arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Bing Zhao

Publications and source records attributed to Bing Zhao.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

SocialArena: Evaluating Social Intelligence in Large Language Models

We introduce SocialArena, a benchmark for systematically defining and evaluating the social intelligence of large language models (LLMs). Although LLMs are increasingly deployed in socially interactive applications such as mental health counseling, companionship chatbots, and educational tutoring, existing evaluations remain fragmented focusing on isolated capabilities or single scenarios and evaluation reliability is largely unverified. This work makes three main contributions to address these limitations. (1) We first propose a unified three-tier framework that defines social intelligence along three capability dimensions: role-playing ability, mental state reasoning, and behavioral reasoning. To operationalize this definition, we design a role-playing dialogue paradigm with explicit character thinking for evaluation, enabling simultaneous assessment of these capabilities in a manner that mirrors realistic human interactions. (2) To ensure diversity across social scenarios and thereby prevent evaluation conclusions from being confined to specific scenarios, we introduce the U-TRIMF framework, which guides us in synthesizing social contexts with broad coverage. (3) To obtain reliable evaluation, we invest $132.4K to recruit and train human annotators and adopt a human-annotated arena-style protocol, where annotators compare model responses and provide preference labels along with natural-language critiques. We hope that SocialArena can provide valuable insights and guidance for future LLM improvements.

cs.AI↗

SCI-AGENT-EXAM: Benchmarking Agents on Scientific Research Tasks

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of supporting scientific workflows, but their capabilities across diverse research activities remain difficult to assess systematically. Existing benchmarks often focus on selected scientific capabilities or task types, limiting a comprehensive characterization of scientific agents' strengths and weaknesses in realistic research workflows. We introduce SCI-AGENT-EXAM, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 120 expert-curated tasks across 11 scientific fields and 7 research task types defined by the Scientific Workflow Task Taxonomy (SWTT). Each task requires both executable artifacts (e.g., code and scripts) and textual artifacts (e.g., reports and explanations). To evaluate the heterogeneous task outputs, we develop a hybrid evaluation protocol combining deterministic programmatic verification for executable artifacts with a calibrated, expert-validated LLM-based judge for textual artifacts. Beyond outcome assessment, we analyze progress and solution stability along execution trajectories to characterize how agents reach their final results. Experiments with 10 frontier LLM agents reveal substantial performance gaps: GPT-6 Astra achieves the highest overall score of 80.9, yet only 26.0% of its runs exceed the 0.95 success threshold. Further analyses uncover distinct capability profiles across scientific task types and substantial variation in execution efficiency and stability. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/Sci-Agent-Exam.

cs.CL↗

REVEAL: Reverse Engineering Agentic Latents from Frontier-Model Traces

Frontier LLM agents perform complex interactive tasks, but their inference costs motivate transferring their experience to smaller open-source agents. Distillation and latent communication typically require target-model training or access to source-model internals. We study how textual frontier-model trajectories can provide reusable local controls for a frozen agent. Inspired by protocol reverse engineering, we introduce $\textit{Agentic Latents}$, comprising anchored states and dynamic profiles of feedback--response cycles elicited by replay in the target model. Our training-free framework, $\textbf{REVEAL}$ ($\textbf{REV}$erse $\textbf{E}$ngineering $\textbf{A}$gentic $\textbf{L}$atents), uses these profiles and trajectory outcomes to match and select local events from successful and failed rollouts of the same task and source model. Their response-transition contrasts yield a target-specific steering direction, applied before each response. Within-benchmark evaluations on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and Humanity's Last Exam with tools report higher accuracy than unmodified agents across three targets. Representation analyses and behavioral case studies support reusing frontier-model experience as local activation control.

cs.AI↗

MedPRMBench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Process Reward Models in Medical Reasoning

