Daily Papers

Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs. In this work, we identify verification, the ability to determine the correctness of a solution, as a new scaling axis. To unlock this and demonstrate its effectiveness, we introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework that provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training. Unlike standard LM judges that prompt LLMs to produce discrete scores for candidate solutions, LLM-as-a-Verifier computes the expectation over the distribution of scoring token logits to generate continuous scores. This probabilistic formulation enables verification to scale along multiple dimensions: (1) score granularity, (2) repeated evaluation, and (3) criteria decomposition. In particular, we show that scaling the scoring granularity leads to better separation between positive and negative solutions, resulting in more calibrated comparisons. Moreover, scaling repeated evaluation and criteria decomposition consistently lead to additional gains in verification accuracy through variance and complexity reduction. We further introduce a cost-efficient ranking algorithm for selecting the best solution among candidates using the verifier's continuous scores. LLM-as-a-Verifier achieves state-of-the-art performance on Terminal-Bench V2 (86.5%), SWE-Bench Verified (78.2%), RoboRewardBench (87.4%), and MedAgentBench (73.3%). Beyond verification, the fine-grained signals from LLM-as-a-Verifier can also serve as a proxy for estimating task progress. We build an extension for Claude Code, enabling developers to monitor and improve their own agentic systems. Finally, we show that LLM-as-a-Verifier can provide dense feedback for RL, improving the sample efficiency of SAC and GRPO on robotics and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have improved their performance on coding benchmarks. However, improvement is plateauing due to the exhaustion of readily available high-quality data. Prior work has shown the potential of synthetic self-instruct data, but naively training on a model's own outputs can cause error accumulation, especially in coding tasks, where generalization may collapse due to overly simple or erroneous training data, highlighting the need for rigorous quality checks on synthetic data. In this work, we explore an effective approach whereby the model itself verifies the correctness of its own data. We thus propose Sol-Ver, a self-play solver-verifier framework that jointly improves a single model's code and test generation capacity. By iteratively refining code (LLM-as-a-solver) and tests (LLM-as-a-verifier) together, we boost both capabilities without relying on human annotations or larger teacher models. Experiments with the Llama 3.1 8B model demonstrate substantial performance enhancements, achieving average relative improvements of 19.63% in code generation and 17.49% in test generation on MBPP and LiveCodeBench.

Voice agents in production must handle several requests, background speech, and customers who lose patience. We introduce VAmoS Energy, a benchmark that combines these challenges in 100 calls about utility billing and payment assistance. Each caller makes two to four requests. The agent has sixteen tools backed by a stateful Stripe billing twin and the Apache Fineract loan engine, with account access blocked until caller verification succeeds. The tasks use public household electricity data and a policy based on Pennsylvania's residential billing rules. An LLM-as-a-verifier checks the agent's actions and spoken figures against explicit requirements. On a calibration run, it agrees with a code verifier on 99.1% of checks. Across fourteen voice stacks and three repeats per task, completion ranges from 17.3% to 44.7%. Grok Voice leads, and Gemini 3.8 Live and GPT-Live follow at about the same cost per call. Background television reduces pooled completion from 38.7% to 8.6%. The simulated caller often accepts an incorrect result because it hears the agent's words but cannot inspect its actions. These findings show why voice agents need evaluation across the whole call, including what they say, what they change, and how they handle competing speech.

Agentic reinforcement learning (RL) holds great promise for the development of autonomous agents under complex GUI tasks, but its scalability remains severely hampered by the verification of task completion. Existing task verification is treated as a passive, post-hoc process: a verifier (i.e., rule-based scoring script, reward or critic model, and LLM-as-a-Judge) analyzes the agent's entire interaction trajectory to determine if the agent succeeds. Such processing of verbose context that contains irrelevant, noisy history poses challenges to the verification protocols and therefore leads to prohibitive cost and low reliability. To overcome this bottleneck, we propose SmartSnap, a paradigm shift from this passive, post-hoc verification to proactive, in-situ self-verification by the agent itself. We introduce the Self-Verifying Agent, a new type of agent designed with dual missions: to not only complete a task but also to prove its accomplishment with curated snapshot evidences. Guided by our proposed 3C Principles (Completeness, Conciseness, and Creativity), the agent leverages its accessibility to the online environment to perform self-verification on a minimal, decisive set of snapshots. Such evidences are provided as the sole materials for a general LLM-as-a-Judge verifier to determine their validity and relevance. Experiments on mobile tasks across model families and scales demonstrate that our SmartSnap paradigm allows training LLM-driven agents in a scalable manner, bringing performance gains up to 26.08% and 16.66% respectively to 8B and 30B models. The synergizing between solution finding and evidence seeking facilitates the cultivation of efficient, self-verifying agents with competitive performance against DeepSeek V3.1 and Qwen3-235B-A22B.

Process Reward Models (PRMs) are a powerful mechanism for steering large language model reasoning by providing fine-grained, step-level supervision. However, this effectiveness comes at a significant cost: PRMs require expert annotations for every reasoning step, making them costly and difficult to scale. Here, we propose a method for training unsupervised PRMs (uPRM) that requires no human supervision, neither at the level of step-by-step annotations nor through ground-truth verification of final answers. The key idea behind our approach is to define a scoring function, derived from LLM next-token probabilities, that jointly assesses candidate positions of first erroneous steps across a batch of reasoning trajectories. We demonstrate the effectiveness of uPRM across diverse scenarios: (i) uPRM achieves up to 15% absolute accuracy improvements over the LLM-as-a-Judge in identifying first erroneous steps on the ProcessBench dataset; (ii) as a verifier for test-time scaling, uPRM performs comparably to supervised PRMs and outperforms the majority voting baseline by up to 6.9%, and (iii) when used as a reward signal in reinforcement learning, uPRM enables more robust policy optimization throughout training compared to a supervised PRM trained using ground-truth labels. Overall, our results open a path toward scalable reward modeling for complex reasoning tasks.

The recent paradigm shift towards training large language models (LLMs) using DeepSeek-R1-Zero-style reinforcement learning (RL) on verifiable rewards has led to impressive advancements in code and mathematical reasoning. However, this methodology is limited to tasks where rule-based answer verification is possible and does not naturally extend to real-world domains such as chemistry, healthcare, engineering, law, biology, business, and economics. Current practical workarounds use an additional LLM as a model-based verifier; however, this introduces issues such as reliance on a strong verifier LLM, susceptibility to reward hacking, and the practical burden of maintaining the verifier model in memory during training. To address this and extend DeepSeek-R1-Zero-style training to general reasoning domains, we propose a verifier-free method (VeriFree) that bypasses answer verification and instead uses RL to directly maximize the probability of generating the reference answer. We compare VeriFree with verifier-based methods and demonstrate that, in addition to its significant practical benefits and reduced compute requirements, VeriFree matches and even surpasses verifier-based methods on extensive evaluations across MMLU-Pro, GPQA, SuperGPQA, and math-related benchmarks. Moreover, we provide insights into this method from multiple perspectives: as an elegant integration of training both the policy and implicit verifier in a unified model, and as a variational optimization approach. Code is available at https://github.com/sail-sg/VeriFree.

While Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is effective for deterministically checkable tasks, many vision-language tasks are partially verifiable, demanding multi-criteria supervision (e.g., perceptual details, reasoning steps, and constraints). Rubrics provide a natural interface for this fine-grained supervision, but their effectiveness depends on the execution accuracy during online RL. We propose Reinforcement Learning with Robust Rubric Rewards (RLR^3), extending RLVR from task-level verification to criterion-level verification. RLR^3 routes instance-specific rubrics through two execution paths: an LLM-as-an-extractor paired with a deterministic verifier, or an LLM-as-a-Judge for non-verifiable criteria. To ensure faithful scoring, RLR^3 introduce a minimal exposure strategy that masks ground truths from extractors and images from judges. Furthermore, RLR^3 employs hierarchical aggregation to prioritize essential criteria over additional criteria, and mitigates score saturation within rollout groups. Evaluated on Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B across 15 benchmarks, RLR^3 consistently outperforms RLVR, yielding a 4.7-point improvement over the base model and exceeding the official instruct-to-thinking model gap. Controlled audits confirm our deterministic verification and minimal exposure significantly reduce exploitable false positives.

Prevalent reinforcement learning~(RL) methods for fine-tuning LLM reasoners, such as GRPO or Leave-one-out PPO, abandon the learned value function in favor of empirically estimated returns. This hinders test-time compute scaling that relies on using the value-function for verification. In this work, we propose RL^V that augments any ``value-free'' RL method by jointly training the LLM as both a reasoner and a generative verifier using RL-generated data, adding verification capabilities without significant overhead. Empirically, RL^V boosts MATH accuracy by over 20\% with parallel sampling and enables 8-32times efficient test-time compute scaling compared to the base RL method. RL^V also exhibits strong generalization capabilities for both easy-to-hard and out-of-domain tasks. Furthermore, RL^V achieves 1.2-1.6times higher performance when jointly scaling parallel and sequential test-time compute with a long reasoning R1 model.

The high computational and memory requirements of generative large language models (LLMs) make it challenging to serve them quickly and cheaply. This paper introduces SpecInfer, an LLM serving system that accelerates generative LLM inference with speculative inference and token tree verification. A key insight behind SpecInfer is to combine various collectively boost-tuned small language models to jointly predict the LLM's outputs; the predictions are organized as a token tree, whose nodes each represent a candidate token sequence. The correctness of all candidate token sequences represented by a token tree is verified by the LLM in parallel using a novel tree-based parallel decoding mechanism. SpecInfer uses an LLM as a token tree verifier instead of an incremental decoder, which significantly reduces the end-to-end latency and computational requirement for serving generative LLMs while provably preserving model quality.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently emerged as a compelling approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), where an LLM generator serves as a policy guided by a verifier (reward model). However, current RL post-training methods for LLMs typically use verifiers that are fixed (rule-based or frozen pretrained) or trained discriminatively via supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Such designs are susceptible to reward hacking and generalize poorly beyond their training distributions. To overcome these limitations, we propose Tango, a novel framework that uses RL to concurrently train both an LLM generator and a verifier in an interleaved manner. A central innovation of Tango is its generative, process-level LLM verifier, which is trained via RL and co-evolves with the generator. Importantly, the verifier is trained solely based on outcome-level verification correctness rewards without requiring explicit process-level annotations. This generative RL-trained verifier exhibits improved robustness and superior generalization compared to deterministic or SFT-trained verifiers, fostering effective mutual reinforcement with the generator. Extensive experiments demonstrate that both components of Tango achieve state-of-the-art results among 7B/8B-scale models: the generator attains best-in-class performance across five competition-level math benchmarks and four challenging out-of-domain reasoning tasks, while the verifier leads on the ProcessBench dataset. Remarkably, both components exhibit particularly substantial improvements on the most difficult mathematical reasoning problems. Code is at: https://github.com/kaiwenzha/rl-tango.

Retrieval-augmented generation asks one question at volume: does this evidence support this claim? The answer is one bit, yet most pipelines obtain it from a text generator and pay generation prices for the prose wrapped around it. We compare a non-generative decision model, which returns a typed value from a declared enumeration together with a native probability and no text, against a frontier LLM configured as an engineer would deploy it for binary classification. Both answer the same 495 human-labelled claims from LLM-AggreFact, so every comparison is within-item. We report three things. First, the two systems are statistically indistinguishable on the metric this task is conventionally scored by, a paired difference of -0.56 points, Jev minus Astra, at a 187-fold cost difference. Second, that tie carries almost no information about deployment: the systems disagree on 15.2% of claims, and the cheaper one admits 23.2% of the claims annotators marked unsupported against the frontier model's 14.1%. A component whose job is to catch unsupported claims should be judged on that rate, and the conventional headline hides it. Third, because the errors differ they compose: routing the claims the cheap model is confident about and escalating the rest reaches 74.10 at USD 2.92 per thousand claims against 73.83 at USD 8.93, with the threshold chosen out of fold. But a matched random-escalation control at in-sample thresholds, spending the same budget by coin flip, does as well, so what buys the saving is the escalation share and not the probability that picks what to escalate. Measured against the cheap model it is built from, the cascade costs 61-fold more for 0.83 points, 95% CI [-3.36, 4.86], and it is the more permissive guard of the two. Equal accuracy conceals unequal errors. All predictions, prompts, pricing and code are released.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, yet they still struggle to reliably verify the correctness of their own outputs. Existing solutions to this verification challenge often depend on separate verifier models or require multi-stage self-correction training pipelines, which limit scalability. In this paper, we propose Policy as Generative Verifier (PAG), a simple and effective framework that empowers LLMs to self-correct by alternating between policy and verifier roles within a unified multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm. Distinct from prior approaches that always generate a second attempt regardless of model confidence, PAG introduces a selective revision mechanism: the model revises its answer only when its own generative verification step detects an error. This verify-then-revise workflow not only alleviates model collapse but also jointly enhances both reasoning and verification abilities. Extensive experiments across diverse reasoning benchmarks highlight PAG's dual advancements: as a policy, it enhances direct generation and self-correction accuracy; as a verifier, its self-verification outperforms self-consistency.

Verifier-based selection improves LLM performance by generating multiple candidate solutions and using a verifier to select the most promising one. However, existing methods typically treat verification only as a ranking step and discard its feedback once a fixed candidate pool has been evaluated. In this paper, we ask whether verification can also improve the candidate set itself. To this end, we introduce LLM-as-an-Improver and propose Verify--Repair--Reselect (VRR), which uses verification feedback to generate and reselect improved candidates. VRR retains the initial winner while conditionally generating three complementary alternatives: repaired versions of the winner and runner-up, and a solution based on a new approach. It filters invalid and duplicate candidates using only inference-time information and then reselects the final answer under the original evaluation criteria. Across diverse models and code-generation and reasoning benchmarks, VRR improves over fixed-pool verifier-based selection in many settings and can recover correct solutions even when all candidates in the initial pool are incorrect. These results highlight a broader role for LLMs as improvers: verification feedback can not only select among existing solutions but also construct stronger candidates beyond the initial pool.

As reinforcement learning continues to scale the training of large language model-based agents, reliably verifying agent behaviors in complex environments has become increasingly challenging. Existing approaches rely on rule-based verifiers or LLM-as-a-Judge models, which struggle to generalize beyond narrow domains. Agent-as-a-Judge addresses this limitation by actively interacting with environments and tools to acquire verifiable evidence, yet its capabilities remain underexplored. We introduce a benchmark AJ-Bench to systematically evaluate Agent-as-a-Judge across three domains-search, data systems, and graphical user interfaces-comprising 155 tasks and 516 annotated trajectories. The benchmark comprehensively assesses judge agents' abilities in information acquisition, state verification, and process verification. Experiments demonstrate consistent performance gains over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, while also revealing substantial open challenges in agent-based verification. Our data and code are available at https://aj-bench.github.io/.

