 respondents show a history of expanding interview work and burden, while an analysis of public preparation questions finds that most tested knowledge has a plausible use in an ordinary software-engineering project. The contradiction is only apparent: relevant topics can still form an invalid process when they are accumulated beyond the vacancy, presented under artificial constraints, or selected and interpreted without a common job-derived standard. The paper responds with the Ticket-Based Pragmatic Assessment Framework, a prescriptive reference framework that derives a bounded assessment from declared responsibilities, near-term tickets, and project-entry work. It preserves normal tools, defines three explicit evidence gates, limits repeated sessions, and stops when the decision is supported. The objective is to make an interview a compressed version of the job rather than a parallel profession that candidates must learn merely to obtain it.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

In oral arguments, judges probe attorneys with questions about the factual record, legal claims, and the strength of their arguments. To prepare for this questioning, both law schools and practicing attorneys rely on moot courts: practice simulations of appellate hearings. Leveraging a dataset of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, we examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training. Evaluating oral argument simulation is challenging because there is no single correct question for any given turn. Instead, effective questioning should reflect a combination of desirable qualities, such as anticipating substantive legal issues, detecting logical weaknesses, and maintaining an appropriately adversarial tone. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that assesses both the realism and pedagogical usefulness of simulated questions using complementary proxy metrics. We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators. We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues. However, models still face substantial shortcomings, including low diversity in question types and sycophancy. Importantly, these shortcomings would remain undetected under naive evaluation approaches.

Agent Skills package procedural instructions and checks for use by general-purpose agents, but loading a skill does not guarantee that every requirement remains active throughout a long tool-using trajectory. We study this problem in a production-derived, white-box code-audit workflow. Holding the task and 24 artifact checks fixed, we vary the surrounding context and classify where failures first become visible: lost requirements, editing drift, failed checking, or non-agent evaluator/runtime failures. Codex with gpt-5.4-mini passes 8/10 runs in a 10,991-character clean context but only 3/10 in both a 299,140-character relevant context and an equal-length irrelevant context. This 50-percentage-point difference is large but remains trend-level under two-sided Fisher tests (p = 0.0698). Requirement coverage nevertheless stays above 92% in both long conditions, showing that a few omissions can invalidate an otherwise complete artifact. A second task passes all clean and long runs, so the evidence does not support a universal context-length threshold. A detailed external checklist passes 10/10 runs, compared with 5/10 for a generic self-check (p = 0.0325). Coding-agent scaffolds may help by selecting a smaller working set, but they do not eliminate failures. We do not introduce context rot or a new general monitoring method; we provide a bounded failure classification and empirical case study for white-box code auditing.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.

Medical large language models (LLMs) research often makes bold claims, from encoding clinical knowledge to reasoning like a physician. These claims are usually backed by evaluation on competitive benchmarks; a tradition inherited from mainstream machine learning. But how do we separate real progress from a leaderboard flex? Medical LLM benchmarks, much like those in other fields, are arbitrarily constructed using medical licensing exam questions. For these benchmarks to truly measure progress, they must accurately capture the real-world tasks they aim to represent. In this position paper, we argue that medical LLM benchmarks should (and indeed can) be empirically evaluated for their construct validity. In the psychological testing literature, "construct validity" refers to the ability of a test to measure an underlying "construct", that is the actual conceptual target of evaluation. By drawing an analogy between LLM benchmarks and psychological tests, we explain how frameworks from this field can provide empirical foundations for validating benchmarks. To put these ideas into practice, we use real-world clinical data in proof-of-concept experiments to evaluate popular medical LLM benchmarks and report significant gaps in their construct validity. Finally, we outline a vision for a new ecosystem of medical LLM evaluation centered around the creation of valid benchmarks.

Tool-using LLM agents are usually evaluated by final-answer correctness or LLM judges. Neither captures how an answer was produced. In safety-critical settings, the procedure itself is part of correctness. In this paper, we introduce AgentLTL, a language derived from First-Order Linear Temporal Logic (FO-LTL) that expresses procedural rules over agent traces. It yields a deterministic, judge-free compliance score. In this framework, a single specification drives two usages. The first is harnessing: the constraints score completed traces, or gate tool calls by checking each prefix online, before execution. The second is finetuning: the score serves as a dense reward. On a benchmark spanning ordering, branching, iteration, and grounding, block-and-warn harnessing improves compliance on five of seven models. Finetuning with the same reward yields +38 and +17.5 percentage point gains in accuracy and compliance on held-out patterns, including unseen tool-name aliases. These findings are consistent with the model acquiring procedural structure rather than memorizing surface tool names and procedures.

This position paper provides a critical but constructive discussion of current practices in benchmarking and evaluative practices in the field of formal reasoning and automated theorem proving. We take the position that open code, open data, and benchmarks that are complete and error-free will accelerate progress in this field. We identify practices that create barriers to contributing to this field and suggest ways to remove them. We also discuss some of the practices that might produce misleading evaluative information. We aim to create discussions that bring together people from various groups contributing to automated theorem proving, autoformalization, and informal reasoning.

Test-time scaling has emerged as an effective way to improve language models on challenging reasoning tasks. However, most existing methods treat each problem in isolation and do not systematically reuse knowledge from prior reasoning trajectories. In particular, they underutilize procedural knowledge: how to reframe a problem, choose an approach, and verify or backtrack when needed. We introduce Reasoning Memory, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework for reasoning models that explicitly retrieves and reuses procedural knowledge at scale. Starting from existing corpora of step-by-step reasoning trajectories, we decompose each trajectory into self-contained subquestion-subroutine pairs, yielding a datastore of 32 million compact procedural knowledge entries. At inference time, a lightweight in-thought prompt lets the model verbalize the core subquestion, retrieve relevant subroutines within its reasoning trace, and reason under diverse retrieved subroutines as implicit procedural priors. Across six math, science, and coding benchmarks, Reasoning Memory consistently outperforms RAG with document, trajectory, and template knowledge, as well as a compute-matched test-time scaling baseline. With a higher inference budget, it improves over no retrieval by up to 19.2% and over the strongest compute-matched baseline by 7.9% across task types. Ablation studies show that these gains come from two key factors: the broad procedural coverage of the source trajectories and our decomposition and retrieval design, which together enable effective extraction and reuse of procedural knowledge.

LLM agents that invoke privileged tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which adversarial instructions embedded in retrieved data hijack the agent's actions. A growing body of work evaluates defenses against IPI, but the validity of that evaluation is rarely examined. We audit an IPI benchmark and its harness and identify four defect classes -- silent payload non-delivery, attack success scored by tool identity rather than arguments, false-rejection rate conflated with model incapacity, and the absence of an audit trail -- each of which yields a plausible, publishable, and incorrect number. We quantify the distortion by re-scoring identical execution traces under the defective and corrected definitions: on real agent behaviour, the tool-identity scorer reports a 21.7% attack-success rate where the true argument-level rate is 1.2%. In the sharpest case, an open model previously reported at 62.8% registers 0% under the corrected harness -- the prior figure largely an artifact of undelivered payloads and identity-level scoring. We release a harness whose construction makes each defect unrepresentable -- machine-checkable payload placement, argument-level attacker predicates, per-scenario environments, and mandatory trace persistence -- and use it to report three quantities the field does not: whether a compromised agent discloses the attack, the full security/utility operating curve of an LLM-judge defense, and tool-calling capability disentangled from defensive over-blocking. A corrected harness further overturns a reported "capability barrier": a model deemed incapable of tool use is in fact fully capable, its earlier result an artifact of environment mismatch. We argue that evaluation validity is a prerequisite for, not a footnote to, defense claims in agentic security, and provide an instrument that enforces it.

Reliable procedural monitoring in video requires exposure to naturally occurring human errors and the recoveries that follow. In egocentric recordings, mistakes are often partially occluded by hands and revealed through subtle object state changes, while existing procedural datasets provide limited and inconsistent mistake and correction traces. We present PIE-V (Psychologically Inspired Error injection for Videos), a framework for constructing and benchmarking mistake-aware egocentric procedural videos by augmenting clean keystep procedures with controlled, human-plausible deviations. PIE-V combines a psychology-informed error planner conditioned on procedure phase and semantic step load, a correction planner that models recovery behavior, an LLM writer that performs cascade-consistent rewrites, and an LLM judge that validates procedural coherence and repairs failures. For video segment edits, PIE-V synthesizes replacement clips with text-guided video generation and stitches them into the episode to preserve visual plausibility. Applied to 17 tasks and 50 Ego-Exo4D scenarios, PIE-V injects 102 mistakes and generates 27 recovery corrections. For benchmarking, we introduce a unified taxonomy and a human rubric with nine metrics that cover step-level and procedure-level quality, including plausibility, procedure logic with annotator confidence, state change coherence, and grounding between text and video. Using this protocol, we audit several existing resources and compare PIE-V against a freeform LLM generation baseline under the same criteria. Together, the framework and rubric support post-completion verification for egocentric procedural mistake detection and correction.

The formalization of existing mathematical proofs is a notoriously difficult process. Despite decades of research on automation and proof assistants, writing formal proofs remains arduous and only accessible to a few experts. While previous studies to automate formalization focused on powerful search algorithms, no attempts were made to take advantage of available informal proofs. In this work, we introduce Draft, Sketch, and Prove (DSP), a method that maps informal proofs to formal proof sketches, and uses the sketches to guide an automated prover by directing its search to easier sub-problems. We investigate two relevant setups where informal proofs are either written by humans or generated by a language model. Our experiments and ablation studies show that large language models are able to produce well-structured formal sketches that follow the same reasoning steps as the informal proofs. Guiding an automated prover with these sketches enhances its performance from 20.9% to 39.3% on a collection of mathematical competition problems.

Deploying Large Language Model-based agents (LLM agents) in the public sector requires assuring that they meet the stringent legal, procedural, and structural requirements of public-sector institutions. Practitioners and researchers often turn to benchmarks for such assessments. However, it remains unclear what criteria benchmarks must meet to ensure they adequately reflect public-sector requirements, or how many existing benchmarks do so. In this paper, we first define such criteria based on a first-principles survey of public administration literature: benchmarks must be process-based, realistic, public-sector-specific and report metrics that reflect the unique requirements of the public sector. We analyse more than 1,300 benchmark papers for these criteria using an expert-validated LLM-assisted pipeline. Our results show that no single benchmark meets all of the criteria. Our findings provide a call to action for both researchers to develop public sector-relevant benchmarks and for public-sector officials to apply these criteria when evaluating their own agentic use cases.