Medical reasoning can reach a plausible answer while overlooking an unsafe or unsupported intermediate step. Process-Level Reward Models (PRMs) can verify such steps, yet existing PRM benchmarks largely target mathematics rather than patient-specific clinical errors. We introduce \textbf{MedPRMBench}, a step-level medical reasoning benchmark with 14 clinical error types, including five new and two clinically re-scoped types, and rule-defined severity grades. Built from seven medical QA sources via structured error construction and review by 86 physicians from Grade-A tertiary hospitals, it provides 6{,}500 evaluation questions, 13{,}000 reasoning chains, and 113{,}910 step labels, plus a leakage-clean 6{,}870-question training split. The best of 20 prompted critics reaches only 75.4\% PRMScore, and critics differ sharply in error-type profiles and operating points. A Qwen3-8B PRM trained on the split reaches 86.6\% PRMScore and 89.0\% strict first-error localization; in matched ablations, physician review raises error recall by 6.55 points and cuts clean-chain false alarms from 5.6\% to 2.1\%. The training signal replicates across model families; without further training, the PRM transfers to ProcessBench and PRMBench, exceeding six of nine math-trained PRMs on each.

cs.CL↗

The Scientific Research Taste Benchmark (SciTaste-Bench): A Multi-Disciplinary Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models' Judgment of Research Taste in Scientific Papers

Whether large language models can assess the innovativeness of academic publications matters for literature reviews, research funding screening, and academic recommendations. We introduce the Scientific Research Taste Benchmark (SciTaste), a gold-standard benchmark covering six disciplines: physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, medicine, and finance. SciTaste measures research taste, that is, the ability to judge a paper's scientific value and potential, of which innovativeness is one of seven dimensions. It integrates metadata from NASA ADS, OpenAlex, and arXiv, aligns papers to field-specific classification systems, and scores each paper with the seven-dimensional Academic Taste Index. Dimension weights come from a bi-objective machine-learning approach (five regressors, including random forests) and are shared across all six disciplines. The benchmark includes 300 selected papers (50 per discipline) and a backup pool of 5,700 papers (950 per field) covering 1996-2023. SciTaste supports four evaluation modes: pure_qa, native_search, our structured tool-calling agent DiM (9 bibliometric tools in ADS/OpenAlex), and dimagent_v3_native. Outputs are evaluated by two complementary schemes: correlation with dimension-level accuracy, and WAPE relative error. Across ten state-of-the-art LLMs, tool-based structured evaluation generally outperformed toolless and raw web search modes, though gains were model-dependent. Physics is easiest; chemistry, biology, and medicine remain more challenging. SciTaste supplies the value-judgment substrate auto-research systems need to screen, rank, and prioritize candidate ideas. Dataset, harness, and scoring code are available on Hugging Face at https://huggingface.co/datasets/skylenage/SciTaste-benchmark.

cs.DL↗

ClinConsensus: A Physician-Calibrated Benchmark for Evaluating Clinical Rubric Coverage in Chinese Medical LLMs

Open-ended medical LLM evaluation remains weakly grounded in physician-calibrated coverage of clinically relevant response criteria, especially in localized clinical settings. We introduce \textsc{ClinConsensus}, a Chinese medical benchmark of 2{,}500 expert-curated cases spanning 36 specialties, 12 task themes, multiple difficulty levels, and lay-facing versus professional-facing settings. Each case is paired with 30 case-specific binary rubric criteria. To evaluate whether responses satisfy enough physician-authored criteria, we propose \emph{Clinician-Anchored Coverage Score} (CACS), a physician-calibrated threshold metric instantiated at \(k=10\), and develop a dual-judge framework combining a GPT-5.1 grader with a physician-supervised Qwen3-8B judge. Evaluating 11 frontier LLMs, we find a persistent coverage gap: Rubric Accuracy ranges from 39.6\% to 52.1\%, whereas CACS@10 ranges from 17.8\% to 32.9\%, leaving a 19.2--21.9 point gap across models. Stratified analyses further reveal substantial variation across reasoning, evidence use, structured extraction, medication instructions, follow-up, and dialogue register. These results suggest that medical LLM evaluation should measure thresholded, rubric-grounded clinical coverage rather than average partial correctness.