Standard LLM benchmarks evaluate the assistant turn: the model generates a response to an input, a verifier scores correctness, and the analysis ends. This paradigm leaves unmeasured whether the LLM encodes any awareness of what follows the assistant response. We propose user-turn generation as a probe of this gap: given a conversation context of user query and assistant response, we let a model generate under the user role. If the model's weights encode interaction awareness, the generated user turn will be a grounded follow-up that reacts to the preceding context. Through experiments across 11 open-weight LLMs (Qwen3.5, gpt-oss, GLM) and 5 datasets (math reasoning, instruction following, conversation), we show that interaction awareness is decoupled from task accuracy. In particular, within the Qwen3.5 family, GSM8K accuracy scales from 41% (0.8B) to 96.8% (397B-A17B), yet genuine follow-up rates under deterministic generation remain near zero. In contrast, higher temperature sampling reveals interaction awareness is latent with follow up rates reaching 22%. Controlled perturbations validate that the proposed probe measures a real property of the model, and collaboration-oriented post-training on Qwen3.5-2B demonstrates an increase in follow-up rates. Our results show that user-turn generation captures a dimension of LLM behavior, interaction awareness, that is unexplored and invisible with current assistant-only benchmarks.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable general reasoning capabilities. However, systematically evaluating and enhancing these reasoning capabilities is challenging due to the lack of controllable and scalable tools for fine-grained analysis. Existing benchmarks and datasets often lack the necessary variable control for multi-dimensional, systematic analysis and training, or have narrow problem types and formats. To address these limitations, we introduce SATQuest, a systematic verifier designed to evaluate and enhance logical reasoning in LLMs by generating diverse, Satisfiability-based logical reasoning problems directly from Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) instances. SATQuest structures these problems along three orthogonal dimensions: instance scale, problem type, and question format, employing randomized, SAT-based problem generation and objective answer verification via PySAT. This design mitigates memorization issues, allows for nuanced insights into reasoning performance, and enables effective reinforcement fine-tuning. Our extensive evaluation of various LLMs using SATQuest identified significant limitations in their logical reasoning, particularly in generalizing beyond familiar mathematical formats. Furthermore, we show that reinforcement fine-tuning with SATQuest rewards substantially improves targeted task performance and generalizes to more complex instances, while highlighting remaining challenges in cross-format adaptation. Through these demonstrations, we showcase SATQuest's potential as a foundational tool and a valuable starting point for advancing LLM logical reasoning.

Verifiers or reward models are often used to enhance the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). A common approach is the Best-of-N method, where N candidate solutions generated by the LLM are ranked by a verifier, and the best one is selected. While LLM-based verifiers are typically trained as discriminative classifiers to score solutions, they do not utilize the text generation capabilities of pretrained LLMs. To overcome this limitation, we instead propose training verifiers using the ubiquitous next-token prediction objective, jointly on verification and solution generation. Compared to standard verifiers, such generative verifiers (GenRM) can benefit from several advantages of LLMs: they integrate seamlessly with instruction tuning, enable chain-of-thought reasoning, and can utilize additional inference-time compute via majority voting for better verification. We demonstrate that when using Gemma-based verifiers on algorithmic and grade-school math reasoning tasks, GenRM outperforms discriminative verifiers and LLM-as-a-Judge, showing a 16-64% improvement in the percentage of problems solved with Best-of-N. Furthermore, we show that GenRM scales favorably across dataset size, model capacity, and inference-time compute.

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.

Model signing authenticates the full-precision weights W an LLM is released with, yet users run a quantized artifact Q whose producing transformation is not uniquely determined under current disclosure. We separate the non-environment inputs from the execution environment E and measure a quantity that, to our knowledge, has not been measured before: the Independent Verifiability Rate (IVR), the fraction of a popularity-sampled GGUF ecosystem that a third party can re-derive bit-for-bit. Across the 200 most-downloaded Hugging Face GGUF repositories (198 in scope), no artifact or model card records the build environment, so under a recorded-inputs protocol the IVR is 0/198. Yet the artifacts are not irreproducible. On four in-sample repositories that disclose their inputs, the card's information alone reproduces no Q4_K_M file, but two coordinates the card omits - the build's floating-point-contraction setting and, for hybrid models, the per-tensor quantization recipe - re-derive 7/8 target-quant files bit-for-bit on x86 (5/8 on arm64); the fp16 re-derives from the provider's checkpoint, but the calibration imatrix must be shipped and hash-bound, since recomputing it did not match. An older release additionally pins the instruction set and did not re-derive. Reproducing the divergence reported with llama.cpp PR #25353, we show that E is a necessary coordinate and that one compiler setting yields a unique output across the tested platforms at negligible quality cost (+0.06% perplexity). As a security characterization, benign floating-point non-determinism separates from uniformly placed nibble-flip tampering above a detection floor that grows with the environments a verifier must allow, but a targeted embedding edit evades the statistic, so the proposed protocol rests on exact re-derivation; adversarial-fp16 attacks lie outside it. We release the audit data and a re-runnable harness.

Hallucination remains a critical bottleneck for large language models (LLMs), undermining their reliability in real-world applications, especially in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. While existing hallucination detection methods employ LLM-as-a-judge to verify LLM outputs against retrieved evidence, they suffer from inherent confirmation bias, where the verifier inadvertently reproduces the errors of the original generation. To address this, we introduce Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for Hallucination (MARCH), a framework that enforces rigorous factual alignment by leveraging deliberate information asymmetry. MARCH orchestrates a collaborative pipeline of three specialized agents: a Solver, a Proposer, and a Checker. The Solver generates an initial RAG response, which the Proposer decomposes into claim-level verifiable atomic propositions. Crucially, the Checker validates these propositions against retrieved evidence in isolation, deprived of the Solver's original output. This well-crafted information asymmetry scheme breaks the cycle of self-confirmation bias. By training this pipeline with multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), we enable the agents to co-evolve and optimize factual adherence. Extensive experiments across hallucination benchmarks demonstrate that MARCH substantially reduces hallucination rates. Notably, an 8B-parameter LLM equipped with MARCH achieves performance competitive with powerful closed-source models. MARCH paves a scalable path for factual self-improvement of LLMs through co-evolution. The code is at https://github.com/Qwen-Applications/MARCH.

Fact verification is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM applications. In this study, we evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, including frontier LLMs and open-weight reasoning LLMs, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks. We share three findings intended to guide future development of more robust fact verifiers. First, we highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets, demonstrating that approximately 16\% of ambiguous or incorrectly labeled data substantially influences model rankings. Neglecting this issue may result in misleading conclusions during comparative evaluations, and we suggest using a systematic pipeline utilizing LLM-as-a-judge to help identify these issues at scale. Second, we discover that frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance. We therefore recommend future studies include comparisons with these simple yet highly effective baselines. Lastly, despite their effectiveness, frontier LLMs incur substantial costs, motivating the development of small, fine-tuned fact verifiers. We show that these small models still have room for improvement, particularly on instances that require complex reasoning. Encouragingly, we demonstrate that augmenting training with synthetic multi-hop reasoning data significantly enhances their capabilities in such instances. We release our code, model, and dataset at https://github.com/just1nseo/verifying-the-verifiers

Building generalist embodied agents capable of solving complex real-world tasks remains a fundamental challenge in AI. Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of such agents through strong vision-language knowledge and chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet remain brittle when faced with challenging out-of-distribution scenarios. To address this, we propose Verifier-Guided Action Selection (VegAS), a test-time framework designed to improve the robustness of MLLM-based embodied agents through an explicit verification step. At inference time, rather than committing to a single decoded action, VeGAS samples an ensemble of candidate actions and uses a generative verifier to identify the most reliable choice, without modifying the underlying policy. Crucially, we find that using an MLLM off-the-shelf as a verifier yields no improvement, motivating our LLM-driven data synthesis strategy, which automatically constructs a diverse curriculum of failure cases to expose the verifier to a rich distribution of potential errors at training time. Across embodied reasoning benchmarks spanning the Habitat and ALFRED environments, VeGAS consistently improves generalization, achieving up to a 36% relative performance gain over strong CoT baselines on the most challenging multi-object, long-horizon tasks.

Step-by-step verifiers -- also known as process reward models (PRMs) -- are a key ingredient for test-time scaling. PRMs require step-level supervision, making them expensive to train. This work aims to build data-efficient PRMs as verbalized step-wise reward models that verify every step in the solution by generating a verification chain-of-thought (CoT). We propose ThinkPRM, a long CoT verifier fine-tuned on orders of magnitude fewer process labels than those required by discriminative PRMs. Our approach capitalizes on the inherent reasoning abilities of long CoT models, and outperforms LLM-as-a-Judge and discriminative verifiers -- using only 1% of the process labels in PRM800K -- across several challenging benchmarks. Specifically, ThinkPRM beats the baselines on ProcessBench, MATH-500, and AIME '24 under best-of-N selection and reward-guided search. In an out-of-domain evaluation on a subset of GPQA-Diamond and LiveCodeBench, our PRM surpasses discriminative verifiers trained on the full PRM800K by 8% and 4.5%, respectively. Lastly, under the same token budget, ThinkPRM scales up verification compute more effectively compared to LLM-as-a-Judge, outperforming it by 7.2% on a subset of ProcessBench. Our work highlights the value of generative, long CoT PRMs that can scale test-time compute for verification while requiring minimal supervision for training. Our code, data, and models will be released at https://github.com/mukhal/thinkprm.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can inadvertently reflect societal biases present in their training data, leading to harmful or prejudiced outputs. In the Indian context, our empirical evaluations across a suite of models reveal that biases around caste and religion are particularly salient. Yet, most existing mitigation strategies are Western-centric and fail to address these local nuances. We propose AMBEDKAR, a framework inspired by the egalitarian vision of Dr B. R. Ambedkar, architect of the Indian Constitution, to guide LLM outputs toward fairness, neutrality, and inclusion in line with Articles 14 to 17. Our approach introduces a Constitution-Aware Decoding Layer, guided by the AI Constitution of India and applied only at inference time, without any parameter updates to the base model. We incorporate a speculative decoding algorithm that proactively reduces casteist and communal bias during generation. This mitigation layer operates directly within the decoding process, avoiding changes to model internals and lowering the computational and infrastructural costs associated with retraining. We reinterpret speculative decoding not merely as an efficiency tool but as a mechanism for fairness. In this framework, a Small Language Model (SLM) acts as a potentially biased generator, while a constitutionally guided Large Language Model (LLM) serves as the verifier. Rather than accelerating generation, the LLM enforces bias-robust trajectories in the SLM outputs. This inversion of roles gives rise to a fairness-by-speculation paradigm. Our approach yields an absolute reduction of bias up to 26.41 percent compared to baseline. Our source code, datasets, and results are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AMBEDKAR-983B/

Despite their success in many natural language tasks, solving math problems remains a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs). A large gap exists between LLMs' pass-at-one and pass-at-N performance in solving math problems, suggesting LLMs might be close to finding correct solutions, motivating our exploration of fine-tuning methods to unlock LLMs' performance. Using the challenging MATH dataset, we investigate three fine-tuning strategies: (1) solution fine-tuning, where we fine-tune to generate a detailed solution for a given math problem; (2) solution-cluster re-ranking, where the LLM is fine-tuned as a solution verifier/evaluator to choose among generated candidate solution clusters; (3) multi-task sequential fine-tuning, which integrates both solution generation and evaluation tasks together efficiently to enhance the LLM performance. With these methods, we present a thorough empirical study on a series of PaLM 2 models and find: (1) The quality and style of the step-by-step solutions used for fine-tuning can make a significant impact on the model performance; (2) While solution re-ranking and majority voting are both effective for improving the model performance when used separately, they can also be used together for an even greater performance boost; (3) Multi-task fine-tuning that sequentially separates the solution generation and evaluation tasks can offer improved performance compared with the solution fine-tuning baseline. Guided by these insights, we design a fine-tuning recipe that yields approximately 58.8% accuracy on the MATH dataset with fine-tuned PaLM 2-L models, an 11.2% accuracy improvement over the few-shot performance of pre-trained PaLM 2-L model with majority voting.

One way to increase confidence in the outputs of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to support them with reasoning that is clear and easy to check -- a property we call legibility. We study legibility in the context of solving grade-school math problems and show that optimizing chain-of-thought solutions only for answer correctness can make them less legible. To mitigate the loss in legibility, we propose a training algorithm inspired by Prover-Verifier Game from Anil et al. (2021). Our algorithm iteratively trains small verifiers to predict solution correctness, "helpful" provers to produce correct solutions that the verifier accepts, and "sneaky" provers to produce incorrect solutions that fool the verifier. We find that the helpful prover's accuracy and the verifier's robustness to adversarial attacks increase over the course of training. Furthermore, we show that legibility training transfers to time-constrained humans tasked with verifying solution correctness. Over course of LLM training human accuracy increases when checking the helpful prover's solutions, and decreases when checking the sneaky prover's solutions. Hence, training for checkability by small verifiers is a plausible technique for increasing output legibility. Our results suggest legibility training against small verifiers as a practical avenue for increasing legibility of large LLMs to humans, and thus could help with alignment of superhuman models.

LLM agents handle user requests on behalf of organizations through tool calls and must follow the company policies stated in their system prompts. Prior work approaches this as a safeguarding problem -- external checks that block non-compliant agent actions. We argue that policy adherence is a broader problem: real workflows unfold across many turns, require explicit user confirmation and prerequisite reads, and hinge on the content of the dialogue rather than on any single argument value. Meeting this bar requires (i) full conversation context, (ii) self-reasoning over the policy and the current dialogue, and (iii) conversation-specific remediation that guides the agent's next turn -- three capabilities that prior safeguard work has often underestimated. We introduce POLICYGUARD, a sub-agent verifier that shares the agent's view of the dialogue, reasons over the policy in context, and provides actionable feedback for the agent's next turn. On tau^2-BENCH airline across three vendors (GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro) with four trials per setting, POLICYGUARD improves PASS4 by +12.0 / +6.0 / +12.0 pp. Per-call analyses show POLICYGUARD achieves higher policy-violation recall while blocking roughly half as often as argument-level guards.