The Italian legislative process is documented in detailed parliamentary records hosted in institutional websites. However, much of this information is available only as unstructured text, limiting its systematic reuse. We applied a controlled, systematic LLM-based extraction procedure, validated against manually annotated records, to convert these texts into ordered and dated events including, e.g., bill introduction, committee examination, plenary examination, and approval. The resulting dataset reconstructs the procedural histories of all 5346 Italian laws enacted between 1985 and 2026, spanning parliamentary terms IX to XIX, for overall 101413 events. Each event records the activity, date, and chamber, with additional procedural details where available. The dataset supports research in the emerging fields of computational legal and legislative studies, potentially combined with process-oriented data science methods to examine procedural paths and legislative timing across parliamentary terms.

Procedural memory is increasingly used to improve LLM agents on recurring workplace tasks, yet its ability to produce reusable skills remains poorly understood. We introduce AFTER, a benchmark of 382 realistic enterprise tasks spanning six professional roles and 22 procedural skills, designed to evaluate how skills transfer across tasks, roles, and model backbones. The benchmark includes controlled evaluation settings for local improvement, cross-task transfer, cross-role transfer, and cross-model generalization. Experiments show that procedural memory delivers consistent gains in industrial workflows: a single refinement round improves aggregate performance by 3.7-6.7 points, while skills evolved from diverse multi-model execution traces achieve 73.1% cross-model test accuracy, outperforming all single-model trace sources. We further find that some skills generalize broadly across tasks and models, whereas others become specialized to role-specific workflows and lose effectiveness under transfer. These results provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and deploying procedural memory systems in production agent platforms.

Procedures are inherently hierarchical. To "make videos", one may need to "purchase a camera", which in turn may require one to "set a budget". While such hierarchical knowledge is critical for reasoning about complex procedures, most existing work has treated procedures as shallow structures without modeling the parent-child relation. In this work, we attempt to construct an open-domain hierarchical knowledge-base (KB) of procedures based on wikiHow, a website containing more than 110k instructional articles, each documenting the steps to carry out a complex procedure. To this end, we develop a simple and efficient method that links steps (e.g., "purchase a camera") in an article to other articles with similar goals (e.g., "how to choose a camera"), recursively constructing the KB. Our method significantly outperforms several strong baselines according to automatic evaluation, human judgment, and application to downstream tasks such as instructional video retrieval. A demo with partial data can be found at https://wikihow-hierarchy.github.io. The code and the data are at https://github.com/shuyanzhou/wikihow_hierarchy.

Personal Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents rely on interaction history to infer what a user wants from ambiguous instructions and to anticipate recurring routines. Existing approaches retrieve task-relevant history and append it to the policy's context, implicitly assuming that experience relevant to a task remains useful for each decision within it. We find that this help is largely spent at the first decision: retrieved history strongly improves the opening step of an episode, yet provides little sustained benefit over the remaining 90\% of steps, and offers weak guidance on whether a proactive suggestion is warranted. A relevant record may tell the agent where to begin, but not which past action applies to the current screen or whether a routine is due now. The underlying issue is that relevance does not imply applicability}: relevance is determined at the task level, whereas applicability depends on the situation at decision time. We therefore recast personalization as experience activation and introduce ExpActivator, a training-free framework that activates only the experience applicable to the current situation. During execution, ExpActivator matches each new screen to historical states in the frozen GUI backbone's latent space and supplies the corresponding action as a reference. Before execution, it activates a recurring intent only when the current time and scenario provide sufficient support, and otherwise abstains. Across four GUI backbones, ExpActivator improves within-trajectory step success by 28\% on average, achieves the best personalized execution on every backbone while using about one-fifth as many history tokens, and reaches approximately 2.3times the Matthews correlation coefficient of the strongest proactive baseline. Experience pays where it is activated, not where it is appended.

Search engines and information platforms are increasingly scrutinized for their role in spreading misinformation. Traditional responses often focus on detecting falsehoods or verifying the ultimate validity of claims. This paper argues that such a validity-centered framing is inadequate for the epistemic challenges of search environments.

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has enabled new possibilities for applying artificial intelligence within the legal domain. Nonetheless, the complexity, hierarchical organization, and frequent revisions of Vietnamese legislation pose considerable challenges for evaluating how well these models interpret and utilize legal knowledge. To address this gap, the Vietnamese Legal Benchmark (VLegal-Bench) is introduced, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to systematically assess LLMs on Vietnamese legal tasks. Informed by Bloom's cognitive taxonomy, VLegal-Bench encompasses multiple levels of legal understanding through tasks designed to reflect practical usage scenarios. The benchmark comprises 10,450 samples generated through a rigorous annotation pipeline, where legal experts label and cross-validate each instance using our annotation system to ensure every sample is grounded in authoritative legal documents and mirrors real-world legal assistant workflows, including general legal questions and answers, retrieval-augmented generation, multi-step reasoning, and scenario-based problem solving tailored to Vietnamese law. By providing a standardized, transparent, and cognitively informed evaluation framework, VLegal-Bench establishes a solid foundation for assessing LLM performance in Vietnamese legal contexts and supports the development of more reliable, interpretable, and ethically aligned AI-assisted legal systems. To facilitate access and reproducibility, we provide a public landing page for this benchmark at https://vilegalbench.cmcai.vn/.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step tasks in executable environments, yet their ability to perform realistic operations research (OR) work remains unclear. Existing OR evaluations often decouple modeling from solving, rely on pre-formalized or text-only instances, and rarely test the full workflow from operational artifacts to validated decisions. In this work, we introduce ORAgentBench, an execution-grounded benchmark for evaluating autonomous agents on challenging end-to-end operations research tasks. It contains 107 human-reviewed tasks across diverse operational scenarios, each packaged in an isolated environment with a natural-language brief, multi-file data, configuration artifacts, and a required submission schema. Agents must write and run solution code, and their submissions are evaluated by hidden validators for schema validity, hard-constraint feasibility, and normalized objective quality. Experiments with fourteen frontier agent-model configurations show that current agents remain far from reliable OR practice. The best agent passes only 35.51% of all tasks and 20.59% of hard tasks, and many feasible submissions still fall below the required quality threshold. Failure analysis further shows that errors are dominated by strategic weaknesses, including missed operational rules, brittle formulations, weak feasible-solution construction, and insufficient solution improvement. OR-specific procedural skills increase hard-task feasibility, but do not reliably improve solution quality or pass rate. These results suggest that progress in OR agents requires moving beyond plausible optimization code toward dependable, high-quality operational decision-making.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and competition-level mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed. To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of LLMs on advanced mathematical proofs. Its core generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 245 problems spanning undergraduate (UG) and doctoral qualifying-exam (QE) levels. To reliably evaluate these proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline that is trained on large-scale expert annotations, produces both correctness verdicts and fine-grained analyses, and exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories. We further introduce VerifierBench, consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales. Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models. On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 64.5 and 48.9 on the UG and QE splits, respectively. On proof verification, the best model only attains a Balanced F1 of 65.1. Further analysis reveals a notable mismatch between proof generation and verification capabilities across models.

LLM confidence signals are used for abstention, routing, and safety-critical decisions. No standard practice exists for checking whether a confidence signal carries item-level information before building on it. We transfer the validity screening principle from clinical personality assessment (PAI, MMPI-3) as a portable protocol for benchmark-based LLM confidence data. The protocol specifies three core indices (L, Fp, RBS), a structural indicator (TRIN), and an item-sensitivity statistic, computed from a single 2x2 contingency table. A three-tier classification system (Invalid, Indeterminate, Valid) draws on four clinical traditions. Validated on 20 frontier LLMs across 524 items, four models are classified Invalid, two Indeterminate. Valid-profile models show mean r = .18 (15/16 significant). Invalid-profile models show mean r = -.20 (d = 2.48). Cross-benchmark validation on 18 models using MMLU with verbalized confidence and on external data from Yang et al. (2024) confirms the screen transfers across benchmarks and probe formats. All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Can foundation models be guided to execute tasks involving legal reasoning? We believe that building a benchmark to answer this question will require sustained collaborative efforts between the computer science and legal communities. To that end, this short paper serves three purposes. First, we describe how IRAC-a framework legal scholars use to distinguish different types of legal reasoning-can guide the construction of a Foundation Model oriented benchmark. Second, we present a seed set of 44 tasks built according to this framework. We discuss initial findings, and highlight directions for new tasks. Finally-inspired by the Open Science movement-we make a call for the legal and computer science communities to join our efforts by contributing new tasks. This work is ongoing, and our progress can be tracked here: https://github.com/HazyResearch/legalbench.

To reduce the number of pending cases and conflicting rulings in the Brazilian Judiciary, the National Congress amended the Constitution, allowing the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) to create binding precedents (BPs), i.e., a set of understandings that both Executive and lower Judiciary branches must follow. The STF's justices frequently cite the 58 existing BPs in their decisions, and it is of primary relevance that judicial experts could identify and analyze such citations. To assist in this problem, we propose LegalVis, a web-based visual analytics system designed to support the analysis of legal documents that cite or could potentially cite a BP. We model the problem of identifying potential citations (i.e., non-explicit) as a classification problem. However, a simple score is not enough to explain the results; that is why we use an interpretability machine learning method to explain the reason behind each identified citation. For a compelling visual exploration of documents and BPs, LegalVis comprises three interactive visual components: the first presents an overview of the data showing temporal patterns, the second allows filtering and grouping relevant documents by topic, and the last one shows a document's text aiming to interpret the model's output by pointing out which paragraphs are likely to mention the BP, even if not explicitly specified. We evaluated our identification model and obtained an accuracy of 96%; we also made a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results. The usefulness and effectiveness of LegalVis were evaluated through two usage scenarios and feedback from six domain experts.

Despite the recent advances in Large Language Models, benchmarks for evaluating legal writing remain scarce due to the inherent complexity of assessing open-ended responses in this domain. One of the key challenges in evaluating language models on domain-specific tasks is finding test datasets that are public, frequently updated, and contain comprehensive evaluation guidelines. The Brazilian Bar Examination meets these requirements. We introduce oab-bench, a benchmark comprising 105 questions across seven areas of law from recent editions of the exam. The benchmark includes comprehensive evaluation guidelines and reference materials used by human examiners to ensure consistent grading. We evaluate the performance of four LLMs on oab-bench, finding that Claude-3.5 Sonnet achieves the best results with an average score of 7.93 out of 10, passing all 21 exams. We also investigated whether LLMs can serve as reliable automated judges for evaluating legal writing. Our experiments show that frontier models like OpenAI's o1 achieve a strong correlation with human scores when evaluating approved exams, suggesting their potential as reliable automated evaluators despite the inherently subjective nature of legal writing assessment. The source code and the benchmark -- containing questions, evaluation guidelines, model-generated responses, and their respective automated evaluations -- are publicly available.