cs.CL↗

SWE-Test: Benchmarking LLM Vulnerability Discovery via Input Prediction

Vulnerability discovery is becoming an important ability of large language model (LLM) agents: agents that silently miss real defects leave critical software exposed. Rigorously measuring this ability is therefore urgent, but existing benchmarks are gameable through data contamination, score recall against an unknowable vulnerability set, often rely on synthetic bugs, and report a single end-to-end verdict that cannot localize where an agent fails. Vulnerability discovery is a composite ability: an agent must comprehend source code, infer input constraints, construct inputs, execute them, and iteratively correct from feedback. We recast its measurement as an input-prediction task with a closed, deterministic ground truth: using coverage-guided fuzzing, we mine deep target branches in real-world C/C++ programs and ask an agent to predict an input that drives execution to a given branch. This decomposes discovery into three task modes over 22 real-world C/C++ programs spanning 15 domains. Open-loop and Feedback-enabled share 60 fixed-target task instances across 16 of these codebases (13 domains), testing input construction without and with a distance oracle to isolate code comprehension from feedback-driven correction. Online Arena instead removes the predefined target and scores path exploration by coverage gain on a separate, partially overlapping pool of 11 programs; agents collectively confirmed 13 distinct bugs across six programs. Evaluating 15 default-effort model-scaffold configurations, the best reaches only 55.0% pass rate in the Feedback-enabled mode, and the mean across seven paired Claude Code configurations is 36.4% with feedback versus 19.3% without. Decomposing failures, we find constraint inference, not navigation, is the dominant bottleneck. We release SWE-Test with a turnkey evaluation environment.

cs.SE↗

RubricRM: Generative Reward Modeling via Dynamic Rubrics for Image Generation and Editing

Reward models play an essential role in aligning visual generative models, yet most existing visual reward models use a single scalar score or rely on fixed criteria that cannot adapt to different instructions. This limits both interpretability and task sensitivity, especially for text-to-image generation and instruction-based image editing, where different inputs require different evaluation dimensions. We propose RubricRM, a pairwise generative reward modeling framework that first produces an input-specific rubric with evaluation dimensions, weights, and scoring criteria, and then applies the rubric to score candidate images. We train dedicated RubricRM models for text-to-image generation and image editing using a two-stage training pipeline: supervised fine-tuning teaches the model the rubric-based scoring paradigm, while GRPO further improves scoring through fine-grained dimension-level rewards. Experiments on multiple generation and editing benchmarks show that RubricRM outperforms existing specialized reward models and remains competitive with strong proprietary MLLM judges despite using smaller backbones. Our models, data, and code are available at https://github.com/zijiankan/RubricRM.

cs.CV↗

The Illusion of $\textit{What If}$: Evaluating the Breakdown of Counterfactual Reasoning in LLMs

Counterfactual reasoning requires models to reason beyond the observed world and explain how altered conditions propagate through downstream consequences. Existing benchmarks largely target bounded settings with fixed variables or single gold outcomes, overlooking open-domain scenarios requiring causal-process evaluation. To this end, we present $\textbf{WhatIfBench}$, a diagnostic benchmark for open-domain, open-form, long-horizon counterfactual causal reasoning, containing 220 what-if questions across STEM, HSS, and Hybrid scenarios. To evaluate free-form responses, we further propose $\textbf{PRISM}$, which first converts each natural-language explanation into a Response-Derived Semantic Causal Graph of events, states, and mechanisms. On top of this graph, PRISM then jointly applies a Process Metric assessing graph-level causal validity and a Rubric Metric assessing answer-level explanatory adequacy. Evaluating six frontier LLMs with this framework, we find that WhatIfBench remains far from saturated: even the strongest model reaches only a 64.62% final score. Further analysis reveals persistent causal gaps, premise drift, and topology fragmentation, suggesting that fluent counterfactual narratives often mask fragile causal processes. The benchmark, code, and evaluation scripts are available at $\href{https://github.com/zju-gt/WhatIfBench}{WhatIfBench}$.