Serial verification gates are a core reliability primitive in LLM harnesses: a candidate answer is returned only if k verifier calls all accept it. Under conditionally independent gates, the recent Odds Law (arXiv:2606.15712) shows that posterior log-odds grow linearly in k, so failure decays exponentially, and states that "a tight theory of partially correlated verifier cascades remains open." This note gives a minimal such theory. Modeling the per-instance false-accept rate on the generator's own errors as a latent variable αsim G (de Finetti), the exact cascade posterior is ell_k = ell_0 - ln m_k, with m_k the k-th moment of G. Then: (i) ell_k is concave in k for every non-degenerate G -- the Odds Law is its tangent at the first gate and an upper bound; (ii) for Beta(a,b) latents, failure decays polynomially, 1-r_k asymp k^{-b}, with correlation parameter ρ_v = 1/(a+b+1); (iii) a blind-spot atom of mass 1-π at α=1 caps the evidence extractable from any number of gates at -ln(1-π) nats, so reliability saturates below 1; (iv) letting the true-accept rate also vary (βsim H) yields a trichotomy -- gates eventually always help, plateau, or actively harm -- decided by the upper-tail exponents of G and H, with closed-form crossover k^dagger. The mechanism is survivorship: errors surviving gates are the high-α ones. The theory is measurable: R repeated verdicts per instance identify the first R moments of G, so two verdicts identify ρ_v; beta-binomial likelihood and NPMLE recover the reliability curve and the ill-posed ceiling. In synthetic tests, independence-based extrapolation underestimates failure by 20x at k=5 and ~3000x at k=10; the correlated fit at R=8 tracks held-out depths. The practical lever is decorrelation -- changing model family, modality, or evidence source -- not adding gates.

Fine-grained credit assignment is a central challenge in reinforcement learning for long horizon LLM agents. Standard objectives often train from programmatically verifiable terminal rewards by broadcasting each sparse outcome to every action in a trajectory. Existing methods typically seek finer credit from the rollout side, constructing auxiliary trajectory signals or additional comparisons to estimate action importance. Although useful, these approaches still treat the verifier that judged success as a scalar reward, discarding its internal task structure. Our key insight is that many verifiable tasks already encode the relevant checks inside their terminal verifier. We propose VICT (VerifierInstrumented Credit Tracing), a training-time interface that exposes executable or evidence backed atoms and traces them back to actions through dependency-valid proof edges. VICT redistributes group-relative advantage only along those edges, shifting credit assignment from rollout-side inference to verifierside tracing. It preserves the original terminal reward, abstains when evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, and changes only the training-time advantage tensor, requiring no learned critic, process labels, branch rollouts, or inference-time verifier access. On ALFWorld and WebShop, VICT improves substantially over outcome-only training and achieves strong performance alongside recent fine-grained credit methods; ablations rule out dense atom rewards, final-commit credit, temporal proximity, and sparsity as sufficient explanations.

Recent work shows that fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve high valid plan rates on PDDL planning tasks. However, it remains unclear whether this reflects transferable planning competence or domain-specific memorization. In this work, we fine-tune a 1.7B-parameter LLM on 40,000 domain-problem-plan tuples from 10 IPC 2023 domains, and evaluate both in-domain and cross-domain generalization. While the model reaches 82.9% valid plan rate in in-domain conditions, it achieves 0% on two unseen domains. To analyze this failure, we introduce three diagnostic interventions, namely (i) instance-wise symbol anonymization, (ii) compact plan serialization, and (iii) verifier-reward fine-tuning using the VAL validator as a success-focused reinforcement signal. Symbol anonymization and compact serialization cause significant performance drops despite preserving plan semantics, thus revealing strong sensitivity to surface representations. Verifier-reward fine-tuning reaches performance saturation in half the supervised training epochs, but does not improve cross-domain generalization. For the explored configurations, in-domain performance plateaus around 80%, while cross-domain performance collapses, suggesting that our fine-tuned model relies heavily on domain-specific patterns rather than transferable planning competence in this setting. Our results highlight a persistent generalization gap in LLM-based planning and provide diagnostic tools for studying its causes.

Test-time scaling often uses an external verifier, such as compilers and test cases in coding or trained value functions in robotics applications, to obtain high-quality rollouts. Verifier-free test-time scaling (or VF-TTS) is gaining extensive attention as a mechanism to enhance Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, primarily because we do not have access to such high-quality verifiers in many real-world applications. Among existing VF-TTS methods, confidence-based VF-TTS methods, which compute and rank rollouts solely by confidence, are particularly promising. Such methods introduce near-zero overhead for sample evaluation and require minimal access to internal model states, making the methods highly flexible across models and tasks. In this paper, we demonstrate a critical limitation of existing confidence-based VF-TTS methods by showing that such methods catastrophically break down on complex tasks. We observe a very interesting phenomenon: uniformly high confidence frequently indicates a failure to explore, favoring confidently wrong answers. To address this, our core insight is that robust cognitive search requires a specific confidence trajectory pattern: such methods perform exploratory branching at the beginning, as manifested by low initial confidence, and converge to a high final confidence solution. To implement this insight, we introduce consilience, a novel selection framework that explicitly evaluates the temporal asymmetry of confidence in reasoning. We operationalize this via a combinatorial metric that actively penalizes high initial confidence while strictly demanding final certainty. Extensive experiments covering both graduate-level mathematics problems and free-form code generation demonstrate that consilience effectively outperforms existing baselines, validating our novel perspective on completion confidence.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) demonstrates promising potential in advancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. However, its success remains largely confined to mathematical and code domains. This primary limitation stems from the heavy reliance on domain-specific verifiers, which results in prohibitive complexity and limited scalability. To address the challenge, our key observation is that LLM's intrinsic probability of generating a correct free-form answer directly indicates its own evaluation of the reasoning reward (i.e., how well the reasoning process leads to the correct answer). Building on this insight, we propose RLPR, a simple verifier-free framework that extrapolates RLVR to broader general domains. RLPR uses the LLM's own token probability scores for reference answers as the reward signal and maximizes the expected reward during training. We find that addressing the high variance of this noisy probability reward is crucial to make it work, and propose prob-to-reward and stabilizing methods to ensure a precise and stable reward from LLM intrinsic probabilities. Comprehensive experiments in four general-domain benchmarks and three mathematical benchmarks show that RLPR consistently improves reasoning capabilities in both areas for Gemma, Llama, and Qwen based models. Notably, RLPR outperforms concurrent VeriFree by 7.6 points on TheoremQA and 7.5 points on Minerva, and even surpasses strong verifier-model-dependent approaches General-Reasoner by 1.6 average points across seven benchmarks.

LLM agents increasingly rely on generated interaction data to learn how to interact with external environments. Agentic data generation must maintain consistency among environments, tasks, interactions, and success signals while producing experience that is useful rather than merely abundant. Existing work spans many agent domains, but domain-centered organization and heterogeneous evaluation often obscure common generation mechanisms and conflate candidate construction with verification and selection. This work develops a two-level framework for the field. First, we represent agentic data as a common factorized object (E,q,τ,v), comprising an environment specification, task signal, interaction realization, and optional verifier. We organize generation paradigms by their primary anchor and dependency structure. Second, we formulate generation as constrained distribution design through the Accuracy-Complexity-divErsity (ACE) lens. Accuracy establishes the feasible support of grounded and internally consistent data. Within this support, Complexity places learning mass relative to the capability of a declared learner and execution configuration, while divErsity controls coverage and redundancy of data. Using this framework, we explore how prior work verifies generated experience, constructs and calibrates difficulty, and expands behavioral coverage. The literature reveals a shift toward execution-grounded accuracy, learner-relative complexity, and diversity beyond surface variation or dataset size. We further discuss broader directions and emerging trends in agentic data generation through the ACE lens, including their implications for scaling, data sources, training regimes and adaptive learning. Overall, the central challenge is not simply to generate more data, but to continually allocate valid, informative, and non-redundant experience as agents and environments evolve.

Query Auto-Completion (QAC) suggests query completions as users type, helping them articulate intent and reach results more efficiently. Existing approaches face fundamental challenges: traditional retrieve-and-rank pipelines have limited long-tail coverage and require extensive feature engineering, while recent generative methods suffer from hallucination and safety risks. We present a unified framework that reformulates QAC as end-to-end list generation through Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and multi-objective Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Our approach combines three key innovations: (1) reformulating QAC as end-to-end list generation with multi-objective optimization; (2) defining and deploying a suite of rule-based, model-based, and LLM-as-judge verifiers for QAC, and using them in a comprehensive methodology that combines RAG, multi-objective DPO, and iterative critique-revision for high-quality synthetic data; (3) a hybrid serving architecture enabling efficient production deployment under strict latency constraints. Evaluation on a large-scale commercial search platform demonstrates substantial improvements: offline metrics show gains across all dimensions, human evaluation yields +0.40 to +0.69 preference scores, and a controlled online experiment achieves 5.44\% reduction in keystrokes and 3.46\% increase in suggestion adoption, validating that unified generation with RAG and multi-objective alignment provides an effective solution for production QAC. This work represents a paradigm shift to end-to-end generation powered by large language models, RAG, and multi-objective alignment, establishing a production-validated framework that can benefit the broader search and recommendation industry.

With the advancement of large language models (LLMs), solving complex reasoning tasks has gained increasing attention. Inference-time computation methods (e.g., Best-of-N, beam search, et al.) are particularly valuable as they can enhance reasoning performance without modifying model parameters or requiring additional training. However, these techniques come with implementation challenges, and most existing methods remain at the proof-of-concept stage with limited practical adoption due to their computational complexity and varying effectiveness across different tasks. In this paper, we investigate and benchmark diverse inference-time computation strategies across reasoning tasks of varying complexity. Since most current methods rely on a proposer-verifier pipeline that first generates candidate solutions (e.g., reasoning solutions) and then selects the best one based on reward signals (e.g., RLHF rewards, process rewards), our research focuses on optimizing both candidate solution generation (e.g., instructing prompts, hyperparameters such as temperature and top-p) and reward mechanisms (e.g., self-evaluation, reward types). Through extensive experiments (more than 20,000 A100-80G GPU hours with over 1,000 experiments) across a variety of models (e.g., Llama, Qwen, and Mistral families) of various sizes, our ablation studies reveal that previously overlooked strategies can significantly enhance performance (e.g., tuning temperature can improve reasoning task performance by up to 5%). Furthermore, we establish a standardized benchmark for inference-time computation by systematically evaluating six representative methods across eight reasoning tasks. These findings provide a stronger foundation for future research. The code is available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/benchmark_inference_time_computation_LLM

Self-improving LLM agents increasingly learn from experience without updating any weights. Each episode is stored in an external memory, scored, and retrieved for similar future tasks to shape later behavior. Viewed through a reward lens, the stored score is a proxy reward for an implicit, non-parametric policy. Each retrieved episode then becomes a policy-improvement step whose reliability hinges on how that score is produced. In deployment, ground-truth labels are unavailable, so the stored reward is at best an LLM assessment. This substitution creates a failure mode, the *Echo Gap*, across the memory-based self-improving agents and model families studied. Incorrect episodes receive inflated rewards; thus, the agent preferentially reuses the very mistakes it has most confident in. Because the error compounds through memory rather than averaging out and the confirming judge's errors remain correlated with the original self-grading bias, so it cannot identify which memories are overvalued. The missing property is formalized as the *Error-Independence Assumption* (EIA), which we prove is a *necessary* condition for correcting the inflation, not merely a description of a good verifier: a usable signal must track truth *and* decorrelate its error from the memory bias, and the recoverable payoff is a closed-form function of exactly those two quantities. We further show the inflation compounds not only when retrieval ranks by the stored score but also under plain similarity retrieval which is the regime the deployed agent uses. Finally, the answer-free de-inflation algorithm LUCID delivers a consistent end-to-end gain on the BIRD text-to-SQL benchmark. It raises execution accuracy to 56.9%, above both a Memento-style self-graded agent (54.0%, a +2.9-point mean gain across seeds) and a memory-less agent of identical architecture (52.4%).

Mathematical verfier achieves success in mathematical reasoning tasks by validating the correctness of solutions. However, existing verifiers are trained with binary classification labels, which are not informative enough for the model to accurately assess the solutions. To mitigate the aforementioned insufficiency of binary labels, we introduce step-wise natural language feedbacks as rationale labels (i.e., the correctness of the current step and the explanations). In this paper, we propose Math-Minos, a natural language feedback enhanced verifier by constructing automatically-generated training data and a two-stage training paradigm for effective training and efficient inference. Our experiments reveal that a small set (30k) of natural language feedbacks can significantly boost the performance of the verifier by the accuracy of 1.6\% (86.6\% rightarrow 88.2\%) on GSM8K and 0.8\% (37.8\% rightarrow 38.6\%) on MATH. We have released our code and data for further exploration.

Verifiers play a crucial role in large language model (LLM) reasoning, needed by post-training techniques such as reinforcement learning. However, reliable verifiers are hard to get for difficult coding problems, because a well-disguised wrong solution may only be detected by carefully human-written edge cases that are difficult to synthesize. To address this issue, we propose HARDTESTGEN, a pipeline for high-quality test synthesis using LLMs. With this pipeline, we curate a comprehensive competitive programming dataset HARDTESTS with 47k problems and synthetic high-quality tests. Compared with existing tests, HARDTESTGEN tests demonstrate precision that is 11.3 percentage points higher and recall that is 17.5 percentage points higher when evaluating LLM-generated code. For harder problems, the improvement in precision can be as large as 40 points. HARDTESTS also proves to be more effective for model training, measured by downstream code generation performance. We will open-source our dataset and synthesis pipeline at https://leililab.github.io/HardTests/.

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

We present Verified Multi-Agent Orchestration (VMAO), a framework that coordinates specialized LLM-based agents through a verification-driven iterative loop. Given a complex query, our system decomposes it into a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of sub-questions, executes them through domain-specific agents in parallel, verifies result completeness via LLM-based evaluation, and adaptively replans to address gaps. The key contributions are: (1) dependency-aware parallel execution over a DAG of sub-questions with automatic context propagation, (2) verification-driven adaptive replanning that uses an LLM-based verifier as an orchestration-level coordination signal, and (3) configurable stop conditions that balance answer quality against resource usage. On 25 expert-curated market research queries, VMAO improves answer completeness from 3.1 to 4.2 and source quality from 2.6 to 4.1 (1-5 scale) compared to a single-agent baseline, demonstrating that orchestration-level verification is an effective mechanism for multi-agent quality assurance.

A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, potentially improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. To improve a base policy by running search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: "How should we design process rewards?". Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure progress: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, corresponding to the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Crucially, this progress should be measured under a prover policy distinct from the base policy. We theoretically characterize the set of good provers and our results show that optimizing process rewards from such provers improves exploration during test-time search and online RL. In fact, our characterization shows that weak prover policies can substantially improve a stronger base policy, which we also observe empirically. We validate our claims by training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under such provers, and show that compared to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs is >8% more accurate, and 1.5-5times more compute-efficient. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs enables one of the first results with 5-6times gain in sample efficiency, and >6% gain in accuracy, over ORMs.