We introduce ProofGrid, a benchmark suite for evaluating LLM reasoning through machine-checkable proofs rather than final answers alone. ProofGrid contains 15 tasks spanning proof writing, proof checking, proof masking, and proof gap-filling. Tasks are expressed in minimal formal notation, especially NDL, a compact natural-deduction language that fits in short prompts and supports precise, auditable verification. This yields mechanical, reproducible, and fine-grained evaluation rather than judgments by humans or LLMs. ProofGrid covers a calibrated difficulty spectrum, from foundational reasoning tests to structurally rich challenge tasks that no current model solves, while minimizing reliance on domain knowledge, solver delegation, and long-context artifacts. We also develop a comparative framework for reasoning benchmarks and use it to situate ProofGrid relative to existing work in terms of representation, verification guarantees, and reasoning depth. Methodologically, we introduce an instrumented proof-checking pipeline that tolerates minor surface deviations while locating the first substantive reasoning failure, improving measurement resolution and separating proof planning from low-level execution noise. Using this pipeline, we evaluate a broad range of open and proprietary models. Results show rapid progress but substantial remaining limits: frontier models perform well on several foundational tasks, yet difficult tasks, especially those requiring global combinatorial reasoning or low-level proof synthesis, remain far from solved. We also identify epistemic instability, where models generate flawed proofs yet correctly reject those local inferences in isolation, and formalize this with an Epistemic Stability Index. Finally, we complement accuracy with 2PL IRT analyses, Wright maps, and a normalized task-discrimination measure based on Fisher information.

Legal reasoning is not semantic similarity search. A court judgment encodes constrained symbolic reasoning: precedent propagation, procedural state transitions, and statute-bound inference. These are properties that vector-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) cannot faithfully represent. Hallucinated precedents, outdated statute citations, and unsupported reasoning chains remain persistent failure modes in LLM-based legal AI, with real consequences for access to justice in high-caseload jurisdictions such as India. This paper presents Falkor-IRAC, a graph-constrained generation framework for Indian legal AI that grounds generation in structured reasoning over an IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) knowledge graph. Judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India are ingested as IRAC node structures enriched with procedural state transitions, precedent relationships, and statutory references, stored in FalkorDB for low-latency agentic traversal. At inference time, LLM-generated answers are accepted only if a valid supporting path can be traced through the graph, a check performed by a falsifiability oracle called the Verifier Agent. The system also detects doctrinal conflicts as a first-class output rather than silently resolving them. Falkor-IRAC is evaluated using graph-native metrics: citation grounding accuracy, path validity rate, hallucinated precedent rate, and conflict detection rate. These metrics are argued to be more appropriate for legal reasoning evaluation than BLEU and ROUGE. On a proof-of-concept corpus of 51 Supreme Court judgments, the Verifier Agent correctly validated citations on completed queries and correctly rejected fabricated citations. Evaluation against vector-only RAG baselines is left for future work, as is GPU-accelerated inference to address current timeout rates on CPU hardware.

LLMs are increasingly used with external knowledge sources like the internet. Do they weigh information appropriately -- updating more for reliable sources (source discernment) and more when claims bring priors closer to the truth (truth discernment)? We formalize this as information discernment and introduce Learn2Discern (L2D), an experimental framework and benchmark grounded in three normative axioms with interpretable metrics. To establish external validity, a pre-registered, quota-matched user study (n=299) confirms that real LLM users endorse all three axioms and report that violations reduce their trust and usage intent. Across 13 models and nearly 670K trials, we find consistent failures across both dimensions: models perform near chance on source and truth discernment, rely on source popularity twice as much as source reliability, and update roughly equally whether a claim improves or worsens their position relative to the ground truth. Models integrate external knowledge most effectively on datasets where their priors are already the most accurate. Newer and larger models improve truth discernment but not source discernment, a blind spot that model complexity does not address. We identify simple inference-time interventions that improve both forms of discernment. We release our dataset and survey as a testbed for a core alignment property that scales in importance as LLMs replace traditional search.

Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates. In contrast to encyclopedic knowledge, where an old fact is simply overwritten, an amendment is itself an official text that states what it replaces and when it takes effect, and the earlier version stays correct for its validity period. The central challenge is therefore version resolution, that is, identifying the version in force on the queried date. Existing temporal QA datasets treat time only as an annotation, so version resolution stays untested. We present TIDE, an expert-verified benchmark of 3,050 QA pairs over 644 official customs instruments issued between 1969 and 2025 by the Government of Bangladesh, covering eight task types over deeply code-mixed documents that are heterogeneous in layout and dated in two calendars. In addition, we evaluate nine recent LLMs under a single protocol across parametric, gold-context, and retrieval access, scored by a three-judge LLM council with a hard date gate separating correct meaning from correct time. The best macro-averaged accuracy is only 68.5%. Resolving a version from an implicit date reaches 59.7%, and detecting that the supplied version does not govern the query reaches only 26.7%. Models are more likely to find correct versions than to reject incorrect ones, and they tend to follow a confident parametric answer over the supplied authoritative text. All code and data are available at https://github.com/icsetepa44/TIDE

The critique capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for reasoning abilities, which can provide necessary suggestions (e.g., detailed analysis and constructive feedback). Therefore, how to evaluate the critique capacity of LLMs has drawn great attention and several critique benchmarks have been proposed. However, existing critique benchmarks usually have the following limitations: (1). Focusing on diverse reasoning tasks in general domains and insufficient evaluation on code tasks (e.g., only covering code generation task), where the difficulty of queries is relatively easy (e.g., the code queries of CriticBench are from Humaneval and MBPP). (2). Lacking comprehensive evaluation from different dimensions. To address these limitations, we introduce a holistic code critique benchmark for LLMs called CodeCriticBench. Specifically, our CodeCriticBench includes two mainstream code tasks (i.e., code generation and code QA) with different difficulties. Besides, the evaluation protocols include basic critique evaluation and advanced critique evaluation for different characteristics, where fine-grained evaluation checklists are well-designed for advanced settings. Finally, we conduct extensive experimental results of existing LLMs, which show the effectiveness of CodeCriticBench.

The capabilities and limitations of Large Language Models have been sketched out in great detail in recent years, providing an intriguing yet conflicting picture. On the one hand, LLMs demonstrate a general ability to solve problems. On the other hand, they show surprising reasoning gaps when compared to humans, casting doubt on the robustness of their generalisation strategies. The sheer volume of data used in the design of LLMs has precluded us from applying the method traditionally used to measure generalisation: train-test set separation. To overcome this, we study what kind of generalisation strategies LLMs employ when performing reasoning tasks by investigating the pretraining data they rely on. For two models of different sizes (7B and 35B) and 2.5B of their pretraining tokens, we identify what documents influence the model outputs for three simple mathematical reasoning tasks and contrast this to the data that are influential for answering factual questions. We find that, while the models rely on mostly distinct sets of data for each factual question, a document often has a similar influence across different reasoning questions within the same task, indicating the presence of procedural knowledge. We further find that the answers to factual questions often show up in the most influential data. However, for reasoning questions the answers usually do not show up as highly influential, nor do the answers to the intermediate reasoning steps. When we characterise the top ranked documents for the reasoning questions qualitatively, we confirm that the influential documents often contain procedural knowledge, like demonstrating how to obtain a solution using formulae or code. Our findings indicate that the approach to reasoning the models use is unlike retrieval, and more like a generalisable strategy that synthesises procedural knowledge from documents doing a similar form of reasoning.

Although action recognition for procedural tasks has received notable attention, it has a fundamental flaw in that no measure of success for actions is provided. This limits the applicability of such systems especially within the industrial domain, since the outcome of procedural actions is often significantly more important than the mere execution. To address this limitation, we define the novel task of procedure step recognition (PSR), focusing on recognizing the correct completion and order of procedural steps. Alongside the new task, we also present the multi-modal IndustReal dataset. Unlike currently available datasets, IndustReal contains procedural errors (such as omissions) as well as execution errors. A significant part of these errors are exclusively present in the validation and test sets, making IndustReal suitable to evaluate robustness of algorithms to new, unseen mistakes. Additionally, to encourage reproducibility and allow for scalable approaches trained on synthetic data, the 3D models of all parts are publicly available. Annotations and benchmark performance are provided for action recognition and assembly state detection, as well as the new PSR task. IndustReal, along with the code and model weights, is available at: https://github.com/TimSchoonbeek/IndustReal .

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal domain-specific tasks, evaluating their ability to perform legal work in real-world settings has become essential. However, existing legal benchmarks rely on simplified and highly standardized tasks, failing to capture the ambiguity, complexity, and reasoning demands of real legal practice. Moreover, prior evaluations often adopt coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce PLawBench, a Practical Law Benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic legal practice scenarios. Grounded in real-world legal workflows, PLawBench models the core processes of legal practitioners through three task categories: public legal consultation, practical case analysis, and legal document generation. These tasks assess a model's ability to identify legal issues and key facts, perform structured legal reasoning, and generate legally coherent documents. PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics, resulting in approximately 12,500 rubric items for fine-grained assessment. Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that none achieves strong performance on PLawBench, revealing substantial limitations in the fine-grained legal reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and highlighting important directions for future evaluation and development of legal LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/skylenage/PLawbench.

Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered. We study both problems. In a controlled code-as-spec setup, two production Copilot CLI agents (claude-opus-4.7, gpt-5.5) re-implement a React Fluent-UI data table in Angular as a reusable library under a hidden 222-test Playwright oracle across 18 runs and three oracle-availability conditions. Alongside the score, we run a mechanical library audit and check each verdict with a no-op ablation. Without the oracle, the library is present but unfinished, revealed by scores. With the oracle in the loop, the score reaches near-perfect, but from a demo holding the tested behavior directly, the library left dead or absent. We call this building to the test; the broader disposition behind both we call validation self-awareness. The agent does not, on its own, validate what it ships as a user would. Prevalence remains an open question across other agents, signals, and model families. Beyond benchmark scores, dispositions like validation self-awareness merit research attention.