cs.AI↗

OmniJudge or OmniBias? Diagnosing Multimodal Judges through Balanced, Decoupled Lenses

Multimodal understanding models that can jointly judge text-to-image (T2I), text-to-video (T2V) and text-to-speech (TTS) generation are increasingly used as "OmniJudges" for evaluation and automatic annotation. How reliably they understand what they score remains unclear, since existing benchmarks and training data tend to overemphasize positive examples and to conflate distinct failure modes, so a judge may score well without recognizing failures while its capability gaps stay hidden. Motivated by this, we introduce D3-Omni, a balanced and decoupled benchmark for diagnosing fine-grained multimodal understanding, covering 53 orthogonal binary dimensions (17/22/14) and 10,671 samples (3,526/1,998/5,147) across the three tasks. Rather than re-generating outputs, which may leak information across dimensions, we fix verified fully positive seeds and derive negatives through controlled prompt rewriting and atomic, dimension-isolating perturbations. The resulting D3 design is Dual-balanced, which helps alleviate negative-sample scarcity and per-dimension label imbalance; Decoupled, so that each error is attributable to a single capability; and Dynamic, steering construction toward under-represented regions of the label distribution as generative models improve.The suite reaches near 1:1 per-dimension parity and a uniform distribution over all total-score levels. Under this balanced view, even strong OmniJudges tend to struggle on modality-related dimensions, to confirm satisfied requirements far more reliably than they detect violated ones, and to treat nominally distinct attributes as largely a single decision, suggesting that aggregate accuracy may hide systematic blind spots that a balanced and decoupled lens can help expose and, in turn, address.

cs.AI↗

Response-Based Frequency Stability Assessment under Multi-Scale Disturbances in High-Renewable Power Systems

In high-renewable power systems, active-power disturbances are becoming larger and exhibit increasingly diverse time scales, which complicates frequency stability assessment under unanticipated events. This paper presents a response-based frequency stability assessment method that uses disturbance power, inferred from generator electrical responses, to provide a unified treatment of multi-scale disturbances. Unanticipated disturbances are first classified into short-term and permanent events; permanent disturbances are further divided into step, second-level slope and minute-level slope disturbances. Based on the measured power responses of generator groups, a unified disturbance-power model is constructed to identify the disturbance type online and to quantify disturbance intensity through the disturbance power and its rate of change. Analytical frequency-response models are then derived for each disturbance class. For step disturbances, the maximum tolerable disturbance power is obtained under steady-state and transient frequency deviation constraints, and a safety-margin index is defined. For slope-type disturbances, an improved system frequency response (SFR) model and the rotor motion equation after exhaustion of primary frequency regulation are used to compute the over-limit time of frequency deviation. The proposed response-based assessment method is validated on the CSEE-FS frequency-stability benchmark system, demonstrating its effectiveness and accuracy for quantitative frequency stability assessment in high-renewable power systems.

eess.SY↗

HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 668 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,143 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate eight state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/skylenage/HLE-Verified