Recent research has generated hope that inference scaling could allow weaker language models to match or exceed the accuracy of stronger models, such as by repeatedly sampling solutions to a coding problem until it passes unit tests. The central thesis of this paper is that there is no free lunch for inference scaling: indefinite accuracy improvement through resampling can only be realized if the "verifier" (in this case, a set of unit tests) is perfect. When the verifier is imperfect, as it almost always is in domains such as reasoning or coding (for example, unit tests have imperfect coverage), there is a nonzero probability of false positives: incorrect solutions that pass the verifier. Resampling cannot decrease this probability, so it imposes an upper bound to the accuracy of resampling-based inference scaling even with an infinite compute budget. We find that there is a very strong correlation between the model's single-sample accuracy (i.e. accuracy without unit tests) and its false positive rate on coding benchmarks HumanEval and MBPP, whose unit tests have limited coverage. Therefore, no amount of inference scaling of weaker models can enable them to match the single-sample accuracy of a sufficiently strong model (Fig. 1a). When we consider that false positives have a negative utility compared to abstaining from producing a solution, it bends the inference scaling curve further downward. Empirically, we find that the optimal number of samples can be less than 10 under realistic assumptions (Fig. 1b). Finally, we show that beyond accuracy, false positives may have other undesirable qualities, such as poor adherence to coding style conventions.

Assessing ways in which Language Models can reduce their hallucinations and improve the outputs' quality is crucial to ensure their large-scale use. However, methods such as fine-tuning on domain-specific data or the training of a separate ad hoc verifier require demanding computational resources (not feasible for many user applications) and constrain the models to specific fields of knowledge. In this thesis, we propose a dialectic pipeline that preserves LLMs' generalization abilities while improving the quality of its answer via self-dialogue, enabling it to reflect upon and correct tentative wrong answers. We experimented with different pipeline settings, testing our proposed method on different datasets and on different families of models. All the pipeline stages are enriched with the relevant context (in an oracle-RAG setting) and a study on the impact of its summarization or its filtering is conducted. We find that our proposed dialectic pipeline is able to outperform by significative margins the standard model answers and that it consistently achieves higher performances than Chain-of-Thought only prompting.

Answer verification is crucial not only for evaluating large language models (LLMs) by matching their unstructured outputs against standard answers, but also serves as the reward model to guide LLM optimization. Most evaluation frameworks rely on regularized matching or employ general LLMs for answer verification, which demands extensive, repetitive customization for regex rules or evaluation prompts. Two fundamental limitations persist in current methodologies: 1) the absence of comprehensive benchmarks that systematically evaluate verification capabilities across different LLMs; and 2) the nascent stage of verifier development, where existing approaches lack both the robustness to handle complex edge cases and the generalizability across different domains. In this work, we develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward. It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types, including multi-subproblems, formulas, and sequence answers, while effectively identifying abnormal/invalid responses. We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier. We anticipate that CompassVerifier and VerifierBench will facilitate answer verification, evaluation protocols, and reinforcement learning research. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/open-compass/CompassVerifier.

Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that enables logical inference, problem-solving, and decision-making. With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), reasoning has emerged as a key capability that distinguishes advanced AI systems from conventional models that empower chatbots. In this survey, we categorize existing methods along two orthogonal dimensions: (1) Regimes, which define the stage at which reasoning is achieved (either at inference time or through dedicated training); and (2) Architectures, which determine the components involved in the reasoning process, distinguishing between standalone LLMs and agentic compound systems that incorporate external tools, and multi-agent collaborations. Within each dimension, we analyze two key perspectives: (1) Input level, which focuses on techniques that construct high-quality prompts that the LLM condition on; and (2) Output level, which methods that refine multiple sampled candidates to enhance reasoning quality. This categorization provides a systematic understanding of the evolving landscape of LLM reasoning, highlighting emerging trends such as the shift from inference-scaling to learning-to-reason (e.g., DeepSeek-R1), and the transition to agentic workflows (e.g., OpenAI Deep Research, Manus Agent). Additionally, we cover a broad spectrum of learning algorithms, from supervised fine-tuning to reinforcement learning such as PPO and GRPO, and the training of reasoners and verifiers. We also examine key designs of agentic workflows, from established patterns like generator-evaluator and LLM debate to recent innovations. ...

Automated checking pipelines increasingly place one language model as the checker and another (or the same one) as the fixer. We ask whether that wiring changes what the checker reports. Measuring false alarms on human-verified-correct ProcessBench traces with the present task held byte-identical, we find that a completed audit -> repair episode already in the model's context lowers false alarms in 15 of 15 model x wording combinations, by 2.8 to 11.5 percentage points against a length-matched non-audit control, a 9 to 25% reduction relative to that control. The direction contradicts what the accumulated-message literature predicts: an episode whose audit reported an error lowers false alarms further still, at all five wordings on the model where that manipulation lands cleanly, though a negativity asymmetry predicts more flagging. Decomposing the episode finds repair content and audit verdict complementary: different components carry the effect on different model families. Signal-detection analysis locates the change in the threshold rather than in discrimination -- the criterion moves in 15 of 15 combinations and survives correction in 13 while d' survives in none, though the d' test is half as sensitive by construction -- and a hand audit of 50 false alarms finds 82% simply wrong, so at this operating point the shift need not be harmful. With reasoning enabled the effect keeps its relative size on both models tested, and the threshold reading holds there too.

Open-ended scientific discovery often requires repeatedly proposing and evaluating candidate solutions. LLM-based systems can support this process by generating and refining executable solutions from verifier feedback. Methods such as TTT-Discover use test-time training (TTT) to update the solution-generating LLM from verifier feedback, adapting its generation policy to improve subsequent proposals on the target problem. However, this becomes expensive when reliable execution requires a large model, since training must maintain gradients, optimizer states, and policy statistics while repeatedly generating long, structured outputs. It also complicates credit assignment: outcome-level verifier feedback must jointly evaluate the high-level strategy and its low-level implementation. In this work, we introduce Guidance-TTT, which separates these roles. A compact guidance model is trained at test time to propose high-level strategic changes, while a frozen execution model implements them as complete executable solutions. At each step, the system selects a promising previously discovered solution, proposes a change, executes and verifies it, and updates only the guidance model using an adaptive group-relative RL objective. This concentrates test-time learning on short strategic decisions while retaining the implementation capability of a substantially stronger model without adapting it. Without web access, Guidance-TTT produces strong solutions across four distinct domains: combinatorial optimization (Polyomino Packing), heuristic programming (AHC058), machine learning (Lasso), and GPU kernel optimization (TriMul). Across these tasks, it outperforms the best solutions reported in prior work while remaining competitive with state-of-the-art results on public online leaderboards. Code is available at https://github.com/Human-Agent-Society/reef/tree/guidance-ttt-support.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling. To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary {0,1} during training. This choice carries a cost: it introduces false negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and false positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs). For instance, a rule-based checker may mark the correct fraction 12{36} as wrong when compared against the canonical 1{3} due to brittle parsing/equivalence rules (FN), while a large language model (LLM) judges can be gamed by superficial cues or even a single adversarial token, yielding inflated correctness for wrong solutions (FP). We formalize verifier unreliability by modeling the verifier as a stochastic reward channel with asymmetric noise rates. From this abstraction, we derive two correction algorithms for verifier errors. The first is a backward correction that de-biases the observed binary reward to recover an unbiased estimator of the clean policy gradient. The second is a forward correction that reweights score-function terms so that the expected update direction aligns with the clean gradient; notably, it requires only the FN rate. We implement both as lightweight hooks in a group relative policy optimization (GRPO)-based RLVR pipeline and evaluate them on math-reasoning models and benchmarks. Across models and datasets, both corrections improve over uncorrected training; the forward variant converges faster and remains stable under heavier noise. Finally, we show a practical appeal mechanism in which a lightweight LLM verifier estimates the FN rate online by rechecking rule-based negatives, obtaining outperformance compared with other state-of-the-art contenders.

Agent skills are increasingly used to equip large language model (LLM) agents with reusable procedural knowledge. Although recent work has substantially improved skill retrieval due to the increasing skill libraries, retrieving a plausible skill bundle does not guarantee that executing it is worthwhile. Since every skill-conditioned rollout is computationally expensive, deciding whether a retrieved bundle should be executed has become an increasingly important challenge. To this end, we introduce the Reward-Aware Dynamic Execution Gate (RADEG), a lightweight, retriever-agnostic decision layer between skill retrieval and agent execution. RADEG learns a low-cost surrogate model that predicts the execution utility of a query--bundle pair before the expensive rollout is launched. To obtain informative supervision while controlling for task difficulty, we locally perturb each retrieved bundle by deleting, adding, or replacing one skill, producing matched same-query rollouts that isolate the effect of bundle composition on verifier reward. During deployment, RADEG updates only a warm-started logistic head as new verifier feedback becomes available, enabling inexpensive adaptation of the execute/skip boundary without retraining either the retriever or the agent. Under a query-level held-out evaluation on 288 collected rollouts, RADEG substantially reduces unnecessary agent executions while preserving a large fraction of the downstream verifier reward. It consistently outperforms relevance-based and random gating across different execution budgets, demonstrating that execution-aware surrogate modeling provides a practical and cost-effective complement to skill retrieval.

Self-evolving agents requires adaptation after deployment, but existing approaches assume a usable learning loop, such as curated skills, successful trajectories, or verifier signals. Real open-world deployments may provide none of these, offering only a task prompt. In this work, we study open-world self-evolution, where an agent must build both its skills and its own verification signals from scratch, using open-world resources but no target-task supervision. We propose OpenSkill, a framework that bootstraps this loop: it acquires grounded knowledge and verification anchors from documentation, repositories, and the web, synthesizes them into transferable skills, and refines those skills against self-built virtual tasks grounded in the anchors rather than in target answers. The open world thus supplies both the knowledge to be learned and a supervision-independent practice environment, with target-task supervision reserved for final evaluation. Across three benchmarks and two target agents, OpenSkill attains the best automated pass rate while satisfying the no-supervision constraint. Analysis shows its skills transfer across models without model-specific adaptation, and its self-built verifier aligns with ground-truth outcomes despite never accessing them.

Recent advances in Deep Research Agents (DRAs) are transforming automated knowledge discovery and problem-solving. While the majority of existing efforts focus on enhancing policy capabilities via post-training, we propose an alternative paradigm: self-evolving the agent's ability by iteratively verifying the policy model's outputs, guided by meticulously crafted rubrics. This approach gives rise to the inference-time scaling of verification, wherein an agent self-improves by evaluating its generated answers to produce iterative feedback and refinements. We derive the rubrics based on an automatically constructed DRA Failure Taxonomy, which systematically classifies agent failures into five major categories and thirteen sub-categories. We present DeepVerifier, a rubrics-based outcome reward verifier that leverages the asymmetry of verification and outperforms vanilla agent-as-judge and LLM judge baselines by 12%-48% in meta-evaluation F1 score. To enable practical self-evolution, DeepVerifier integrates as a plug-and-play module during test-time inference. The verifier produces detailed rubric-based feedback, which is fed back to the agent for iterative bootstrapping, refining responses without additional training. This test-time scaling delivers 8%-11% accuracy gains on challenging subsets of GAIA and XBench-DeepResearch when powered by capable closed-source LLMs. Finally, to support open-source advancement, we release DeepVerifier-4K, a curated supervised fine-tuning dataset of 4,646 high-quality agent steps focused on DRA verification. These examples emphasize reflection and self-critique, enabling open models to develop robust verification capabilities.

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has shown promise in formal theorem proving, yet existing benchmarks remain limited to isolated, static proof tasks, failing to capture the iterative, engineering-intensive workflows of real-world formal mathematics libraries. Motivated by analogous advances in software engineering, we introduce the paradigm of Automated Proof Engineering (APE), which aims to automate proof engineering tasks such as feature addition, proof refactoring, and bug fixing using LLMs. To facilitate research in this direction, we present APE-Bench I, the first realistic benchmark built from real-world commit histories of Mathlib4, featuring diverse file-level tasks described in natural language and verified via a hybrid approach combining the Lean compiler and LLM-as-a-Judge. We further develop Eleanstic, a scalable parallel verification infrastructure optimized for proof checking across multiple versions of Mathlib. Empirical results on state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate strong performance on localized edits but substantial degradation on handling complex proof engineering. This work lays the foundation for developing agentic workflows in proof engineering, with future benchmarks targeting multi-file coordination, project-scale verification, and autonomous agents capable of planning, editing, and repairing formal libraries.

Materials synthesis is vital for innovations such as energy storage, catalysis, electronics, and biomedical devices. Yet, the process relies heavily on empirical, trial-and-error methods guided by expert intuition. Our work aims to support the materials science community by providing a practical, data-driven resource. We have curated a comprehensive dataset of 17K expert-verified synthesis recipes from open-access literature, which forms the basis of our newly developed benchmark, AlchemyBench. AlchemyBench offers an end-to-end framework that supports research in large language models applied to synthesis prediction. It encompasses key tasks, including raw materials and equipment prediction, synthesis procedure generation, and characterization outcome forecasting. We propose an LLM-as-a-Judge framework that leverages large language models for automated evaluation, demonstrating strong statistical agreement with expert assessments. Overall, our contributions offer a supportive foundation for exploring the capabilities of LLMs in predicting and guiding materials synthesis, ultimately paving the way for more efficient experimental design and accelerated innovation in materials science.

Open-ended generation tasks require outputs to satisfy diverse and often implicit task-specific evaluation rubrics. The sheer number of relevant rubrics leads to prohibitively high verification costs and incomplete assessments of a response, making reinforcement learning (RL) post-training with rubric-based rewards difficult to scale. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that often the best way to combine these rubrics into one single reward is also highly prompt-specific. We propose Reinforcement Learning with Adversarial Critic (RLAC), a post-training approach that addresses these challenges via dynamic rubric verification. Our approach employs a large language model (LLM) as a critic that dynamically identifies only the most likely failure modes (e.g., a factual error or unhandled edge case), which are then verified by an external validator to optimize both generator and critic jointly. By training both the generator and the critic, this game enhances the critic's error detection and the generator's output quality while reducing required verifications. Our experiments demonstrate that RLAC improves factual accuracy in text generation and correctness in code generation, while also outperforming exhaustive verification and reward model methods. We show that dynamic critics are more effective than fixed critics, showcasing the potential of RLAC for scaling RL post-training to free-form generation tasks.