Large language models (LLMs) have become capable mathematical problem-solvers, often producing correct proofs for challenging problems. However, correctness alone is not sufficient: mathematical proofs should also be clear, concise, insightful, and transferable to other problems. While this proof quality is subjective and depends on the reader and context, many of its components are concrete and broadly valued. In this work, we identify such components and introduce ProofRank, a benchmark curated from challenging mathematical competitions. ProofRank evaluates several scalable proxies of proof quality: (i) conciseness, measuring whether proofs avoid unnecessary steps; (ii) computational ease, measuring the extent to which a proof relies on tedious calculations; (iii) cognitive simplicity, measuring how accessible the used proof techniques are; (iv) diversity, measuring how varied a model's proofs for a single problem are; and (v) adaptivity, measuring whether a model can follow a specified proof technique. Across models, we find substantial differences in proof quality that are not captured by correctness-only benchmarks. We also observe significant trade-offs between proof-quality metrics and correctness, suggesting that future evaluations of mathematical reasoning should measure how useful LLM-generated proofs are.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

The gap between static benchmarks and the dynamic nature of real-world legal practice poses a key barrier to advancing legal intelligence. To this end, we introduce J1-ENVS, the first interactive and dynamic legal environment tailored for LLM-based agents. Guided by legal experts, it comprises six representative scenarios from Chinese legal practices across three levels of environmental complexity. We further introduce J1-EVAL, a fine-grained evaluation framework, designed to assess both task performance and procedural compliance across varying levels of legal proficiency. Extensive experiments on 17 LLM agents reveal that, while many models demonstrate solid legal knowledge, they struggle with procedural execution in dynamic settings. Even the SOTA model, GPT-4o, falls short of 60% overall performance. These findings highlight persistent challenges in achieving dynamic legal intelligence and offer valuable insights to guide future research.

Many Indian banks serve customers through FAQ pages and scripted chatbots. Assistants based on language models could respond faster and carry out requests such as blocking a card, but only if they give correct information and follow the bank's rules. These rules prescribe a procedure, a set of required steps, such as obtaining a closure quote before closing a deposit. Adapting models to this domain requires measuring how well they follow the procedure, before and after training. Benchmarks usually judge only the records left at the end of a conversation. Many required steps, however, leave the records unchanged, so an assistant that skips them can still be judged successful. We present TauIndianBankBench, an action-oriented benchmark of 1,000 Indian retail-banking tasks where an assistant helps a simulated customer. Besides the final records, it checks that the assistant took every required step and made no unrequested change. For every model, 6.5-12.0% of sessions are judged successful when only the final records are checked, although the assistant skipped a required step or made an unrequested change. Scoring both procedure and outcome shows more accurately how well language models perform in Indian retail banking.

In 2023, a New York judge sanctioned two attorneys in Mata v. Avianca for filing a brief with hallucinated citations generated by ChatGPT. Such failures are largely caught by database lookups; the harder problem is detecting citations that point to real cases but do not support the propositions for which they are offered -- a failure mode that existing evaluations of LLMs for legal use cases largely overlook. In this paper, we study proposition-level citation support verification through controlled perturbations of real legal citations obtained from two legal corpora, either replacing the cited case or changing only the pinpoint page within the same case. We evaluate fourteen model configurations on the resulting examples. Models catch 93-100% of wrong-case corruptions. They catch only 37-61% of wrong-pinpoint corruptions on court opinions and 52-83% on legal briefs. When models fail to catch wrong-pinpoint corruptions, they accept the citation based on topical overlap rather than page-level support. Scale and extended reasoning narrow the gap but do not close it: GPT-5.4 with high reasoning effort still misses 40% of pinpoint mismatches on court opinions and 18% on briefs. Prompting the model to verify support at the cited page improves recall, but it also raises the false positive rate. Recognizing the right legal topic and verifying support for the cited proposition are distinct capabilities, and current models conflate them.

Expert-written natural language skills can improve tool-using agents, yet agent-authored skills perform 8-11 points worse than using no skill. This gap suggests that following procedural guidance and improving it from execution evidence are distinct capabilities. Inference time loops can repair skills but do not improve the model that writes the next one. We study how to organize execution experience from intermediate skills into training states for an optimizer. We introduce WER (Write, Execute, and Refine), a multi-phase framework that trains a Skill Optimizer outside a frozen executor. The optimizer proposes skills, a frozen agent executes each repeatedly, and a programmatic verifier scores the outcomes. The scores provide relative credit and select mixed-outcome records. Matched successful and failed trajectories from these records form the next phase's refinement states, so the optimizer learns from the consequences of its earlier outputs. On BFCL v4 multi-turn and tau2-bench, WER improves average Pass@1 over the no-skill baseline by 7.80 and 3.85 points, respectively. Under an identical refinement workflow, it outperforms the same backbone without optimizer training by 9.35 and 10.29 points. The trained 4B optimizer reaches 76.63 percent on BFCL v4, outperforming all evaluated off-the-shelf general-purpose models used as skill optimizers on average.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning has largely focused on elementary problems, competition-style questions, or formal theorem proving, leaving graduate-level and computational mathematics relatively underexplored. We introduce CompMath-MCQ, a new benchmark dataset for assessing LLMs on advanced mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice setting. The dataset consists of 1{,}500 originally authored questions by professors of graduate-level courses, covering topics including Linear Algebra, Numerical Optimization, Vector Calculus, Probability, and Python-based scientific computing. Three option choices are provided for each question, with exactly one of them being correct. To ensure the absence of data leakage, all questions are newly created and not sourced from existing materials. The validity of questions is verified through a procedure based on cross-LLM disagreement, followed by manual expert review. By adopting a multiple-choice format, our dataset enables objective, reproducible, and bias-free evaluation through lm_eval library. Baseline results with state-of-the-art LLMs indicate that advanced computational mathematical reasoning remains a significant challenge. We release CompMath-MCQ at the following link: https://github.com/biancaraimondi/CompMath-MCQ.git

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

When should an AI system's answer be trusted? Formal proof assistants offer certainty but cannot reach most of the problem distribution; scalar LLM judges offer coverage but produce opaque scores that cannot be audited after the fact and are subject to the same coherence issues as any LLM. We present Theoria, a verification architecture that closes this gap. A candidate solution is rewritten into a sequence of typed state transitions, each licensed by an explicit justification, whether that be a citation, computation, or problem-given fact, and every transition is independently auditable. The foundational invariant is completeness of change: every difference between consecutive proof states must be accounted for, so hidden premises surface as unlicensed mutations rather than passing silently. On HLE-Verified Gold (185 text-only expert problems), Theoria certifies 105 at 91.4% strict precision (Wilson 95% CI [84.5%, 95.4%]). Every certification produces a human readable proof trace in which each step can be independently challenged. Holistic LLM judges achieve comparable precision at matched coverage but fail on different problems (Jaccard 0.14-0.36), making the approaches complementary. On 95 adversarial poisoned proofs across 15 domains, structured judges catch 94.7% versus 83.2% for holistic judging (p= 0.0017). The overall 11.5 pp gap concentrates in hidden premises (90.6% vs. 62.5%, a 28 pp difference) and fabricated citations (100% vs. 90%), the error classes where the formal analysis predicts an advantage; performance is identical on arithmetic and theorem-misapplication errors, where no advantage is predicted. On GPQA Diamond (n= 65), certified precision is 97.1% (Wilson CI [85.1%, 99.5%]).

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.

Using a large language model to play the user is now standard in scalable evaluation. It has a repeatedly diagnosed failure: the simulated user is excessively cooperative, so a system under test can score by the sheer number of questions it asks rather than by making the user willing to speak. We answer with a disclosure gate conditioning information release on the companion agent's behaviour: its state is a ladder of five ordered gates, merged onto three observable depth layers. We specify, ablate, and audit it, and train a user simulator against that specification. Gating behaviour is learned from the training corpus's synthetic branch, while the real branch supplies how people speak and react; after training, the simulator need not be told at runtime which gate each item sits behind. The gate is a load-bearing component of the environment: on the English corpus of a published companion-agent benchmark (CompanionBench), once training no longer states per example which gate each item sits behind, the largest rank displacement across 12 systems under test exceeds the noise band set by re-running that environment under a new seed, while per-system scores show no detectable change. We state two acceptance criteria: a ranking must be order-preserving, and absolute scores must be scale-stable. Of the candidates we examine, only one passes both -- the simulator we release -- and its leaderboard correlates at 0.993 with the benchmark's original simulator. By contrast, prompting a frontier model as the simulator barely moves the ranking while shifting every score upward -- a shift invisible to anyone checking the ranking alone. The environment we specify is the one that benchmark already used. That publication describes the mechanism in about four hundred words, and we supply what it lacked: specification, ablations, human studies, negative controls, and downstream sensitivity analysis.

A growing number of agentic pipelines search for governing equations: an agent proposes laws and a verifier checks them against simulated trajectories. The verifier sees only a numerical summary: integrals against test functions on a time grid. That summary carries its own discretization error, making the verifier part of the simulator. We freeze the trajectory, candidate library, verifier and thresholds, leaving the agent one move: which permitted summary to admit. Without scores or language models, finer time grids reduce numerical discrepancies and false library rejections. On PDEBench, the verifier instead accepts equations missing diffusion on score-selected summaries. Maximizing a public score rewarding decisive verdicts and larger mismatches when rejecting the library wrongly rejects all 1,500 in-library cases; retrospectively retuning score constants on a separate bank reduces errors to 13/180 at best. We call this evidence-view gaming: reward hacking by choice of permitted summary. In single-turn forced-choice tests, Claude models rarely choose summaries giving wrong verdicts when asked to be accurate, but often do so when asked to maximize the score or report missing physics. In separate trust prompts, they often rank those harmful summaries least trustworthy. Requiring several summaries to agree reduces errors but often withholds a verdict and performs worse than a fixed fine view on PDEBench: a safeguard, not a certificate. Evidence chosen after its verdict is known cannot alone authorize a claim.

We present Auto-BenchmarkCard, a workflow for generating validated descriptions of AI benchmarks. Benchmark documentation is often incomplete or inconsistent, making it difficult to interpret and compare benchmarks across tasks or domains. Auto-BenchmarkCard addresses this gap by combining multi-agent data extraction from heterogeneous sources (e.g., Hugging Face, Unitxt, academic papers) with LLM-driven synthesis. A validation phase evaluates factual accuracy through atomic entailment scoring using the FactReasoner tool. This workflow has the potential to promote transparency, comparability, and reusability in AI benchmark reporting, enabling researchers and practitioners to better navigate and evaluate benchmark choices.

Public-service recommendations require evidence that matches the requested service, scope, and date. Yet treating every missing detail as decisive can withhold useful recommendations. We introduce EviGraph, which distinguishes critical decision requirements from information that can remain unresolved. A language agent links these requirements to evidence in a temporal knowledge graph, while a deterministic checker establishes whether a recommendation is supported. Evaluation on a bilingual Hong Kong public-service benchmark with executable policy references shows that this distinction reduces unnecessary abstention. Additional verification, however, can withdraw supported recommendations without improving decision quality. These findings suggest that reliable evidence-based navigation depends on specifying what must be established for a decision, rather than simply adding more verification.