cs.CL↗

Living-Harness Is an Interactive-Agent Evolver

Large language model (LLM) agents may recover from a failure within an episode or after a retry, yet the same execution failure can recur in later tasks because post-episode feedback rarely revises the persistent harness that guides future interactions. Static harnesses improve reliability through fixed tools, context, memory, and workflow structures, but remain unchanged after deployment. We propose $\textbf{Living-Harness}$, a self-evolving agent harness that converts each completed trajectory and its evaluator signals into posterior evidence for bounded harness updates. Guided by a domain-level $\textbf{Evolution-SOP}$ ($\textbf{S}$tandard $\textbf{O}$perating $\textbf{P}$rocedure), Living-Harness extracts an episode abstraction and structured update evidence, and writes two complementary forms of procedural knowledge: episodic memory that records trigger conditions, failure patterns, and recovery actions, and a state graph that records state nodes, repair edges, and transition rules. The updated harness state is retrieved to guide future interactions, while tools and base context remain frozen, allowing procedural repairs to accumulate across evolution cycles. On eight interactive environments derived from $τ^2$-Bench and MultiWOZ-2.4, Living-Harness improves average Pass@1 over the strongest interactive baseline by 10.07 and 9.91 percentage points, respectively, and supports retrieval-only reuse of the evolved harness state across model backbones. Our code will be made publicly available soon at https://github.com/anotherbricki/Living-Harness.

cs.MA↗

CC-OCR V2: Fine-Grained Attribution of LMM Failures in Real-World Visual Document Understanding

Recent Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have achieved remarkable progress on OCR-centric document understanding and processing tasks. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate LMMs across diverse tasks to reflect practical document-processing workflows or analyze how document characteristics influence model performance. However, they provide limited insight into the reliability of LMMs under real-world document acquisition conditions, where factors such as lighting, screen displays, imaging quality, and capture methods can substantially affect performance. To bridge this gap, we present CC-OCR v2, a comprehensive benchmark for attributing LMM failures in real-world document processing. CC-OCR v2 provides a unified evaluation framework covering five core document-processing capabilities through 16 subtasks, 74 application scenarios, and 7,093 samples. The benchmark spans five evaluation tracks, ten document categories, and 32 languages in the recognition suite. Beyond task-level evaluation, each sample is annotated with ten fine-grained document factors, enabling systematic attribution of model failures across document types and acquisition conditions. Extensive experiments on 17 representative LMMs reveal substantial performance variation across tasks, document categories, and real-world conditions. Moreover, models with comparable overall accuracy often exhibit fundamentally different failure patterns under specific document factors, highlighting a significant gap between benchmark-level performance and reliable deployment in practical applications. The dataset and evaluation toolkit are publicly available at https://github.com/eioss/CC-OCR-V2.

cs.CL↗

Science Edge Evaluation: SEE the Missing Step Toward Real Scientific Discovery

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in scientific discovery, yet it remains unclear whether they can support complex real laboratory science. Here we introduce Science Edge Evaluation (SEE), a multimodal benchmark of expert-curated questions grounded in peer-reviewed literature and experimental practice in chemistry, biology, and materials science. Evaluation of 19 multimodal large language models (MLLMs) shows that even the best-performing model reaches only 48.7% accuracy. Moreover, general-purpose models outperform science-specialized models on average. In the visual-agent evaluation, the use of tools increases the best accuracy to 52.7%. Tool use can expand the information available to models, but more information does not necessarily lead to reliable scientific reasoning. The key challenge is whether models can manage tool-derived information within the boundaries of the original experimental evidence. Together, these findings reveal that current MLLMs still cannot reliably make justified and evidence-bounded inferences from experimental results, which is an essential capability in real scientific discovery. Bridging this gap requires MLLMs to transition from explaining established scientific concepts to deriving novel and evidence-based insights from experimental data.

cs.AI↗

Right Answer, Wrong Method: Shortcut Hacking Misleads the Evaluation of LLM Reasoning on Frontier Science Benchmarks

Scientific reasoning benchmarks typically evaluate large language models (LLMs) using final-answer accuracy. However, a correct answer does not necessarily demonstrate the reasoning capability targeted by the problem. We identify Solution Hacking, a failure mode in which an LLM reaches the correct answer through invalid shortcuts, such as numerical search, enumeration, guessing, or answer-first verification, without providing a valid task-targeted derivation. We systematically analyze this phenomenon across difficulty levels, scientific domains, and frontier models. Solution hacking increases sharply with benchmark difficulty, from 2.2\% on common problems to 28.3\% on Olympiad-level problems and 37.4\% on HLE. Moreover, 8.2\%-44.1\% of answers credited as correct across frontier models are identified as hacked solutions. We further develop expert-inspired anti-hacking strategies, including an automatic judge and a test-time instruction. The results show that suppressing shortcut behavior substantially reduces reported accuracy while having a smaller effect on correct and non-hacked accuracy. These findings reveal that answer-only evaluation can overestimate the scientific reasoning capabilities of frontier LLMs.