Academic project websites can more effectively disseminate research when they clearly present core content and enable intuitive navigation and interaction. However, current approaches such as direct Large Language Model (LLM) generation, templates, or direct HTML conversion struggle to produce layout-aware, interactive sites, and a comprehensive evaluation suite for this task has been lacking. In this paper, we introduce Paper2Web, a benchmark dataset and multi-dimensional evaluation framework for assessing academic webpage generation. It incorporates rule-based metrics like Connectivity, Completeness and human-verified LLM-as-a-Judge (covering interactivity, aesthetics, and informativeness), and PaperQuiz, which measures paper-level knowledge retention. We further present PWAgent, an autonomous pipeline that converts scientific papers into interactive and multimedia-rich academic homepages. The agent iteratively refines both content and layout through MCP tools that enhance emphasis, balance, and presentation quality. Our experiments show that PWAgent consistently outperforms end-to-end baselines like template-based webpages and arXiv/alphaXiv versions by a large margin while maintaining low cost, achieving the Pareto-front in academic webpage generation.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is pivotal for the continuous evolution of GUI agents, yet existing evaluation paradigms face significant limitations. Rule-based methods suffer from poor scalability and cannot handle open-ended tasks, while LLM-as-a-Judge approaches rely on passive visual observation, often failing to capture latent system states due to partial state observability. To address these challenges, we advocate for a paradigm shift from passive evaluation to Agentic Interactive Verification. We introduce VAGEN, a framework that employs a verifier agent equipped with interaction tools to autonomously plan verification strategies and proactively probe the environment for evidence of task completion. Leveraging the insight that GUI tasks are typically "easy to verify but hard to solve", VAGEN overcomes the bottlenecks of visual limitations. Experimental results on OSWorld-Verified and AndroidWorld benchmarks demonstrate that VAGEN significantly improves evaluation accuracy compared to LLM-as-a-Judge baselines and further enhances performance through test-time scaling strategies.

Recent advancements in Large Video Language Models (LVLMs) have highlighted their potential for multi-modal understanding, yet evaluating their factual grounding in video contexts remains a critical unsolved challenge. To address this gap, we introduce Video SimpleQA, the first comprehensive benchmark tailored for factuality evaluation of LVLMs. Our work distinguishes from existing video benchmarks through the following key features: 1) Knowledge required: demanding integration of external knowledge beyond the explicit narrative; 2) Fact-seeking question: targeting objective, undisputed events or relationships, avoiding subjective interpretation; 3) Definitive & short-form answer: Answers are crafted as unambiguous and definitively correct in a short format, enabling automated evaluation through LLM-as-a-judge frameworks with minimal scoring variance; 4) External-source verified: All annotations undergo rigorous validation against authoritative external references to ensure the reliability; 5) Temporal reasoning required: The annotated question types encompass both static single-frame understanding and dynamic temporal reasoning, explicitly evaluating LVLMs factuality under the long-context dependencies. We extensively evaluate 41 state-of-the-art LVLMs and summarize key findings as follows: 1) Current LVLMs exhibit notable deficiencies in factual adherence, particularly for open-source models. The best-performing model Gemini-1.5-Pro achieves merely an F-score of 54.4%; 2) Test-time compute paradigms show insignificant performance gains, revealing fundamental constraints for enhancing factuality through post-hoc computation; 3) Retrieval-Augmented Generation demonstrates consistent improvements at the cost of additional inference time overhead, presenting a critical efficiency-performance trade-off.

The widespread deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on massive, uncurated corpora has raised growing concerns about the inclusion of sensitive, copyrighted, or illegal content. This has led to increasing interest in LLM unlearning: the task of selectively removing specific information from a model without retraining from scratch or degrading overall utility. However, existing methods often rely on large-scale forget and retain datasets, and suffer from unnatural responses, poor generalization, or catastrophic utility loss. In this work, we propose Reinforcement UnLearning (RULE), an efficient framework that formulates unlearning as a refusal boundary optimization problem. RULE is trained with a small portion of the forget set and synthesized boundary queries, using a verifiable reward function that encourages safe refusal on forget--related queries while preserving helpful responses on permissible inputs. We provide both theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of RULE in achieving targeted unlearning without compromising model utility. Experimental results show that, with only 12% forget set and 8% synthesized boundary data, RULE outperforms existing baselines by up to 17.5% forget quality and 16.3% naturalness response while maintaining general utility, achieving forget--retain Pareto optimality. Remarkably, we further observe that RULE improves the naturalness of model outputs, enhances training efficiency, and exhibits strong generalization ability, generalizing refusal behavior to semantically related but unseen queries.

Coding agents are moving from handling one request at a time to serving as persistent assistants to which users hand a stream of work: a build, a data-processing job and a bug fix may all be pending on the same machine at once. Such an agent must decide when to take on new tasks, how to delegate and overlap them, and how to stay within the machine's CPU and memory. Existing benchmarks cannot measure this, because they evaluate each task in isolation. We introduce AOS-Bench, which evaluates an agent system as a workload manager: verified tasks arrive over time and must be delivered under shared CPU and memory limits, and the same tasks run one at a time serve as a per-system reference. Across five model--harness pairs, isolated task success does not carry over evenly. On heavy workloads every system loses 13 to 23 points. On medium workloads, systems span 11 points in isolated success but 26 points in stream success, and two systems 0.6 points apart in isolation deliver 54\% and 68\% of the same tasks. Execution-policy interventions trace much of this gap to task intake: serial dispatch leaves 73\% of heavy-workload tasks unclaimed. Yet more elaborate management does not necessarily help. A fixed concurrency of two comes within four points of the best agent-managed policy on both medium and heavy workloads, and under every policy median CPU use stays below 30\% of the provisioned cores while tasks wait. These results identify workload management as a distinct capability for agents, and AOS-Bench as a way to measure it.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise for automated code translation, yet existing approaches often rely on token-level statistical patterns rather than sufficient understanding of program semantics. As a result, translated programs may still contain logical and semantic errors. Although high-quality semantic guidance, such as functional descriptions and test cases, can help mitigate these errors, such resources are often unavailable in real-world scenarios. This raises two key challenges: how to construct rich semantic information directly from source code, and how to ensure that such semantics are accurate and reliable enough to guide translation.To address these challenges, we propose Multisage, a multi-semantic augmentation and self-calibration framework for LLM-based code translation. Multisage consists of three modules. First, a semantic representation parsing module extracts structured base semantics from source code, including data-flow graphs, type constraints, and external API information. Second, a multi-semantic augmentation module builds on these representations to generate diverse augmented semantics, including code summaries, function-level test cases, and API-oriented descriptions and tests. Third, a semantic consistency calibration module uses semantics-preserving mutations and cross-semantic consistency verification to filter, calibrate, and refine the generated semantics.Experiments on the HumanEval-X code translation benchmark show that Multisage improves translation success rates by up to 2.22 times across diverse backbone models. It consistently outperforms vanilla prompting, instruction-tuned LLMs, and Chain-of-Thought reasoning, with the largest gains observed on smaller models. These results demonstrate that explicit semantic augmentation can substantially improve the reliability of LLM-based code translation.

LLM agents increasingly operate over sensitive resources, such as private documents and mutable system states, which can create serious safety and security risks. Runtime guardrails should therefore make inspectable, reproducible, and deterministic allow or refuse decisions before potentially irreversible agent actions are executed. However, safety and security requirements are rarely complete before deployment, so guardrails need to keep adapting as new risks emerge. Existing adaptive guardrails learn from deployment experience, but they usually apply safety policies through LLM inference, which can lead to inconsistent decisions and ambiguous policy interpretations. Formal guardrails, on the other hand, enforce policies deterministically, but they usually rely on pre-deployment or task-specific policies and have no mechanism to adapt to newly observed risks. We introduce VEPA, a framework for the verified evolution of formal agent guardrails. VEPA represents the guardrail as a formal policy of executable symbolic rules over typed agent events. During deployment, we use an LLM guided by deployment feedback to propose policy patches that fix newly observed failures while preserving previously correct behavior. Then, a deterministic verifier only accepts policies that are structurally valid and conflict-free. Finally, an evidence-aware authority layer activates a verified rule only when it has enough supporting evidence, so uncertain updates cannot directly affect guardrail decisions. Across ASSEBench-Safety, ASSEBench-Security, and ATBench, VEPA consistently outperforms baselines while expanding the scope of deterministic formal-policy enforcement. These gains also hold under more challenging deployment conditions, including mixed streams, corrupted feedback, and longer horizons.

The deployment of autonomous AI agents in sensitive domains, such as healthcare, introduces critical risks to safety, security, and privacy. These agents may deviate from user objectives, violate data handling policies, or be compromised by adversarial attacks. Mitigating these dangers necessitates a mechanism to formally guarantee that an agent's actions adhere to predefined safety constraints, a challenge that existing systems do not fully address. We introduce VeriGuard, a novel framework that provides formal safety guarantees for LLM-based agents through a dual-stage architecture designed for robust and verifiable correctness. The initial offline stage involves a comprehensive validation process. It begins by clarifying user intent to establish precise safety specifications. VeriGuard then synthesizes a behavioral policy and subjects it to both testing and formal verification to prove its compliance with these specifications. This iterative process refines the policy until it is deemed correct. Subsequently, the second stage provides online action monitoring, where VeriGuard operates as a runtime monitor to validate each proposed agent action against the pre-verified policy before execution. This separation of the exhaustive offline validation from the lightweight online monitoring allows formal guarantees to be practically applied, providing a robust safeguard that substantially improves the trustworthiness of LLM agents.

Enterprise AI agents increasingly split a user's request across subagents and merge their results, and each handoff can summarize away, alter or ignore a requirement. We report a preregistered study with synthetic, exactly scorable tasks comparing free-text, structured JSON and signed requirement-manifest handoffs: the orchestrator extracts each requirement as a verbatim quote plus a checkable predicate, code signs the manifest with HMAC-SHA256, and deterministic code verifies the merger's decision. With Qwen3-8B (1,440 trajectories, five threats), signed manifests cut unsafe commits under attack from 69.4% to 9.0% (60.4 pp, 95% CI [51.4, 69.4]) with no net loss of conformant commits relative to structured handoffs. Signing is what defeats in-transit tampering: an unsigned manifest committed violations in 79% of mutated runs, the signed one in none. On identical trajectories the deterministic verifier caught 78.7% of violating decisions versus 59.0% for an LLM checker, with 7% versus 50% false alarms. An oracle manifest removed all remaining unsafe commits: the residual risk comes from extraction errors made before signing. A preregistered pre-signing injection attack confirmed this boundary: one adversarial line raised signed-manifest violations from 14.6% to 37.5% (Qwen3-8B), 11.1% to 63.9% (gpt-oss-20b) and 8.3% to 75.0% (GPT-5.6-luna), and the signature then authenticated the corrupted manifest. Signing protects requirements in transit, not at extraction; the extraction step is the trust boundary.

Speculative decoding has emerged as a pivotal technique to accelerate LLM inference by employing a lightweight draft model to generate candidate tokens that are subsequently verified by the target model in parallel. However, while this paradigm successfully increases the arithmetic intensity of memory-bound inference, it causes significant compute inefficiency: the majority of draft tokens fail verification and are discarded, resulting in waste of computation. Motivated by the goal of recollecting this wasted computation, we propose a novel system that transforms discarded drafts into reusable tokens. Our key insight is to perform auto-regressive prediction at the hidden states level and postpone the integrating token information after the hidden states generation, so the draft hidden states are not contaminated by incorrect tokens, enabling hidden state reuse. To implement such a system, first we introduce a draft model architecture based on auto-regressive hidden states, which preserves richer semantics than token-based drafters to facilitate draft repurposing. Second, we design an efficient token information injection mechanism that leverages our specialized draft model to construct high-quality draft token trees and enables resampling tokens from verification failures. Third, we eliminate the overhead hidden in our design to further maximize hardware utilization. We conducted extensive evaluations against various baselines, demonstrating up to a 3.3x speedup against standard speculative decoding.

Speculative decoding has emerged as a powerful approach to accelerate large language model (LLM) inference by employing lightweight draft models to propose candidate tokens that are subsequently verified by the target model. The effectiveness of this paradigm critically depends on the quality of the draft model. While recent advances such as the EAGLE series achieve state-of-the-art speedup, existing draft models remain limited by error accumulation: they condition only on the current prefix, causing their predictions to drift from the target model over steps. In this work, we propose ConFu (Contemplate the Future), a novel speculative decoding framework that enables draft models to anticipate the future direction of generation. ConFu introduces (i) contemplate tokens and soft prompts that allow the draft model to leverage future-oriented signals from the target model at negligible cost, (ii) a dynamic contemplate token mechanism with MoE to enable context-aware future prediction, and (iii) a training framework with anchor token sampling and future prediction replication that learns robust future prediction. Experiments demonstrate that ConFu improves token acceptance rates and generation speed over EAGLE-3 by 8--11% across various downstream tasks with Llama-3 3B and 8B models. We believe our work is the first to bridge speculative decoding with continuous reasoning tokens, offering a new direction for accelerating LLM inference.

Learning to act in unfamiliar environments requires agents to infer how the world works and revise that understanding as new evidence arrives. Yet limited observations can support multiple world models that explain past interactions but predict different outcomes in unseen states. We introduce Memento 3, building on the Memento series to enable frozen LLM agents to continually learn explicit world models through external memory. The agent maintains a natural-language rulebook as persistent semantic memory, recording revisable hypotheses about environment dynamics while leaving unknown aspects underspecified. It compiles this rulebook into executable code for prediction and planning. Through a continual loop of observation, reflection, rule revision, compilation, and verification, the agent uses prediction errors to refine both the rulebook and its code. Updated code is accepted only when the LLM judges it faithful to the rulebook and cell-exact replay reproduces the observed transitions. We investigate this process as a model-based route to recursive self-improvement (RSI): the agent autonomously explores the environment, revises its world model, and uses verified updates to guide subsequent interaction and learning, while the underlying LLM remains fixed. A population extension maintains multiple world models in parallel, sharing interaction evidence and using their predictions to guide exploration. On ARC-AGI-3, the single-model agent clears every level of all 25 public games, achieves a mean Relative Human Action Efficiency (RHAE) of 100.0, and uses 44% of the human action count. In an Atari Pong case study, a learned feedback controller wins 21:0 in each of three evaluated episodes with different openings, without further LLM calls.