Codes of professional ethics guide and restrict specialists, who increasingly work with assistants built on large language models. Such an assistant can breach the user's code, or help the user breach it, without the user noticing. Evaluations reporting broad categories of harm cannot show how often this happens or which provision is breached. TenetBench pairs 3,433 requests conflicting with clauses of fifteen Russian-language professional codes with benign twins that differ only in the legitimacy of what is asked. An automated pipeline generates the tasks from the text of a code, so the corpus grows with every code added and a provision yields new tasks on every run. It also produced tasks and human-validated verdicts from two English codes of other jurisdictions. In human validation of the frozen pipeline, specialists rated 0.995 of the conflicting tasks plausible, and the model judge agreed with the adjudicated label at Gwet's AC1 of at least 0.894 on 1,860 elements. We evaluated fourteen model and reasoning-mode combinations on whether they produce the conflicting text, decline or warn. Eleven of the fourteen produce conflicting content on most such requests, mostly without a warning, and nearly three warnings in four accompany conflicting content. The models that conform more do so by declining while still serving the legitimate twin, and enabling reasoning halved the refusals of two models. We hope the dataset and pipeline will help evaluate how language models observe professional norms and let diagnostic datasets be built for particular professions and organisations.

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

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal drafting and research workflows, where incorrect citations or fabricated precedents can cause serious professional harm. Existing legal benchmarks largely emphasize statutory reasoning, contract understanding, or general legal question answering, but they do not directly study a central common-law failure mode: when asked to provide case authorities without external grounding, models may return plausible-looking but incorrect citations or cases. We introduce LegalCiteBench, a benchmark for studying closed-book citation recovery, citation verification, and case matching in legal language models. LegalCiteBench contains approximately 24K evaluation instances constructed from 1,000 real U.S. judicial opinions from the Case Law Access Project. The benchmark covers five citation-centric tasks: citation retrieval, citation completion, citation error detection, case matching, and case verification and correction. Across 21 LLMs, exact citation recovery remains highly challenging in this closed-book setting: even the strongest models score below 7/100 on citation retrieval and completion. Within the evaluated models, scale and legal-domain pretraining provide limited gains and do not resolve this difficulty. Models also frequently provide concrete but incorrect or low-overlap authorities under our evaluation protocol, with Misleading Answer Rates (MAR) exceeding 94% for 20 of 21 evaluated models on retrieval-heavy tasks. A prompt-only abstention experiment shows that explicit uncertainty instructions reduce some confident fabrication but do not improve citation correctness. LegalCiteBench is intended as a diagnostic framework for studying authority generation failures, verification behavior, and abstention when external grounding is absent, incomplete, or bypassed.

LLM agents choose tools and arguments from context that mixes user requests, tool outputs, retrieved records, memory, and untrusted text. Evidence can be relevant without being authorized to determine a decision, so a correct action need not be grounded only in permitted evidence. We introduce a target-specific authorization audit that labels context factors separately for each tool and argument target. Its primary test holds the task, proposition, position, and policy fixed while changing only the proposition's source authority. We then test behavior when valid evidence is weakened and use context-subset interactions as a secondary localization diagnostic. Across 450 controlled next-action tasks and multiple open-weight LLM families, trusted and untrusted variants produce different actions in 5.4 percent of competing cases versus 1.7 percent of supporting cases. Under controlled degradation, unauthorized competition is retained in a full-correct, mixed-error, clean-correct pattern in 2.4 percent of comparisons, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 2.1 to 3.0 percent. These are controlled stress-set rates, not deployment prevalence. The models respond to textual source-authority cues, but this does not prevent untrusted evidence from influencing their actions.

Agent Skills augment large language model (LLM) agents with procedural knowledge at inference time, but current benchmarks rarely distinguish what a Skill says from how it is organized. We study this distinction through Progressive Disclosure, where a concise root file points agents to supporting resources on demand, and compare it with a normalized flat baseline. We present SkillJuror, a framework for evaluating Skill writing paradigms through semantically controlled variants, matched multi-trial evaluations, and trajectory evidence while holding task knowledge fixed. In an 82-task SkillsBench study, Progressive Disclosure changes runtime behavior before aggregate outcomes: distinct Skill resources touched per trajectory rise from 1.18 to 3.85, and effective uptake events rise from 1.33 to 3.92. It also yields 17 additional verifier-passing trials out of 410 matched trials (+4.1%) over the normalized flat baseline. The benefit is task-dependent. Progressive Disclosure helps when supporting resources guide implementation, checking, or repair, but is weaker when success hinges on exact output conventions, numerical thresholds, or long artifact-generation pipelines. These results show that Skill organization is not mere presentation: it can change how agents search and apply procedural knowledge, while outcome gains depend on whether the exposed resources are actionable for the task. Code is available at https://github.com/zhiyuchen-ai/skill-juror.

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

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

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

We present Legal Argument Reasoning (LAR), a novel task designed to evaluate the legal reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). The task requires selecting the correct next statement (from multiple choice options) in a chain of legal arguments from court proceedings, given the facts of the case. We constructed a dataset (LAR-ECHR) for this task using cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). We evaluated seven general-purpose LLMs on LAR-ECHR and found that (a) the ranking of the models is aligned with that of LegalBench, an established US-based legal reasoning benchmark, even though LAR-ECHR is based on EU law, (b) LAR-ECHR distinguishes top models more clearly, compared to LegalBench, (c) even the best model (GPT-4o) obtains 75.8% accuracy on LAR-ECHR, indicating significant potential for further model improvement. The process followed to construct LAR-ECHR can be replicated with cases from other legal systems.

We introduce the Formally Verified Automated Programming Progress Standards, or FVAPPS, a benchmark of 4715 samples for writing programs and proving their correctness, the largest formal verification benchmark, including 1083 curated and quality controlled samples. Previously, APPS provided a benchmark and dataset for programming puzzles to be completed in Python and checked against unit tests, of the kind seen in technical assessments in the software engineering industry. Building upon recent approaches for benchmarks in interactive theorem proving, we generalize the unit tests to Lean 4 theorems given without proof (i.e., using Lean's "sorry" keyword). On the 406 theorems of 100 randomly selected samples, Sonnet correctly proves 30% and Gemini correctly proves 18%. We challenge the machine learning and program synthesis communities to solve both each general purpose programming problem and its associated correctness specifications. The benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/quinn-dougherty/fvapps.

Terminal-agent benchmarks have become a primary signal for measuring the coding and system-administration capabilities of large language models. As the market for evaluation environments grows, so does the pressure to ship tasks quickly, often without thorough adversarial review of the verification logic. This paper is a guideline for writing good benchmark tasks, drawn from over a year of contributing to and reviewing tasks for Terminal Bench. Most people write benchmark tasks the way they write prompts. They shouldn't. A prompt is designed to help the agent succeed; a benchmark is designed to find out if it can. We argue that good tasks are adversarial, difficult, and legible, and that a large class of common failure modes -- AI-generated instructions, over-prescriptive specifications, clerical difficulty, oracle solutions that assume hidden knowledge, tests that validate the wrong things, and reward-hackable environments -- are predictable consequences of treating task authoring as prompt authoring. We catalog these failure modes, argue that real difficulty is conceptual rather than environmental, and discuss recent empirical evidence that over 15% of tasks in popular terminal-agent benchmarks are reward-hackable. We hope this serves as a useful reference for benchmark maintainers, task contributors, and researchers using benchmark scores as evidence.

Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) for regulatory compliance demands rigorous traceability via comprehensive citations across multi-tiered authority structures. Unlike traditional multi-hop or legal QA, this task requires structured procedural lookups and evidence-set closure rather than entity resolution or case-law reasoning. Existing RAG systems struggle here due to flattened citation edges, fragmented retrieval expansions, and fragile post-hoc attribution. We formalize Regulatory Compliance QA with RegOps-Bench, a novel benchmark featuring an Operational Knowledge Graph derived from complex national R\&D regulations. To address these bottlenecks, we propose RefWalk, a unified framework driven by a shared topic anchor. RefWalk traverses cross-document citations, fuses multi-view candidates via max-based aggregation, and enforces per-rule attribution to explicitly map claims to sources. We establish a strong baseline with substantial improvements in retrieval recall and citation accuracy. Finally, a contrastive evaluation on a U.S. health compliance dataset (HIPAA) reveals that existing systems exhibit saturation on flat-structure rules, underscoring the need for RegOps-Bench. Our code is available at https://github.com/yeongjoonJu/RefWalk.

It is tempting to assume any task solvable by a short program can be taught to a model as its chain-of-thought: write the steps out, fine-tune, and the model follows. This paper shows the assumption fails for an identifiable class of procedures. The testbed is nine reasoning tasks, each from a deterministic generator; public and hidden splits share generators, so held-out data proxies test accuracy. I reverse-engineer the generators into Python solvers, render them as chain-of-thought, and distill into a rank-<= 32 LoRA over a 30B (3.5B-active) Nemotron model. Forward-computable tasks install readily: lookup/arithmetic and an 8-bit boolean task transfer (>= 0.99 and 0.68). Cryptarithm does not: distilling its backtracking search holds at 0.01-0.07 across eleven chain-of-thought designs, RL from verifiable rewards, and self-training, even though a search solver answers 71% of instances. This is not a capability gap. The model does the arithmetic on 97-100% of lines and ranks the correct cipher in its top eight on 71%; it cannot carry the search forward as a left-to-right derivation. Fine-tuning learns the shape of a verifiable elimination step while its verdicts become unconditional templates, correct only 16-57% of the time ("verdict-as-token"). The ceiling holds across backbones from 3B to 671B and across fine-tuning and prompting; a controlled intervention isolates the cause: revealing the cipher key, which turns the derivation forward, lifts the same instances from 0.03 to 0.57. When a procedure's only solution is search over information-free structure, no faithful forward chain-of-thought exists to imitate. The task becomes learnable only by removing the search, precomputing its combinatorial core into a catalog and reducing the trace to recall plus verification; the 1st-place solution reaches Private LB 0.92 this way. What distills is memorization and verification, not search.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.

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

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on skills, structured documents that specify when to act, which procedure to follow, and which tools are allowed. Existing evaluations mostly judge the quality of a skill or its contribution to task success, leaving unexamined whether an agent can recognize a relevant skill and apply it on its own. We introduce Skill-Use, a benchmark that evaluates skill use under progressive disclosure, where an agent sees only a skill's name and short description and must retrieve the full procedure before following it. Skill-Use separates three facets of skill use. Trigger measures whether the agent invokes the relevant skill, Compliance measures how faithfully it follows the prescribed procedure, and Boundary measures whether it avoids forbidden operations. A Skill-Use (SU) score combines the three and credits execution only after the skill is triggered. Skill-Use pairs 79 real skills with 177 executable tasks across nine domains, each grounded in real files, run in an isolated Docker sandbox, and scored by a trajectory-based rubric. Evaluating eight LLMs under two agent harnesses, we find that reliable skill use remains out of reach, as the strongest configuration reaches an SU of only 0.613. Triggering and procedural compliance fail as independent bottlenecks, and both scores and model rankings shift with the harness, so skill use behaves as a capability conditioned on the harness rather than a fixed property of the model.