cs.AI↗

FilmBench: A Film-Grade Benchmark for Cinematic Video Generation

Progress in video generation keeps narrowing the visual gap between AI-generated and professionally produced footage, yet most benchmarks still draw prompts from web sources or LLM templates and score them with untrained, generic multimodal models. More fundamentally, their evaluation taxonomies remain rudimentary (overall visual quality, coarse text alignment and temporal smoothness) rather than the professional Cinematic Language criteria by which films are actually made and judged, so they assess basic video plausibility rather than film-grade craft. We introduce FilmBench, a text-to-video (T2V) and reference-to-video (R2V) benchmark grounded in the professional Cinematic Language of the film- academy tradition and co-developed with directors and faculty from the Beijing Film Academy and the Hujing Digital Media & Entertainment Group film studio. It rests on three choices. First, prompts are reverse-engineered from clips of award-winning films spanning 20 cinematic genres and chosen by professional directors, so every prompt is anchored to a verified live-action reference; the prompts follow real shot lists, and most script multiple shots (1,056 of the 1,169 prompts are multi-shot), unlike prior single-clip benchmarks. Second, evaluation follows a three-level Cinematic taxonomy of 3 axes, 12 components and 35 (T2V) +3 (R2V-only) sub-metrics. Third, we develop an in-house expert-grade automatic evaluation agent and open-source its core suite of Cinematic Language operators (FilmOps). Benchmarking leading video generation models (9 for T2V, 7 for R2V), the evaluator reproduces the human model ranking at model-level Spearman \r{ho} = 0.95 (T2V) and 0.96 (R2V). Scores fall well below prior web-style benchmarks, with two consistent gaps in dynamic aesthetics and a marked single- to multi-shot performance drop that widens for weaker models.

cs.CV↗

Are the Financial Reasoning from LLMs Credible? A Real World Test over Long-Horizon Statements

Do Large Language Models (LLMs) possess genuine structural reasoning, or merely rely on surface-level pattern matching? The financial domain, demanding numerical precision and multi-step logic over long contexts, is an ideal testbed. Existing benchmarks fail to capture real-world industrial complexity, predominantly relying on multiple-choice questions or single-hop QA over cropped tables while ignoring intricate cross-statement dynamics and temporal de-cumulation. To bridge this gap, we introduce FinIndices, a large-scale benchmark evaluating data-processing fidelity over uncropped financial statements (up to 32K tokens). Utilizing an automated synthesis pipeline with adversarial traps, FinIndices encompasses Single-Index computation and Table-Index tabulation to test complex domain, temporal, and caliber reasoning. Our evaluation reveals two severe LLM vulnerabilities. First, a "Knowledge Bottleneck": despite memorizing formulas during pre-training, models demonstrate fragile pattern matching. Removing explicit formula hints causes performance to collapse (e.g., Gemini-3.1-Pro drops from 70.70% to 38.22% on table tasks), exposing fatal flaws in temporal de-cumulation and stock-flow caliber mismatch. Second, a "Structural Bottleneck": the intense cognitive load of generating multi-metric, multi-period tables actively drains reasoning capacity. Under structural pressure, LLMs that flawlessly execute isolated derivations regress to shallow heuristics, such as fetching incorrect adjacent columns or substituting deep accounting adjustments with lazy literal arithmetic. Finally, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) yields substantial zero-hint gains (+8.54% Single, +3.82% Table), validating that structured logic can be partially restored via data-centric alignment.

cs.CL↗