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) are a prominent tool in mechanistic interpretability (MI) for decomposing neural network activations into interpretable features. However, the aspiration to identify a canonical set of features is challenged by the observed inconsistency of learned SAE features across different training runs, undermining the reliability and efficiency of MI research. This position paper argues that mechanistic interpretability should prioritize feature consistency in SAEs -- the reliable convergence to equivalent feature sets across independent runs. We propose using the Pairwise Dictionary Mean Correlation Coefficient (PW-MCC) as a practical metric to operationalize consistency and demonstrate that high levels are achievable (0.80 for TopK SAEs on LLM activations) with appropriate architectural choices. Our contributions include detailing the benefits of prioritizing consistency; providing theoretical grounding and synthetic validation using a model organism, which verifies PW-MCC as a reliable proxy for ground-truth recovery; and extending these findings to real-world LLM data, where high feature consistency strongly correlates with the semantic similarity of learned feature explanations. We call for a community-wide shift towards systematically measuring feature consistency to foster robust cumulative progress in MI.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents solve complex tasks through iterative reasoning, exploration, and tool-use, a process that can result in long, expensive context histories. While state-of-the-art Software Engineering ( SE) agents like OpenHands or Cursor use LLM-based summarization to tackle this issue, it is unclear whether the increased complexity offers tangible performance benefits compared to simply omitting older observations. We present a systematic comparison of these strategies within SWE-agent on SWE-bench Verified across five diverse model configurations. We find that a simple observation-masking strategy halves cost relative to a raw agent while matching, and sometimes slightly exceeding, the solve rate of LLM summarization. For example, with Qwen3-Coder 480B, masking improves solve rate from 53.8% (raw agent) to 54.8%, while remaining competitive with summarization at a lower cost. These results suggest that, at least within SWE-agent on SWE-bench Verified, the most effective and efficient context management can be the simplest. We release code and data for reproducibility

We propose self-speculative decoding for speech-aware LLMs by using the CTC encoder as a draft model to accelerate auto-regressive (AR) inference and improve ASR accuracy. Our three-step procedure works as follows: (1) if the frame entropies of the CTC output distributions are below a threshold, the greedy CTC hypothesis is accepted as final; (2) otherwise, the CTC hypothesis is verified in a single LLM forward pass using a relaxed acceptance criterion based on token likelihoods; (3) if verification fails, AR decoding resumes from the accepted CTC prefix. Experiments on nine corpora and five languages show that this approach can simultaneously accelerate decoding and reduce WER. On the HuggingFace Open ASR benchmark with a 1B parameter LLM and 440M parameter CTC encoder, we achieve a record 5.58% WER and improve the inverse real time factor by a factor of 4.4 with only a 12% relative WER increase over AR search. Code and model weights are publicly available under a permissive license.

Repository benchmarks (e.g., SWE-bench) for coding agents often assume that lines of code edited can predict task difficulty, but such datasets' poor control over code and task types makes it hard to know which abilities truly drive agent errors. We present CABRA: a Coding Ability Blueprint for Rigorous Agent evaluation. CABRA builds tasks from scratch as call graph transformations and scales difficulty via a task size parameter on four axes: function traversal, search, runtime resolution, and instruction following. We run eight LLMs and six coding agents on 6,840 CABRA tasks to show: 1) LLM accuracy falls as task size~grows, but agents stay near-perfect by offloading work to tools (e.g., grep); 2) Larger CABRA tasks elicit more tool calls for reading and analysis, while a separate study on SWE-bench Verified shows these tool call counts predict agents' accuracy better than lines of code edited, suggesting task difficulty for agents can lie in understanding code to edit, not just in making edits; 3) Extending CABRA to an intense understanding task where models analyze divergent logic across two classes backs this finding, as agent accuracy finally falls. More broadly, we argue for synthetic evaluations like CABRA to unmask LLM weaknesses trivialized by tools (e.g., needle-in-a-haystack) and abilities beyond just editing (e.g., understanding) that coding agents still find difficult, pairing SWE-bench-style tasks with controlled diagnosis.

Speculative inference is a promising paradigm employing small speculative models (SSMs) as drafters to generate draft tokens, which are subsequently verified in parallel by the target large language model (LLM). This approach enhances the efficiency of inference serving by reducing LLM inference latency and costs while preserving generation quality. However, existing speculative methods face critical challenges, including inefficient resource utilization and limited draft acceptance, which constrain their scalability and overall effectiveness. To overcome these obstacles, we present CoSine, a novel speculative inference system that decouples sequential speculative decoding from parallel verification, enabling efficient collaboration among multiple nodes. Specifically, CoSine routes inference requests to specialized drafters based on their expertise and incorporates a confidence-based token fusion mechanism to synthesize outputs from cooperating drafters, ensuring high-quality draft generation. Additionally, CoSine dynamically orchestrates the execution of speculative decoding and verification in a pipelined manner, employing batch scheduling to selectively group requests and adaptive speculation control to minimize idle periods. By optimizing parallel workflows through heterogeneous node collaboration, CoSine balances draft generation and verification throughput in real-time, thereby maximizing resource utilization. Experimental results demonstrate that CoSine achieves superior performance compared to state-of-the-art speculative approaches. Notably, with equivalent resource costs, CoSine achieves up to a 23.2% decrease in latency and a 32.5% increase in throughput compared to baseline methods.

LLM agents increasingly rely on external inference conditions: prompts, tools, memory, SOPs, skills, and harness feedback. These assets can improve task execution without changing model weights, but they are often revised by heuristic reflection or by reusing observed successes and failures as if counts alone were reliable belief. We introduce Bayesian-Agent, a native and cross-harness framework that treats reusable skills and SOPs as hypotheses about whether a frozen model will succeed under a particular prompt, context, and harness environment. Bayesian-Agent records verified trajectory evidence, maintains a feature-conditioned categorical posterior over each skill, and maps posterior state into inspectable actions such as patch, split, compress, retire, and explore. Model-facing prompts receive executable guardrails and failure-mode patches, while posterior summaries remain available for audit. With deepseek-v4-flash, incremental repair improves SOP-Bench from 80\% to 95\%, Lifelong AgentBench from 90\% to 100\%, and RealFin-Bench from 45\% to 65\%. We further evaluate Bayesian-Agent's native backend and optional GenericAgent, mini-swe-agent, and Claude Code backends. The results include positive, negative, saturated, and case-study settings, suggesting that agent skill evolution is best viewed as posterior-guided harness optimization rather than uncalibrated prompt accumulation. The source code is available at https://github.com/DataArcTech/Bayesian-Agent.

We introduce OenoBench, a wine-domain knowledge benchmark of 3,266 multiple-choice questions across six pillars (regions, grape varieties, viticulture, winemaking, producers, business) and four difficulty tiers. The corpus is built from 38,104 atomic, source-anchored facts extracted by 35 provenance-verified scrapers from government registries (INAO, TTB, OIV), peer-reviewed journals, and Wikipedia/Wikidata. Our methodological contribution is an LLM-driven pipeline in which language models reformat verified facts and audit the result, but never serve as the source of truth: every claim traces to a URL, every question is generated by one of five strategies across five generator families, and every question is scored by a nine-agent audit calibrated against a human gold sheet via Cohen's κ. Evaluating sixteen frontier configurations, we find: (i) overall accuracy spans 53%-84%, led by o3 at 83.6%; (ii) reasoning-mode lift concentrates in DeepSeek R1 (+6.8pp) and is absent in Claude Opus and Gemini Pro; (iii) Anthropic shows +9pp self preference on its own questions while Google shows -8pp inverse preference; (iv) frontier open-weight models share the cost-vs-accuracy Pareto frontier with proprietary reasoning models; and (v) every config gains around 33pp on closed-book solvable items, revealing a parametric-recall ceiling that only the contextual slice avoids. We release corpus, audit findings, human-review app, and construction code under CC-BY-SA-4.0.

How can an agent handle a real-world task end to end? Frontier models with their own harnesses still fall short on real-world benchmarks: on Terminal-Bench 4.0, GPT-5.6 Sol with Codex resolves 37.3% of the tasks and Claude Opus 5 with Claude Code 51.8%. These tasks fail at the step from reaching a resource to applying it, which we call the last mile to the real world. Existing approaches put the resource within reach but leave the competence to apply it with the caller, so each harness rebuilds that competence. We introduce agent-native primitives, reusable units that equip a resource with a resident LLM that applies it in context and communicates with other primitives, and HEELO (Harness Engineering around Evolving Agent-Native Primitives for the Last Mile to Real-WOrld Tasks), a harness engineering framework that builds each task's harness from a library of such primitives. HEELO composes the primitives a task needs into a task-specific graph, verifies the result against evidence from the environment, revises the primitives a failure implicates, and admits new or improved primitives after validation. We instantiate HEELO with eight primitive families, each built for one kind of task, and evaluate them on more than twenty benchmarks. Dev-Primitives raise Terminal-Bench 4.0 resolution from 37.3% under Codex to 55.5% on the same backbone, Harness Primitives composed per task raise Terminal-Bench 2.0 Pass@1 from 60.0% for the seed harness to 72.2%, Tool Primitives raise ToolBench pass rate from 55.8% to 75.1%, and Navigation Primitives raise GAIA-Text-103 accuracy from 45.6% to 58.3%. On the 46 real-world tasks of our heelo.dev platform, Claude Opus 5.5 with Claude Code and GPT-6.1 Sol with Codex complete 9 each on their own and 39 and 35 when connected to HEELO through our MCP server, with 1.9times and 2.3times less time and 1.55times lower cost per completed task.

A large language model (LLM) agent solves long-horizon tasks through many reasoning-action turns, with one verification signal at termination. Deployed agents face streams of related tasks, making their trajectories a natural resource for improvement. In-context adaptation agents store reflections, memories, or skills as text, so reuse depends on retrieving the right experience and on a frozen policy executing it. We study Online Agentic Test-Time Training (OaTTT), which trains the LLM's weights on its own execution trajectories during deployment. The agent executes each task once, in one pass over the stream, and the executed trajectory with its verification result is the only learning signal for weight updates that persist across tasks. Directly imitating or reinforcing the generated tokens of this single attempt destabilizes the policy. We introduce ASCENT (Agentic Self-distillation for Cross-task EvolutioN at Test-time), which instead self-distills verified experience. A stable version of the LLM, its frozen initial copy, receives the verified trajectory as privileged information and predicts next-token distributions along it with this hindsight. Distilling them into persistent LoRA fast weights updates the agent for later tasks, without an external reference solution or stronger teacher. By further removing invalid-action turns, ASCENT distills enhanced privileged experience for more efficient execution. We characterize its population target and the limits of sparse outcome selection. Across ALFWorld, WebShop, and AppWorld at varied model scales, ASCENT improves task success and interaction efficiency as experience accumulates, outperforms online adaptation methods, and transfers to held-out scenes, showing that an agent can consolidate verified experience into its weights without a separate training phase or memory retrieval. Project page: https://artificer-ai-lab.github.io/ASCENT

Optimization modeling enables critical decisions across industries but remains difficult to automate: informal language must be mapped to precise mathematical formulations and executable solver code. Prior LLM approaches either rely on brittle prompting or costly retraining with limited generalization. We present AlphaOPT, a self-improving experience library that enables an LLM to learn from limited demonstrations (even answers alone, without gold-standard programs) and solver feedback - without annotated reasoning traces or parameter updates. AlphaOPT operates in a continual two-phase cycle: (i) a Library Learning phase that reflects on failed attempts, extracting solver-verified, structured insights as {taxonomy, condition, explanation, example}; and (ii) a Library Evolution phase that diagnoses retrieval misalignments and refines the applicability conditions of stored insights, improving transfer across tasks. This design (1) learns efficiently from limited demonstrations without curated rationales, (2) expands continually without costly retraining by updating the library rather than model weights, and (3) makes knowledge explicit and interpretable for human inspection and intervention. Experiments show that AlphaOPT steadily improves with more data (65% to 72% from 100 to 300 training items) and surpasses the strongest baseline by 7.7% on the out-of-distribution OptiBench dataset when trained only on answers. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Minw913/AlphaOPT.

When a large language model (LLM) agent executes the same task, token consumption can vary by over an order of magnitude across runs. The agent chooses its next steps based on tool feedback and intermediate results, while the growing context steadily inflates the input size of every subsequent call. The total consumption of a task is therefore hard to predict before execution and the prediction must be revised as the run unfolds. In this paper, we propose TokenCast, which learns a composable cost representation for each execution segment, recording its own consumption and the context growth it introduces. Composing adjacent segments yields a cumulative estimate that captures the extra input cost incurred when context from earlier segments is re-read by every later call. As execution unfolds, newly observed evidence refreshes the forecast, requiring no additional LLM calls and incurring a mean cumulative prediction time of 32.8 ms per run on SWE-bench Verified. Across 4 task suites and 6 agent models, TokenCast's mean absolute error reduction against the strongest comparator averages 14.5% over 96 evaluated combinations. In offline budget-control replay, TokenCast uses 21.3% fewer tokens on average than a fixed-budget policy at matched trace completion. The code is available at https://github.com/DEFENSE-SEU/TokenCast.

LLM-as-a-Judge and reward models are widely used alternatives of multiple-choice questions or human annotators for large language model (LLM) evaluation. Their efficacy shines in evaluating long-form responses, serving a critical role as evaluators of leaderboards and as proxies to align LLMs via reinforcement learning. However, despite their popularity, their effectiveness outside of English remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis on automated evaluators, reporting key findings on their behavior in a non-English environment. First, we discover that English evaluation capabilities significantly influence language-specific capabilities, often more than the language proficiency itself, enabling evaluators trained in English to easily transfer their skills to other languages. Second, we identify critical shortcomings, where LLMs fail to detect and penalize errors, such as factual inaccuracies, cultural misrepresentations, and the presence of unwanted language. Finally, we release Kudge, the first non-English meta-evaluation dataset containing 5,012 human annotations in Korean.

LLM-as-a-judge models have been used for evaluating both human and AI generated content, specifically by providing scores and rationales. Rationales, in addition to increasing transparency, help models learn to calibrate its judgments. Enhancing a model's rationale can therefore improve its calibration abilities and ultimately the ability to score content. We introduce Self-Rationalization, an iterative process of improving the rationales for the judge models, which consequently improves the score for fine-grained customizable scoring criteria (i.e., likert-scale scoring with arbitrary evaluation criteria). Self-rationalization works by having the model generate multiple judgments with rationales for the same input, curating a preference pair dataset from its own judgements, and iteratively fine-tuning the judge via DPO. Intuitively, this approach allows the judge model to self-improve by learning from its own rationales, leading to better alignment and evaluation accuracy. After just two iterations -- while only relying on examples in the training set -- human evaluation shows that our judge model learns to produce higher quality rationales, with a win rate of 62% on average compared to models just trained via SFT on rationale . This judge model also achieves high scoring accuracy on BigGen Bench and Reward Bench, outperforming even bigger sized models trained using SFT with rationale, self-consistency or best-of-N sampling by 3% to 9%.