Legal AI systems are increasingly used to answer legal questions, yet existing benchmarks assume queries arrive fully specified. In practice, users omit facts that materially determine the legal outcome. We introduce InsufficiencyBench, the first legal benchmark targeting query-side insufficiency: whether a model recognizes when a query lacks legally material information, identifies what is missing, and refrains from premature conclusions. We formalize a taxonomy of eight canonical missing-element categories across three structural failure modes---switch, gating, and fatal prerequisite--- and construct 202 benchmark items (58 base queries, 144 deficient variants) spanning six legal domains and 24 US jurisdictions and annotated by practising attorneys. Evaluating ten frontier models, we find that no model exceeds F2 = 0.46 on missing-element identification and that the median recall is 0.44. Models either hedge indiscriminately or answer silently under fabricated presumptions. No model both identifies and qualifies responses to deficient queries while directly addressing complete ones.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that plan over long horizons and act through external tools. Most agents select actions through unconstrained generation over an accumulating history, leaving implicit the procedural knowledge of what to do, in what order, and under which conditions. As trajectories lengthen, agents can lose track of their objectives, invoke tools out of order, and repeat unproductive actions. We introduce the Procedural Graph: just as a knowledge graph organizes factual knowledge into (entity, relation, entity) triplets for what-is questions, a Procedural Graph organizes procedural knowledge into (procedure, relation, procedure) triplets for what-to-do questions. At each decision step, the framework localizes the agent's active node, and a guidance model translates the surrounding subgraph into step-level situational guidance that biases the solver's next action without dictating it. The graph is self-evolving: an LLM refiner contrasts failed trajectories with successful ones and edits the graph's topology and attributes, committing edits that preserve or improve held-out validation performance while retaining rejected ones to discourage repetition. Starting from a minimal skeleton, the loop builds graphs that match or surpass hand-designed ones. It can also repair a flawed expert prior. Across multiple datasets, task types, and LLMs, the Procedural Graph delivers consistent gains over memory-based baselines, and self-evolution further improves performance without manual engineering.

Sycophancy is a language model's tendency to cave when a user pushes back, abandoning a correct answer for the user's. Several benchmarks now measure it by scripting an objection and recording how often the model caves. Because that objection is a prompt template, whatever else the template varies is measured along with the property it claims to isolate. We audit SycEval, which reports that objections raised before a model answers (preemptive) cause more caving than those raised after (in-context), and attributes the gap to timing. Two features of its templates vary alongside the property each is meant to test. First, SycEval's objections escalate through four strength levels, and at the two weakest only the preemptive template names a target answer, so timing and naming vary together. We build the missing comparison and test it on multiple-choice questions and SycEval's own free-form pipeline. Naming a target answer raises the follow rate, the share of samples matching the user's assertion, by 14.1--49.5 percentage points (pp), and once both templates name one, the timing comparison reverses on three of the five model conditions we test: models cave less under preemptive objections than in-context ones, opposite to SycEval. Second, the output-format instruction benchmarks append for automatic grading also varies with objection placement. Moving it from the pushback into the question flips its effect in opposite directions across models on the same items (p=0.0059). The same effect appears in SycEval's free-form pipeline: relocating its instruction lowers caving by 5.1pp on Llama-3.1-8B, while an equivalence test confirms no effect on Qwen3-4B. Both confounds live in the template rather than the models under test, so both are correctable: we close with three checks benchmark authors can apply before publishing.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become the de facto method to elicit reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). However, to mitigate hallucinations in CoT that are notoriously difficult to detect, current methods such as process reward models (PRMs) or self-consistency operate as opaque boxes and do not provide checkable evidence for their judgments, possibly limiting their effectiveness. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from the idea that "the gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof". We propose a retrospective, step-aware formal verification framework Safe. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, we strive to articulate mathematical claims in formal mathematical language Lean 4 at each reasoning step and provide formal proofs to identify hallucinations. We evaluate our framework Safe across multiple language models and various mathematical datasets, demonstrating a significant performance improvement while offering interpretable and verifiable evidence. We also propose FormalStep as a benchmark for step correctness theorem proving with 30,809 formal statements. To the best of our knowledge, our work represents the first endeavor to utilize formal mathematical language Lean 4 for verifying natural language content generated by LLMs, aligning with the reason why formal mathematical languages were created in the first place: to provide a robust foundation for hallucination-prone human-written proofs.

Autonomous research systems increasingly make the scientific workflow executable: agents can propose ideas, run code, inspect results, and draft papers. But executable workflows do not by themselves produce research judgment. We analyze where current systems lose trial experience: weak evidence becomes prose, pilot signals become broad claims, memory remains textual, and recurring process failures do not change later behavior. We introduce Sibyl-AutoResearch, a self-evolving AutoResearch framework built around Scientific Trial-and-Error Harnesses. A harness lets agents run bounded trials, preserve positive and negative outcomes, and route lessons into later planning, validation, claim scope, scheduling, critique, writing, and harness repair. We formalize this through two auditable conversion units: trial-to-behavior conversion, which links trial signals to later research actions, and trial-to-harness-behavior conversion, which links recurring process failures to system updates. We implement the framework in SIBYL, a file-backed autonomous research system that exposes the state, roles, memory, gates, and artifact traces needed to inspect these conversion paths. A retrospective audit identifies eight high-confidence conversion events, with a median latency of one iteration and a maximum latency of three iterations. A recovered-failure registry further shows how five naturally occurring failure classes, including duplicate results, stale numbers, and unsupported statistics, were blocked, downgraded, or routed into later repair. These traces do not establish a comparative performance claim; they show that the proposed conversion units are recoverable from realistic autonomous-research workspaces. The SIBYL framework and system are available at https://github.com/Sibyl-Research-Team/AutoResearch-SibylSystem.

This work presents code to procedurally generate examples for the ARC training tasks. For each of the 400 tasks, an example generator following the transformation logic of the original examples was created. In effect, the assumed underlying distribution of examples for any given task was reverse engineered by implementing a means to sample from it. An attempt was made to cover an as large as reasonable space of possible examples for each task. That is, whenever the original examples of a given task may be limited in their diversity e.g. by having the dimensions of the grids, the set of symbols or number of objects constant or within tight bounds, even though the transformation does not require it, such constraints were lifted. Having access to not just a few examples per task, as the case for ARC, but instead very many, should enable a wide range of experiments that may be important stepping stones towards making leaps on the benchmark.

There is a strong association between the quality of the writing in a resume for new labor market entrants and whether those entrants are ultimately hired. We show that this relationship is, at least partially, causal: a field experiment in an online labor market was conducted with nearly half a million jobseekers in which a treated group received algorithmic writing assistance. Treated jobseekers experienced an 8% increase in the probability of getting hired. Contrary to concerns that the assistance is taking away a valuable signal, we find no evidence that employers were less satisfied. We present a model in which better writing is not a signal of ability but helps employers ascertain ability, which rationalizes our findings.

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

Conversational memory changes during use, so endpoint question answering alone cannot establish how a persistent state accumulates, ages, or incorporates revisions. We introduce LSREP, a Longitudinal State-Replay Evaluation Protocol combining ordered replay, explicit lifecycle schedules, repeated probes, evolving reference answers, and mechanism-fidelity checks. Its architectural case study is ICE v2, a local-first memory middleware with typed stores, retrieval fusion, and dynamic context budgets. The private, single-user instantiation contains 1,985 turns, 219 distinct probes, and 1,211 probe-checkpoint observations across 52 checkpoints. On three ordinary-density datasets, ICE v2 has a near-zero mean quality difference from vector-RAG while selecting 32% fewer fragments but using 6.6% more estimated prompt tokens. A fourth, dense dataset exposes catastrophic failures of the unbudgeted baseline. The fidelity audit limits attribution: procedural retrieval is defective, several mechanisms are unexercised, and graph utility is not established. In a complementary matched public diagnostic, ICE v2 loses decisively to pure vector-RAG on LongMemEval: 50.8% versus 72.8% in the evidence-only oracle and 43.0% versus 69.5% in full-S. Paired differences are -22.0 points (95% CI [-26.6, -17.4]) and -26.5 ([-31.3, -21.8]). Conservative abstention accompanies severe multi-session and temporal failures. ICE uses less context in this diagnostic, establishing a quality-cost trade-off rather than superior efficiency. Together, replay, fidelity auditing, and public endpoint testing expose distinct failure modes that neither architectural descriptions nor aggregate scores identify alone.

Reasoning abilities of LLMs have been a key focus in recent years. One challenging reasoning domain with interesting nuances is legal reasoning, which requires careful application of rules, and precedents while balancing deductive and analogical reasoning, and conflicts between rules. Although there have been a few works on using LLMs for legal reasoning, their focus has been on overall accuracy. In this paper, we dig deeper to do a step-by-step analysis and figure out where they commit errors. We use the college-level Multiple Choice Question-Answering (MCQA) task from the Civil Procedure dataset and propose a new error taxonomy derived from initial manual analysis of reasoning chains with respect to several LLMs, including two objective measures: soundness and correctness scores. We then develop an LLM-based automated evaluation framework to identify reasoning errors and evaluate the performance of LLMs. The computation of soundness and correctness on the dataset using the auto-evaluator framework reveals several interesting insights. Furthermore, we show that incorporating the error taxonomy as feedback in popular prompting techniques marginally increases LLM performance. Our work will also serve as an evaluation framework that can be used in detailed error analysis of reasoning chains for logic-intensive complex tasks.

Law changes over time. A court decides a case under the law in force on that day, and legal QA benchmarks grade answers against today's law. We checked 156,650 decisions of four Thai courts. Up to 67% of them cite law that has since been amended or repealed. We introduce NitiBench+, the sequel of our NitiBench, a Thai legal QA benchmark with 1,670 items across 17 domains, built from decisions of three courts. For each cited section it holds both the text in force on the decision date and the current text, and its retrieval corpus holds every dated version of every Thai statute section. Answers are graded on the Thai Bar Council rubric, the Bar-standard score, and on the overlap between the cited sections and the court's. The report has two parts. Part I measures the cost of the wrong text on 13 open-weight models. Reading the current text of amended law drops the Bar-standard score by 0.25 and missing repealed law drops it by 0.79. The penalty comes from rule changes, 0.45 on the 428 rule-changed items and none on the 331 wording-only items, and Citation F1 does not see it. The text in force is the fair setting. Part II benchmarks today's models on that setting. A public leaderboard ranks 26 models on a held-out test split of 500 items stratified by domain, with a validation split of the same shape released for public use, from memory alone, with the court's sections provided, and as a retrieval agent over the law in force, with the cost per item and the hallucinated citations. The best model scores 7.78 out of 10 and the best open-weight model 6.39. Without a search tool only five open-weight models recall any Thai law, and with it twenty of the 26 models gain and six lose. Leaderboard will take new models as they are released. Legal benchmarks must track dates, and on the right text today's models still leave a wide gap on Thai law.