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, leading to the emergence of "LLM-as-a-Judge," where LLMs are employed as evaluators for complex tasks. With their ability to process diverse data types and provide scalable, cost-effective, and consistent assessments, LLMs present a compelling alternative to traditional expert-driven evaluations. However, ensuring the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems remains a significant challenge that requires careful design and standardization. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-as-a-Judge, addressing the core question: How can reliable LLM-as-a-Judge systems be built? We explore strategies to enhance reliability, including improving consistency, mitigating biases, and adapting to diverse assessment scenarios. Additionally, we propose methodologies for evaluating the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, supported by a novel benchmark designed for this purpose. To advance the development and real-world deployment of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, we also discussed practical applications, challenges, and future directions. This survey serves as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in this rapidly evolving field.

With the rapid development and widespread application of Large Language Models (LLMs), the use of Machine-Generated Text (MGT) has become increasingly common, bringing with it potential risks, especially in terms of quality and integrity in fields like news, education, and science. Current research mainly focuses on purely MGT detection without adequately addressing mixed scenarios, including AI-revised Human-Written Text (HWT) or human-revised MGT. To tackle this challenge, we define mixtext, a form of mixed text involving both AI and human-generated content. Then, we introduce MixSet, the first dataset dedicated to studying these mixtext scenarios. Leveraging MixSet, we executed comprehensive experiments to assess the efficacy of prevalent MGT detectors in handling mixtext situations, evaluating their performance in terms of effectiveness, robustness, and generalization. Our findings reveal that existing detectors struggle to identify mixtext, particularly in dealing with subtle modifications and style adaptability. This research underscores the urgent need for more fine-grain detectors tailored for mixtext, offering valuable insights for future research. Code and Models are available at https://github.com/Dongping-Chen/MixSet.

LLM-as-a-Judge leverages the generative and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to evaluate LLM responses across diverse scenarios, providing accurate preference signals. This approach plays a vital role in aligning LLMs with human values, ensuring ethical and reliable AI outputs that align with societal norms. Recent studies have raised many methods to train LLM as generative judges, but most of them are data consuming or lack accuracy, and only focus on LLM's judge ability. In this work, we regard judge ability as a general ability of LLM and implement a two-stage training approach, comprising supervised fine-tuning (SFT) warm-up and direct preference optimization (DPO) enhancement, to achieve judge style adaptation and improve judgment accuracy. Additionally, we introduce an efficient data synthesis method to generate judgmental content. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach, utilizing only about 2% to 40% of the data required by other methods, achieves SOTA performance on RewardBench. Furthermore, our training method enhances the general capabilities of the model by constructing complicated judge task, and the judge signals provided by our model have significantly enhanced the downstream DPO training performance of our internal models in our test to optimize policy model with Judge Model. We also open-source our model weights and training data to facilitate further research.

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

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. Therefore, we identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM-which systematically quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge by using automated and principle-guided modification. Our experiments cover multiple popular language models, and the results indicate that while advanced models have achieved commendable overall performance, significant biases persist in certain specific tasks. Empirical results suggest that there remains room for improvement in the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge. Moreover, we also discuss the explicit and implicit influence of these biases and give some suggestions for the reliable application of LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.

As large language models are increasingly responsible for online content, concerns arise about the impact of repeatedly processing their own outputs. Inspired by the "broken telephone" effect in chained human communication, this study investigates whether LLMs similarly distort information through iterative generation. Through translation-based experiments, we find that distortion accumulates over time, influenced by language choice and chain complexity. While degradation is inevitable, it can be mitigated through strategic prompting techniques. These findings contribute to discussions on the long-term effects of AI-mediated information propagation, raising important questions about the reliability of LLM-generated content in iterative workflows.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

LLM-as-a-Judge refers to the automatic modeling of preferences for responses generated by Large Language Models (LLMs), which is of significant importance for both LLM evaluation and reward modeling. Although generative LLMs have made substantial progress in various tasks, their performance as LLM-Judge still falls short of expectations. In this work, we propose Think-J, which improves generative LLM-as-a-Judge by learning how to think. We first utilized a small amount of curated data to develop the model with initial judgment thinking capabilities. Subsequently, we optimize the judgment thinking traces based on reinforcement learning (RL). We propose two methods for judgment thinking optimization, based on offline and online RL, respectively. The offline RL requires training a critic model to construct positive and negative examples for learning. The online method defines rule-based reward as feedback for optimization. Experimental results showed that our approach can significantly enhance the evaluation capability of generative LLM-Judge, surpassing both generative and classifier-based LLM-Judge without requiring extra human annotations.

Prompting large language models (LLMs) to evaluate generated text, known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a standard evaluation approach in natural language generation (NLG), but is primarily used as a quantitative tool, i.e. with numerical scores as main outputs. In this work, we propose LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge, an LLM-based evaluation approach with the main output being a structured report of common issue types in the NLG system outputs. Our approach is targeted at providing developers with meaningful insights on what improvements can be done to a given NLG system and consists of two main steps, namely open-ended per-instance issue analysis and clustering of the discovered issues using an intuitive cumulative algorithm. We also introduce a strategy for evaluating the proposed approach, coupled with ~300 annotations of issues in instances from 12 NLG datasets. Our results show that LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge correctly recognizes instance-specific issues in 2/3 cases and is capable of producing error type reports resembling the reports composed by human annotators. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/tunde-ajayi/llm-as-a-qualitative-judge.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaaJ) now underpins scalable evaluation, yet we lack a decisive test of a judge's qualification: can it recover a conversation's latent objective and know when that inference is trustworthy? LLMs degrade under irrelevant or long context; multi-turn jailbreaks further hide goals across turns. We introduce ObjexMT, a benchmark for objective extraction and metacognition. Given a multi-turn transcript, a model must return a one-sentence base objective and a self-reported confidence. Accuracy is computed via LLM-judge semantic similarity to gold objectives, converted to binary correctness by a single human-aligned threshold calibrated once on N = 100 items (tau^*=0.61). Metacognition is evaluated with ECE, Brier, Wrong-at-High-Conf, and risk-coverage. Across gpt-4.1, claude-sonnet-4, and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 on SafeMTData_Attack600, SafeMTData_1K, MHJ, and CoSafe, claude-sonnet-4 attains the best objective-extraction accuracy (0.515) and calibration (ECE 0.296; Brier 0.324); gpt-4.1 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 tie at 0.441 but are overconfident (mean confidence approx0.88 vs. accuracy approx0.44; Wrong-at-0.90 approx48-52%). Performance varies by dataset (approx0.167-0.865). ObjexMT thus supplies an actionable test for LLM judges: when objectives are not explicit, judges often misinfer them with high confidence. We recommend exposing objectives when feasible and gating decisions by confidence otherwise. Code and data at https://github.com/hyunjun1121/ObjexMT_dataset.

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

LLM-as-a-judge has become a promising paradigm for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language generation (NLG), but the uncertainty of its evaluation remains underexplored. This lack of reliability may limit its deployment in many applications. This work presents the first framework to analyze the uncertainty by offering a prediction interval of LLM-based scoring via conformal prediction. Conformal prediction constructs continuous prediction intervals from a single evaluation run, and we design an ordinal boundary adjustment for discrete rating tasks. We also suggest a midpoint-based score within the interval as a low-bias alternative to raw model score and weighted average. We perform extensive experiments and analysis, which show that conformal prediction can provide valid prediction interval with coverage guarantees. We also explore the usefulness of interval midpoint and judge reprompting for better judgment.

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

Providers of LLM-as-a-service have predominantly adopted a simple pricing model: users pay a fixed price per token. Consequently, one may think that the price two different users would pay for the same output string under the same input prompt is the same. In our work, we show that, surprisingly, this is not (always) true. We find empirical evidence that, particularly for non-english outputs, both proprietary and open-weights LLMs often generate the same (output) string with multiple different tokenizations, even under the same input prompt, and this in turn leads to arbitrary price variation. To address the problem of tokenization multiplicity, we introduce canonical generation, a type of constrained generation that restricts LLMs to only generate canonical tokenizations -- the unique tokenization in which each string is tokenized during the training process of an LLM. Further, we introduce an efficient sampling algorithm for canonical generation based on the Gumbel-Max trick. Experiments on a variety of natural language tasks demonstrate that our sampling algorithm for canonical generation is comparable to standard sampling in terms of performance and runtime, and it solves the problem of tokenization multiplicity.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of its evaluation remain a critical issue. A core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in terms of known biases and their impact on evaluation outcomes, while automated and systematic exploration of potential unknown biases is still lacking. Nevertheless, such exploration is crucial for enhancing the robustness and reliability of evaluations. To bridge this gap, we propose BiasScope, a LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. BiasScope can uncover potential biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. It overcomes the limitations of existing approaches, transforming bias discovery from a passive process relying on manual effort and predefined bias lists into an active and comprehensive automated exploration. Moreover, based on BiasScope, we propose JudgeBench-Pro, an extended version of JudgeBench and a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge. Strikingly, even powerful LLMs as evaluators show error rates above 50\% on JudgeBench-Pro, underscoring the urgent need to strengthen evaluation robustness and to mitigate potential biases further.

LLM-as-a-judge has emerged as a cornerstone technique for evaluating large language models by leveraging LLM reasoning to score prompt-response pairs. Since LLM judgments are stochastic, practitioners commonly query each pair multiple times to estimate mean scores accurately. This raises a critical challenge: given a fixed computational budget B, how to optimally allocate queries across K prompt-response pairs to minimize estimation error? % We present a principled variance-adaptive approach leveraging multi-armed bandit theory and concentration inequalities. Our method dynamically allocates queries based on estimated score variances, concentrating resources where uncertainty is highest. Further, our algorithm is shown to achieve a worst-case score-estimation error of Oleft(frac{sum_{i=1^K σ_i^2}{B}}right), σ_i^2 being the unknown score variance for pair i in [K] with near-optimal budget allocation. % Experiments on Summarize-From-Feedback and HelpSteer2 demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms uniform allocation, reducing worst-case estimation error while maintaining identical budgets. Our work establishes a theoretical foundation for efficient LLM evaluation with practical implications for AI safety, model alignment, and automated assessment at scale.

Neural Architecture Search (NAS) aims to automatically discover high-performing deep neural network (DNN) architectures. However, conventional algorithm-driven NAS relies on carefully hand-crafted search spaces to ensure executability, which restricts open-ended exploration. Recent coding-based agentic approaches using large language models (LLMs) reduce manual design, but current LLMs struggle to reliably generate complex, valid architectures, and their proposals are often biased toward a narrow set of patterns observed in their training data. To bridge reliable algorithmic search with powerful LLM assistance, we propose LLMasTool, a hierarchical tree-based NAS framework for stable and open-ended model evolution. Our method automatically extracts reusable modules from arbitrary source code and represents full architectures as hierarchical trees, enabling evolution through reliable tree transformations rather than code generation. At each evolution step, coarse-level planning is governed by a diversity-guided algorithm that leverages Bayesian modeling to improve exploration efficiency, while the LLM resolves the remaining degrees of freedom to ensure a meaningful evolutionary trajectory and an executable generated architecture. With this formulation, instead of fully agentic LLM approaches, our method explores diverse directions beyond the inherent biases in the LLM. Our method improves over existing NAS methods by 0.69, 1.83, and 2.68 points on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and ImageNet16-120, demonstrating its effectiveness.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation, significantly advancing the automation of SE tasks. However, assessing the quality of these LLM-generated code and text remains challenging. The commonly used Pass@k metric necessitates extensive unit tests and configured environments, demands a high labor cost, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text. Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny. In response, a new trend has emerged to employ LLMs for automated evaluation, known as LLM-as-a-judge. These LLM-as-a-judge methods are claimed to better mimic human assessment than conventional metrics without relying on high-quality reference answers. Nevertheless, their exact human alignment in SE tasks remains unexplored. In this paper, we empirically explore LLM-as-a-judge methods for evaluating SE tasks, focusing on their alignment with human judgments. We select seven LLM-as-a-judge methods that utilize general-purpose LLMs, alongside two LLMs specifically fine-tuned for evaluation. After generating and manually scoring LLM responses on three recent SE datasets of code translation, code generation, and code summarization, we then prompt these methods to evaluate each response. Finally, we compare the scores generated by these methods with human evaluation. The results indicate that output-based methods reach the highest Pearson correlation of 81.32 and 68.51 with human scores in code translation and generation, achieving near-human evaluation, noticeably outperforming ChrF++, one of the best conventional metrics, at 34.23 and 64.92. Such output-based methods prompt LLMs to output judgments directly, and exhibit more balanced score distributions that resemble human score patterns. Finally, we provide...

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

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases - particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt - compromise its reliability. This exploratory study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings, introducing three metrics: repetition stability, position consistency, and preference fairness. Our experiments, involving 15 LLM judges across MTBench and DevBench with 22 tasks and approximately 40 solution-generating models, result in over 150,000 evaluation instances. We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias. The findings confirm that position bias is not due to random chance and varies significantly across judges and tasks. While position bias is weakly influenced by the length of prompt components, it is strongly affected by the quality gap between solutions. Our agreement and disagreement analysis among judges further provides insights into the distribution of judging difficulty across the dataset, and highlights the potential for dataset modifications.

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

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge) for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. This paradigm offers scalability and cost-effectiveness compared to human annotation. However, the reliability and security of such systems, particularly their robustness against adversarial manipulations, remain critical concerns. This paper investigates the vulnerability of LLM-as-a-Judge architectures to prompt-injection attacks, where malicious inputs are designed to compromise the judge's decision-making process. We formalize two primary attack strategies: Comparative Undermining Attack (CUA), which directly targets the final decision output, and Justification Manipulation Attack (JMA), which aims to alter the model's generated reasoning. Using the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) optimization method, we craft adversarial suffixes appended to one of the responses being compared. Experiments conducted on the MT-Bench Human Judgments dataset with open-source instruction-tuned LLMs (Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and Falcon3-3B-Instruct) demonstrate significant susceptibility. The CUA achieves an Attack Success Rate (ASR) exceeding 30\%, while JMA also shows notable effectiveness. These findings highlight substantial vulnerabilities in current LLM-as-a-Judge systems, underscoring the need for robust defense mechanisms and further research into adversarial evaluation and trustworthiness in LLM-based assessment frameworks.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic peer review, yet their reliability, alignment with human judgment, and robustness to adversarial attacks remain poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of LLM-as-a-Reviewer on 898 papers stratified from NeurIPS and ICLR, evaluating 12 LLMs along three axes: rating calibration, divergence from human reviewers, and resistance to prompt injection embedded via an invisible font-mapping attack. We find that LLMs systematically overrate weaker submissions and diverge from humans in topical emphasis, under-flagging Clarity and over-flagging Reproducibility, while producing reviews two to three times longer with lower lexical diversity and a more standardized vocabulary. Prompt injection remains highly effective. Simple hidden instructions can promote low-scoring papers to acceptance-level ratings in a substantial fraction of cases, with effectiveness varying sharply across model families. While LLMs offer utility in structuring evaluations, their integration into peer review requires safeguards against both intrinsic biases and adversarial risks.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare applications, including clinical documentation, diagnostic reasoning, medicine recommendation, and medical education. Their outputs are largely unstructured clinical text, which is difficult to reliably evaluate at scale. LLM-as-a-Judge, in which an LLM evaluates another system's output against task-specific criteria, offers a scalable alternative and is increasingly used in clinical evaluation, yet its validity in healthcare remains underexamined. Existing reviews focus on general-purpose LLM evaluation or on risk framework, rather than systematically characterizing how LLM-as-a-Judge is applied in healthcare and how well their judgments align with human experts. We therefore conduct a PRISMA-guided comprehensive review of LLM-as-a-Judge applications in healthcare, searching five databases for studies published between January 2023 and February 2026. After screening 541 records, 134 studies meet the eligibility and are coded by health scenario, judge configuration, technical approach, and validation design. LLM-as-a-Judge is concentrated in clinical decision support, clinical natural language processing (NLP), medical knowledge and question answering (QA), and medical communication. OpenAI models are the most frequently used judges, and prompt engineering appears in nearly all studies, with ensemble, multi-agent, and retrieval-augmented designs as common extensions. Among studies reporting human validation, LLM judges often show moderate to strong alignment with expert judgments, although reliability varies substantially across tasks. Overall, this review positions LLM-as-a-Judge as a promising framework for scalable healthcare AI evaluation, while emphasizing that its clinical value depends on model design and rigorous validation.

Rubric-based scoring has become a widely used paradigm in model evaluation, typically with LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) for rubric scoring. However, the reliability of LaaJ for rubric scoring remains underexplored. This concern is especially pronounced in agentic scenarios, where long, complex outputs further challenge reliable scoring. To address this, we conduct a systematic meta-evaluation of LaaJ reliability for rubric verification. We introduce RuVerBench, the first benchmark for assessing LaaJ reliability in rubric verification for agentic scenarios. RuVerBench covers two prevalent agentic domains, deep research and agentic coding, with 2,458 instances, each containing a model-generated output, a rubric, and a human-annotated label indicating whether the output satisfies the rubric. Using RuVerBench, we evaluate numerous frontier LLMs and find that even the most advanced models achieve strong performance but still exhibit substantial noise. We further analyze the impact of key LaaJ strategies, including prompt design, batching, and majority voting, on rubric verification. We find that weaker models are more sensitive to prompt variations, batched verification presents a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency, and majority voting yields effective but diminishing returns. We have released our dataset and code to facilitate future research: https://github.com/THU-KEG/RuVerBench.

Reinforcement learning (RL) for non-verifiable instruction following increasingly relies on LLM judges with prompt-specific rubrics as reward signals. While recent methods adapt these rubrics to the evolving policy during training, the training prompts themselves remain static, drawn from fixed corpora. This static approach often results in a critical misalignment between prompt difficulty and policy capability, leaving the judge unable to recover a discriminative reward signal when prompts fail to elicit quality variance among rollouts. To address this misalignment, we introduce LLM-as-a-Tutor, a framework that extends the LLM's role from judge to tutor: a single model serves as an examiner that pairwise-compares policy rollouts to detect non-challenging prompts, and as a generator that appends atomic constraints to them. This append-only design monotonically raises difficulty in step with the policy's capability, producing a self-calibrating training signal without external difficulty schedules. On three complex instruction-following benchmarks, our method consistently outperforms both policy-unaware baselines and prior policy-adaptive methods that adapt rubrics or rewrite prompts, suggesting prompt adaptation as a missing axis of policy-awareness in non-verifiable RL.

Reinforcement learning (RL) on open-ended tasks compresses an LLM's rubric-based evaluation into a scalar reward, discarding rich textual feedback and conflating responses with distinct quality profiles. We propose Experiential Learning (EL), which repurposes the feedback model from an LLM-as-a-Judge into an LLM-as-a-Coach. The coach distills its assessment of each on-policy response into transferable experiential knowledge, which conditions a teacher model and is internalized by the policy through on-policy context distillation. Compared with scalar rewards, this higher-bandwidth feedback channel provides dense supervision and preserves fine-grained preferences among high-quality responses. Across two policy families, with feedback from the policy itself or a proprietary model, EL consistently outperforms rubric-based RL on held-out and unseen open-ended tasks. Notably, EL generalizes better beyond the training distribution, and mitigates reward hacking. These findings establish experiential knowledge as a richer and more generalizable learning signal for post-training on non-verifiable tasks.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering (SE) has revolutionized tasks like code generation, producing a massive volume of software artifacts. This surge has exposed a critical bottleneck: the lack of scalable, reliable methods to evaluate these outputs. Human evaluation is costly and time-consuming, while traditional automated metrics like BLEU fail to capture nuanced quality aspects. In response, the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm - using LLMs for automated evaluation - has emerged. This approach leverages the advanced reasoning of LLMs, offering a path toward human-like nuance at automated scale. However, LLM-as-a-Judge research in SE is still in its early stages. This forward-looking SE 2030 paper aims to steer the community toward advancing LLM-as-a-Judge for evaluating LLM-generated software artifacts. We provide a literature review of existing SE studies, analyze their limitations, identify key research gaps, and outline a detailed roadmap. We envision these frameworks as reliable, robust, and scalable human surrogates capable of consistent, multi-faceted artifact evaluation by 2030. Our work aims to foster research and adoption of LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, ultimately improving the scalability of software artifact evaluation.

LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks are increasingly trusted to automate evaluation in place of human experts, yet their reliability in high-stakes medical contexts remains unproven. We stress-test this assumption for detecting incomplete patient-facing medical responses, evaluating three rubric granularities (General-Likert, Analytical-Rubric, Dynamic-Checklist) and three backbone models across two clinician-annotated datasets, including HealthBench, the largest publicly available benchmark for medical response evaluation. LLM Judges discriminate complete from incomplete responses at and slightly above near chance (AUC 0.49--0.66); at the threshold required to recall 90% of incomplete responses, clinicians must still review the vast majority of the dataset, offering no triage utility. Even when model and clinician verdicts agree, they rarely cite the same explanation; and when they diverge, false positives stem from over-flagging non-essential gaps while false negatives reflect outright detection failures. These results reveal that LLM Judges and clinicians apply fundamentally different completeness standards; a finding that undermines their use as autonomous evaluators or triage filters in clinical settings.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.

Large language models are strong sequence predictors, yet standard inference relies on immutable context histories. After making an error at generation step t, the model lacks an updatable memory mechanism that improves predictions for step t+1. We propose LLM-as-RNN, an inference-only framework that turns a frozen LLM into a recurrent predictor by representing its hidden state as natural-language memory. This state, implemented as a structured system-prompt summary, is updated at each timestep via feedback-driven text rewrites, enabling learning without parameter updates. Under a fixed token budget, LLM-as-RNN corrects errors and retains task-relevant patterns, effectively performing online learning through language. We evaluate the method on three sequential benchmarks in healthcare, meteorology, and finance across Llama, Gemma, and GPT model families. LLM-as-RNN significantly outperforms zero-shot, full-history, and MemPrompt baselines, improving predictive accuracy by 6.5% on average, while producing interpretable, human-readable learning traces absent in standard context accumulation.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design. In this work, we investigate whether smaller models can serve as efficient evaluators by leveraging internal representations instead of surface generation. We uncover a consistent empirical pattern: small LMs, despite with weak generative ability, encode rich evaluative signals in their hidden states. This motivates us to propose the Semantic Capacity Asymmetry Hypothesis: evaluation requires significantly less semantic capacity than generation and can be grounded in intermediate representations, suggesting that evaluation does not necessarily need to rely on large-scale generative models but can instead leverage latent features from smaller ones. Our findings motivate a paradigm shift from LLM-as-a-Judge to Representation-as-a-Judge, a decoding-free evaluation strategy that probes internal model structure rather than relying on prompted output. We instantiate this paradigm through INSPECTOR, a probing-based framework that predicts aspect-level evaluation scores from small model representations. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH, GPQA) show that INSPECTOR substantially outperforms prompting-based small LMs and closely approximates full LLM judges, while offering a more efficient, reliable, and interpretable alternative for scalable evaluation.

Accurate evaluation is central to the large language model (LLM) ecosystem, guiding model selection and downstream adoption across diverse use cases. In practice, however, evaluating generative outputs typically relies on rigid lexical methods to extract and assess answers, which can conflate a model's true problem-solving ability with its compliance with predefined formatting guidelines. While recent LLM-as-a-Judge approaches mitigate this issue by assessing semantic correctness rather than strict structural conformity, they also introduce substantial computational overhead, making evaluation costly. In this work, we first systematically investigate the limitations of lexical evaluation through a large-scale empirical study spanning 36 models and 15 downstream tasks, demonstrating that such methods correlate poorly with human judgments. To address this limitation, we introduce BERT-as-a-Judge, an encoder-driven approach for assessing answer correctness in reference-based generative settings, robust to variations in output phrasing, and requiring only lightweight training on synthetically annotated question-candidate-reference triplets. We show that it consistently outperforms the lexical baseline while matching the performance of much larger LLM judges, providing a compelling tradeoff between the two and enabling reliable, scalable evaluation. Finally, through extensive experimentation, we provide detailed insights into BERT-as-a-Judge's performance to offer practical guidance for practitioners, and release all project artifacts to foster downstream adoption.

Large Language Models have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A. The basic idea is to delegate to an LLM the assessment of the "quality" of the output provided by an automated technique for tasks for which: (i) quantitative metrics would only tell part of the story, and; (ii) a large-scale human-based evaluation would be too expensive. LLMs-as-a-judge, if proven effective for a specific task, can also unlock new possibilities for automation, with several LLMs proposing a solution for a given instance of the task and others judging and deciding what is the best output to show the user. We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namely code generation and code summarization. The rationale for choosing these tasks is two-fold. First, quantitative metrics are usually not enough for the assessment of code summarizers/generators. For example, it is well documented that metrics such as BLEU are quite weak proxies for the quality of the generated summaries. Second, even state-of-the-art techniques still struggle with handling complex instances of these tasks, making them good candidates for benefiting from more advanced solutions envisioning collaboration among LLMs. For code generation, we check whether eight LLMs are able to judge the correctness of 1,405 Java methods and 1,281 Python functions generated by the same LLMs or implemented by humans. For code summarization, we compare the judgment of five LLMs to those provided by nine humans for ~1.2k summaries, related to both Java and Python functions. Our findings show that GPT-4-turbo is the best LLM in terms of judging capabilities for both tasks, with "smaller" LLMs featuring tens of billions parameters not being able to cope with judging tasks. However, even the best-performing LLM frequently misjudges the correctness of the code and summary quality.

LLM as judge systems used to assess text quality code correctness and argument strength are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks. We introduce a framework that separates content author attacks from system prompt attacks and evaluate five models Gemma 3.27B Gemma 3.4B Llama 3.2 3B GPT 4 and Claude 3 Opus on four tasks with various defenses using fifty prompts per condition. Attacks achieved up to seventy three point eight percent success smaller models proved more vulnerable and transferability ranged from fifty point five to sixty two point six percent. Our results contrast with Universal Prompt Injection and AdvPrompter We recommend multi model committees and comparative scoring and release all code and datasets

Evaluating large language model (LLM) based chat assistants is challenging due to their broad capabilities and the inadequacy of existing benchmarks in measuring human preferences. To address this, we explore using strong LLMs as judges to evaluate these models on more open-ended questions. We examine the usage and limitations of LLM-as-a-judge, such as position and verbosity biases and limited reasoning ability, and propose solutions to migrate some of them. We then verify the agreement between LLM judges and human preferences by introducing two benchmarks: MT-bench, a multi-turn question set; and Chatbot Arena, a crowdsourced battle platform. Our results reveal that strong LLM judges like GPT-4 can match both controlled and crowdsourced human preferences well, achieving over 80\% agreement, the same level of agreement between humans. Hence, LLM-as-a-judge is a scalable and explainable way to approximate human preferences, which are otherwise very expensive to obtain. Additionally, we show our benchmark and traditional benchmarks complement each other by evaluating several variants of LLaMA/Vicuna. We will publicly release 80 MT-bench questions, 3K expert votes, and 30K conversations with human preferences from Chatbot Arena.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful zero-shot assessors and are increasingly used in real-world situations such as for written exams or benchmarking systems. Despite this, no existing work has analyzed the vulnerability of judge-LLMs against adversaries attempting to manipulate outputs. This work presents the first study on the adversarial robustness of assessment LLMs, where we search for short universal phrases that when appended to texts can deceive LLMs to provide high assessment scores. Experiments on SummEval and TopicalChat demonstrate that both LLM-scoring and pairwise LLM-comparative assessment are vulnerable to simple concatenation attacks, where in particular LLM-scoring is very susceptible and can yield maximum assessment scores irrespective of the input text quality. Interestingly, such attacks are transferable and phrases learned on smaller open-source LLMs can be applied to larger closed-source models, such as GPT3.5. This highlights the pervasive nature of the adversarial vulnerabilities across different judge-LLM sizes, families and methods. Our findings raise significant concerns on the reliability of LLMs-as-a-judge methods, and underscore the importance of addressing vulnerabilities in LLM assessment methods before deployment in high-stakes real-world scenarios.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have gained significant attention recently, showing remarkable potential in artificial general intelligence. However, assessing the utility of MLLMs presents considerable challenges, primarily due to the absence of multimodal benchmarks that align with human preferences. Drawing inspiration from the concept of LLM-as-a-Judge within LLMs, this paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities, encompassing three distinct tasks: Scoring Evaluation, Pair Comparison, and Batch Ranking. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking. Furthermore, a closer examination reveals persistent challenges in the judgment capacities of LLMs, including diverse biases, hallucinatory responses, and inconsistencies in judgment, even in advanced models such as GPT-4V. These findings emphasize the pressing need for enhancements and further research efforts to be undertaken before regarding MLLMs as fully reliable evaluators. In light of this, we advocate for additional efforts dedicated to supporting the continuous development within the domain of MLLM functioning as judges. The code and dataset are publicly available at our project homepage: https://mllm-judge.github.io/.

The "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. LLM annotations are widely used, not only in NLP research but also in fields like medicine, psychology, and social science. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. In this paper, we propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations. Additionally, we introduce a versatile and interpretable measure for comparing LLM judges. To demonstrate our procedure, we curated a diverse collection of ten datasets, consisting of language and vision-language tasks, and conducted experiments with six LLMs and four prompting techniques. Our results show that LLMs can sometimes replace humans with closed-source LLMs (such as GPT-4o), outperforming open-source LLMs, and that prompting techniques yield judges of varying quality. We hope this study encourages more rigorous and reliable practices.