Evaluating the quality of LLM-generated reasoning traces in expert domains (e.g., law) is essential for ensuring credibility and explainability, yet remains challenging due to the inherent complexity of such reasoning tasks. We introduce LEGIT (LEGal Issue Trees), a novel large-scale (24K instances) expert-level legal reasoning dataset with an emphasis on reasoning trace evaluation. We convert court judgments into hierarchical trees of opposing parties' arguments and the court's conclusions, which serve as rubrics for evaluating the issue coverage and correctness of the reasoning traces. We verify the reliability of these rubrics via human expert annotations and comparison with coarse, less informative rubrics. Using the LEGIT dataset, we show that (1) LLMs' legal reasoning ability is seriously affected by both legal issue coverage and correctness, and that (2) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and RL with rubrics bring complementary benefits for legal reasoning abilities, where RAG improves overall reasoning capability, whereas RL improves correctness albeit with reduced coverage.

An agent harness, the code that turns a model into an agent, writes its own record of each run, and that record is all a later reader gets when a run is disputed, investigated or audited. We call a record evidentiary when a reader who was not there can check it without trusting the writer. Across sixteen deployed frameworks, none writes one in full. Hearsay examines the record, not the task: five harnesses run fourteen tasks, three blinded LLM examiners and a human panel read the records, and every excerpt an examiner quotes is checked mechanically for who wrote it. First, the record lets a reader name the fault but not prove how the run went. Examiners name the right fault in 74 to 91% of 140 runs, but the fault can be proved only from two files the benchmark adds; for what happened in between, fewer than one citation in ten lands on anything the harness did not write, and the examiner with the fewest false alarms catches half of the entries we delete, rewrite or fabricate. Second, the remedy is a second author, not a stronger seal on the first. An append-only log of what passes between harness and model, kept outside the harness and read against the record in both directions, reports all 28 omissions and fabrications we made a harness commit as it ran, where a hash chain over the harness's own record passes all 28. Handed the log, examiners keep their fault verdicts but rest more of their citations on what the harness did not write. What makes a record evidence is who writes it, not what is captured.

Biological protocols are fundamental to reproducible and safe life science research. While LLMs excel on general tasks, their systematic evaluation on these highly specialized, accuracy-critical, and inherently procedural texts remains limited. In this work, we present BioProBench, the first large-scale, integrated multi-task benchmark for biological protocol understanding and reasoning. While limited benchmarks have touched upon specific aspects like protocol QA, BioProBench provides a comprehensive suite of five core tasks: Protocol Question Answering, Step Ordering, Error Correction, Protocol Generation, and Protocol Reasoning, enabling a holistic evaluation of LLMs on procedural biological texts. Built upon 27K original protocols, it yields nearly 556K high-quality structured instances. We evaluate 12 mainstream open/closed-source LLMs on BioProBench. Experimental results reveal that while top models preform well on surface understanding tasks, struggle significantly with deep reasoning and structured generation tasks like ordering and generation. Furthermore, model comparisons reveal diverse performance: certain open-source models approach closed-source levels on some tasks, yet bio-specific small models lag behind general LLMs, indicating limitations on complex procedural content. Overall, our findings underscore that procedural reasoning within biological protocols represents a significant challenge for current LLMs. BioProBench serves as a standardized framework to diagnose these specific limitations and guide the development of AI systems better equipped for safely automating complex scientific procedures. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/YuyangSunshine/bioprotocolbench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/GreatCaptainNemo/BioProBench.

Recent work has demonstrated the viability of using crowdsourcing as a tool for evaluating the truthfulness of public statements. Under certain conditions such as: (1) having a balanced set of workers with different backgrounds and cognitive abilities; (2) using an adequate set of mechanisms to control the quality of the collected data; and (3) using a coarse grained assessment scale, the crowd can provide reliable identification of fake news. However, fake news are a subtle matter: statements can be just biased ("cherrypicked"), imprecise, wrong, etc. and the unidimensional truth scale used in existing work cannot account for such differences. In this paper we propose a multidimensional notion of truthfulness and we ask the crowd workers to assess seven different dimensions of truthfulness selected based on existing literature: Correctness, Neutrality, Comprehensibility, Precision, Completeness, Speaker's Trustworthiness, and Informativeness. We deploy a set of quality control mechanisms to ensure that the thousands of assessments collected on 180 publicly available fact-checked statements distributed over two datasets are of adequate quality, including a custom search engine used by the crowd workers to find web pages supporting their truthfulness assessments. A comprehensive analysis of crowdsourced judgments shows that: (1) the crowdsourced assessments are reliable when compared to an expert-provided gold standard; (2) the proposed dimensions of truthfulness capture independent pieces of information; (3) the crowdsourcing task can be easily learned by the workers; and (4) the resulting assessments provide a useful basis for a more complete estimation of statement truthfulness.

Benchmark scores tell you what an agent got right; they do not tell you how it got there. In this work, we introduce methods for comparing agents procedurally in different contexts, where the model, tasks, and approaches vary. We compare ten agents and find that they are identifiable by their behavioral habits, which we define as fingerprints: a probe over these procedural signatures attributes an unseen trajectory to the correct agent at 85.7% accuracy, controlling for leakage across tasks. We develop procedural representations for agent problem-solving procedures with an emergent vocabulary induction technique that is meant to be maximally compressive to avoid surface-level variation while being expressive enough to unveil the quirks of the models' patterns. We apply our framework to the software engineering evaluation dataset SWE-Bench to study the structural distinctness of agent trajectories and find that behavior is most similar between models from similar release periods and those that are distilled from one another (e.g., a distilled student model and its teacher have a Jensen-Shannon divergence of 0.25, about half the distance between other model pairs). As more models saturate evaluations, we believe that it will be important to probe model behavior along more holistic dimensions than success rates alone. We introduce ProcGrep, a library for auditing and evaluating agents for how they approach tasks at a procedural level given their traces in a top-down fashion. We believe this work has a range of applications to help developers work with and program coding agents, such as task-aware model routing, agent monitoring, and finer-grained cost analysis.

This technical report analyzes the challenge of "hallucinations" (false information) in LLMs applied to law. It examines their causes, manifestations, and the effectiveness of the RAG mitigation strategy, highlighting its limitations and proposing holistic optimizations. The paper explores the ethical and regulatory implications, emphasizing human oversight as an irreplaceable role. It concludes that the solution lies not in incrementally improving generative models, but in adopting a "consultative" AI paradigm that prioritizes veracity and traceability, acting as a tool to amplify, not replace, professional judgment. -- Este informe t\'ecnico analiza el desaf\'io de las "alucinaciones" (informaci\'on falsa) en los LLMs aplicados al derecho. Se examinan sus causas, manifestaciones y la efectividad de la estrategia de mitigaci\'on RAG, exponiendo sus limitaciones y proponiendo optimizaciones hol\'isticas. Se exploran las implicaciones \'eticas y regulatorias, enfatizando la supervisi\'on humana como un rol insustituible. El documento concluye que la soluci\'on no reside en mejorar incrementalmente los modelos generativos, sino en adoptar un paradigma de IA "consultiva" que priorice la veracidad y la trazabilidad, actuando como una herramienta para amplificar, y no sustituir, el juicio profesional.

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

Rubric-based reinforcement learning (Rubric-RL) trains language models where no verifier exists. A judge checks each criterion of a rubric, and the verdicts are aggregated into a reward, most often by a weighted sum. We show that this additive aggregation is the weak point. Under a sum, criteria compensate for one another: a policy that misses the one decision that matters can buy the points back with advice nobody asked for. On clinical consultation, such a policy scores higher and answers worse. Rubric coverage rises while appropriateness on held-out physician criteria falls below the untrained model. The medical criteria are not to blame. Grouped so that they must hold together, the same criteria, unchanged to the word, recover a third of the loss; shorter answers recover almost none. We therefore propose Protocol-level Rubrics (ProRubric), which keeps what the criteria ask for and changes how they are aggregated. It groups a checklist into a few protocol-level dimensions. A dimension counts only when all of its criteria hold and its failure clause does not fire. The grouping is done once, offline, and leaves the optimizer unchanged. ProRubric raises appropriateness by 10.8 points without losing coverage and has the best seven-benchmark average at both scales. Reward validity is set not only by what a rubric verifies, but by how it aggregates. Code is available at https://github.com/Estrellajer/ProRubric

Statutory reasoning refers to the application of legislative provisions to a series of case facts described in natural language. We re-frame statutory reasoning as an analogy task, where each instance of the analogy task involves a combination of two instances of statutory reasoning. This increases the dataset size by two orders of magnitude, and introduces an element of interpretability. We show that this task is roughly as difficult to Natural Language Processing models as the original task. Finally, we come back to statutory reasoning, solving it with a combination of a retrieval mechanism and analogy models, and showing some progress on prior comparable work.

This paper presents our submission to the SemEval 2024 Task 5: The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure. We present two approaches to solving the task of legal answer validation, given an introduction to the case, a question and an answer candidate. Firstly, we fine-tuned pre-trained BERT-based models and found that models trained on domain knowledge perform better. Secondly, we performed few-shot prompting on GPT models and found that reformulating the answer validation task to be a multiple-choice QA task remarkably improves the performance of the model. Our best submission is a BERT-based model that achieved the 7th place out of 20.

The BITEM team entered both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 R2C2 task with a single agentic pipeline, in which a model searches, reads and records evidence over a movie corpus while an orchestrator holds the record and rules on what may be submitted. A claim is admitted only once an entailment cascade has checked it against the passage it cites, and an answer is released only once enough checked evidence stands behind it. Each question is run three or four times, every pass retrieving from a corpus stripped of what the earlier passes have already seen. The confidence filed with each answer is computed by the orchestrator from what the run leaves behind and is never asked of the model, which is offered no way to rate itself. The two retrieval runs placed 4th and 5th of 22, pooling the passes was worth 0.0709 nDCG@20, and the gain was largest on the multi-hop and post-processing-heavy questions, where the organisers rank the pooled run top of the field. Sixteen of the 25 answer runs were built on passages these two runs supplied, 12 of them filed by other teams. HMR rewards a system whose confidence is high where it answers right and low where it answers wrong. The pipeline reached an accuracy of 0.9219, 6th of 25, while the confidence filed with those answers gave an HMR of 0.4915, 13th. A few rules crafted over those same recorded signals, with no further model call and no further retrieval, raise that to an accuracy of 0.9375, 5th, and an HMR of 0.6985, 9th. Ranking on HMR alone can reward a system for answering wrongly with low confidence, so we propose accHMR, the accuracy multiplied by HMR, which reports the reward in proportion to the accuracy, and on which the revised rules would have scored 0.6549, 5th. For future work, fitting a model on the numbers the pipeline already produces, rather than writing such rules by hand, would be a real step forward.

As language models regularly make mistakes when solving math problems, automated identification of errors in the reasoning process becomes increasingly significant for their scalable oversight. In this paper, we introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning. It consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems. Each test case contains a step-by-step solution with error location annotated by human experts. Models are required to identify the earliest step that contains an error, or conclude that all steps are correct. We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models, where for the latter we prompt general language models to critique each solution step by step. We draw two main observations: (1) Existing PRMs typically fail to generalize to more challenging math problems beyond GSM8K and MATH. They underperform both critic models (i.e., prompted general language models) and our own trained PRM that is straightforwardly fine-tuned on the PRM800K dataset. (2) The best open-source model, QwQ-32B-Preview, has demonstrated the critique capability competitive with the proprietary model GPT-4o, despite that it still lags behind the reasoning-specialized o1-mini. We hope ProcessBench can foster future research in reasoning process assessment, paving the way toward scalable oversight of language models.

Autoformalisation (AF) systems map natural language reasoning steps into formal statements in a proof assistant such as Lean. We consider how to assess the faithfulness of these systems. Existing approaches require expensive human-annotated ground truth, or rely on LLM judges or embedding models, which come with limited guarantees of accuracy. In addition, these methods typically only consider inputs that are known to be correct, and therefore do not assess whether the AF translates incorrect inputs faithfully. To address these limitations, we propose a new benchmark for AF faithfulness that is cheap to apply, sound under weak assumptions, and assesses both positive and negative examples. Our method is based on automatically generating perturbed reasoning steps that are designed to be invalid, and then measuring validity preservation on unperturbed steps and invalidity preservation on perturbed steps. We apply our method to eight AF systems across four mathematical datasets, and observe pervasive sycophancy: many AFs "silently correct" invalid inputs into provable statements. The most validity-preserving fine-tuned AFs are also the most sycophantic, suggesting a tension between validity and invalidity preservation in current AF systems.

Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as "eliminating" (Casetext, 2023) or "avoid[ing]" hallucinations (Thomson Reuters, 2023), or guaranteeing "hallucination-free" legal citations (LexisNexis, 2023). Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law.

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

Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning, we introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. Straightforward application of machine reading models exhibits low out-of-the-box performance on our questions, whether or not they have been fine-tuned to the legal domain. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task. These experiments support a discussion of the challenges facing statutory reasoning moving forward, which we argue is an interesting real-world task that can motivate the development of models able to utilize prescriptive rules specified in natural language.

What does it mean for an algorithm to be biased? In U.S. law, unintentional bias is encoded via disparate impact, which occurs when a selection process has widely different outcomes for different groups, even as it appears to be neutral. This legal determination hinges on a definition of a protected class (ethnicity, gender, religious practice) and an explicit description of the process. When the process is implemented using computers, determining disparate impact (and hence bias) is harder. It might not be possible to disclose the process. In addition, even if the process is open, it might be hard to elucidate in a legal setting how the algorithm makes its decisions. Instead of requiring access to the algorithm, we propose making inferences based on the data the algorithm uses. We make four contributions to this problem. First, we link the legal notion of disparate impact to a measure of classification accuracy that while known, has received relatively little attention. Second, we propose a test for disparate impact based on analyzing the information leakage of the protected class from the other data attributes. Third, we describe methods by which data might be made unbiased. Finally, we present empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of our test for disparate impact and our approach for both masking bias and preserving relevant information in the data. Interestingly, our approach resembles some actual selection practices that have recently received legal scrutiny.

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

Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integrating and updating evidence across time and sources to form, revise and justify a patient's problem representation and a defensible plan. This structured narrative review maps three literatures: medical education assessment instruments, clinical LLM benchmarks published from 2023 onwards, and general-domain methods for evaluating long-form generation. We examine six dimensions: problem representation, temporal synthesis, differential and management reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, calibrated uncertainty, and reasoning faithfulness. Preprints are included and flagged. No single instrument covers all six dimensions. Problem representation and differential or management reasoning are reasonably covered, although reliability varies by instrument and setting. TIMER-Eval targets temporal synthesis, and ER-Reason assesses sequential diagnostic belief updating. Dedicated uncertainty and counterfactual evaluations are emerging, but their applicability to longitudinal free-text reasoning remains limited. Factual completeness is well theorised in general-domain evaluation, with early clinical evidence of important omissions. Faithfulness remains the weakest dimension, with one identified clinical causal-ablation study on multiple-choice questions. Existing tools should be combined through binary rubric items, separate completeness and correctness scores, case-specific importance weighting with non-compensable safety caps, temporal order-consistency checks, and chance-corrected reliability reporting. Further design work is needed for calibrated uncertainty, counterfactual reasoning and faithfulness over longitudinal free-text records. This review provides a design rationale, not a validated instrument.

Procedural planning aims to implement complex high-level goals by decomposition into sequential simpler low-level steps. Although procedural planning is a basic skill set for humans in daily life, it remains a challenge for large language models (LLMs) that lack a deep understanding of the cause-effect relations in procedures. Previous methods require manual exemplars to acquire procedural planning knowledge from LLMs in the zero-shot setting. However, such elicited pre-trained knowledge in LLMs induces spurious correlations between goals and steps, which impair the model generalization to unseen tasks. In contrast, this paper proposes a neuro-symbolic procedural PLANner (PLAN) that elicits procedural planning knowledge from the LLMs with commonsense-infused prompting. To mitigate spurious goal-step correlations, we use symbolic program executors on the latent procedural representations to formalize prompts from commonsense knowledge bases as a causal intervention toward the Structural Causal Model. Both automatic and human evaluations on WikiHow and RobotHow show the superiority of PLAN on procedural planning without further training or manual exemplars.

A patent must be deemed novel and non-obvious in order to be granted by the US Patent Office (USPTO). If it is not, a US patent examiner will cite the prior work, or prior art, that invalidates the novelty and issue a non-final rejection. Predicting what claims of the invention should change given the prior art is an essential and crucial step in securing invention rights, yet has not been studied before as a learnable task. In this work we introduce the PatentEdits dataset, which contains 105K examples of successful revisions that overcome objections to novelty. We design algorithms to label edits sentence by sentence, then establish how well these edits can be predicted with large language models (LLMs). We demonstrate that evaluating textual entailment between cited references and draft sentences is especially effective in predicting which inventive claims remained unchanged or are novel in relation to prior art.

Skill assessment in procedural videos is crucial for the objective evaluation of human performance in settings such as manufacturing and procedural daily tasks. Current research on skill assessment has predominantly focused on sports and lacks large-scale datasets for complex procedural activities. Existing studies typically involve only a limited number of actions, focus on either pairwise assessments (e.g., A is better than B) or on binary labels (e.g., good execution vs needs improvement). In response to these shortcomings, we introduce ProSkill, the first benchmark dataset for action-level skill assessment in procedural tasks. ProSkill provides absolute skill assessment annotations, along with pairwise ones. This is enabled by a novel and scalable annotation protocol that allows for the creation of an absolute skill assessment ranking starting from pairwise assessments. This protocol leverages a Swiss Tournament scheme for efficient pairwise comparisons, which are then aggregated into consistent, continuous global scores using an ELO-based rating system. We use our dataset to benchmark the main state-of-the-art skill assessment algorithms, including both ranking-based and pairwise paradigms. The suboptimal results achieved by the current state-of-the-art highlight the challenges and thus the value of ProSkill in the context of skill assessment for procedural videos. All data and code are available at https://fpv-iplab.github.io/ProSkill/

We introduce DoGBENCH (Documentation Generation Benchmark), to our knowledge, the first benchmark for generating and maintaining real user-facing software documentation. It asks whether an agent can produce documentation that experienced technical writers would accept in review. The benchmark contains 292 items from open source projects, including Helm, PostHog, and Mautic. Each item gives the agent a pre-change repository and a trigger, such as a code pull request or a reported documentation gap. The agent must first decide whether the documentation needs an update. For items that need one, the agent must produce an acceptable patch in one attempt. For items that do not need updates, the agent must abstain. Task-specific rubrics, validated with project maintainers, score each patch on accuracy, completeness, reader guidance, placement, and repository conventions. The composite score combines patch quality with correct abstention, and a score of 100 means an agent meets every requirement for the task. Scores should not be interpreted as a percentage of an expert's capability. We evaluated seven agents. The highest-scoring agent reached 47.3 out of 100 on the 117-item held-out split. In a separate audit of 1,267 patches, the most common failure modes were task-completion gaps (45.5%), technical inaccuracies (36.6%), and incomplete conceptual or reference coverage (32.5%). Analysis of the corresponding trajectories identified three key patterns associated with these failures: (1) describing interfaces without examining how readers use them (36.0%), (2) missing decisive evidence and filling the gaps with plausible assumptions (33.1%), and (3) stopping after finding the first plausible documentation surface and leaving other affected pages stale (30.1%).

Eliciting reasoning capabilities from language models (LMs) is a critical direction on the path towards building intelligent systems. Most recent studies dedicated to reasoning focus on out-of-distribution performance on procedurally-generated synthetic benchmarks, bespoke-built to evaluate specific skills only. This trend makes results hard to transfer across publications, slowing down progress. Three years ago, a similar issue was identified and rectified in the field of neural algorithmic reasoning, with the advent of the CLRS benchmark. CLRS is a dataset generator comprising graph execution traces of classical algorithms from the Introduction to Algorithms textbook. Inspired by this, we propose CLRS-Text -- a textual version of these algorithmic traces. Out of the box, CLRS-Text is capable of procedurally generating trace data for thirty diverse, challenging algorithmic tasks across any desirable input distribution, while offering a standard pipeline in which any additional algorithmic tasks may be created in the benchmark. We fine-tune and evaluate various LMs as generalist executors on this benchmark, validating prior work and revealing a novel, interesting challenge for the LM reasoning community. Our code is available at https://github.com/google-deepmind/clrs/tree/master/clrs/_src/clrs_text.