arXiv subjects

Maxm Pan

Publications and source records attributed to Maxm Pan.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Hy-MultiTurn: A Six-Dimensional Benchmark for Deep Multi-Turn Dialogue Understanding

Long-running multi-turn interactions with chatbots and agents are now common, and a correct response often depends on remembering earlier details, tracking later revisions, identifying intended objects or referents, and withholding action when required conditions are unmet. Existing multi-turn benchmarks typically cover short exchanges and do not fully evaluate these capabilities in long multi-turn interactions, particularly in Chinese, while offering limited insight into how and why models fail. To address these limitations, we analyze real chatbot failures to identify six recurring mechanisms and use them to define six controlled evaluation modes in Hy-MultiTurn, a Chinese benchmark for deep multi-turn dialogue understanding. The six modes evaluate constraint memory, precise execution, constraint synthesis, object localization, action suppression, and reference resolution. Across the six modes, we construct 209 controlled tasks spanning 12-76 turns, with dialogue length, irrelevant-topic distraction, and colloquial phrasing adding further difficulty. Evaluation of 22 frontier model configurations shows that Hy-MultiTurn is broadly challenging, as even GPT-5.5, the strongest overall configuration, satisfies all requirements in only 41.1 percent of responses and no model performs best in all six modes.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Rephrasing: Book-Level Organization Improves Synthetic Textbook Data for Mid-Training

Synthetic textbook data has improved language model pre-training, but prior work largely treats the benefit as a property of generated content or local rewriting style. We study a different factor: whether related content is organized into coherent book-level documents. We contribute both a scalable synthesis pipeline and controlled evidence that this organization matters. The pipeline retrieves source material from a pre-training corpus, clusters it into topical units, plans hierarchical tables of contents, and assembles source-grounded sections into complete books (our Full setting), yielding 686K textbooks (32B tokens) across 15,000+ disciplines. Replacing natural books in a mid-training mix with this corpus improves downstream performance by +1.09 on average. Controlled comparisons then disentangle the relevant design factors. A content-matched Split condition holds generated text and tokens fixed but treats each section as an independent document; Full's +1.02 mean gain isolates document packaging. A length-matched RandomConcat control that joins sections from different books remains below Full, ruling out document length alone. A retrieval-pool-matched Rephrase condition independently rewrites individual retrieved documents under the same audience-by-style scheme, without clustering, TOC planning, or book assembly; Full's +1.17 gain demonstrates the value of structured synthesis. On Llama3-8B, Full likewise outperforms both RandomConcat and Natural Books, supporting book-level organization as a useful axis for synthetic pre-training data design.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

E-Bench: Benchmarking Multi-Step Tool-Use Agents in Real-World Product Scenarios

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents that interact with stateful environments over multiple steps: gathering hidden information, composing tool calls, and committing state changes. We refer to this capability as multi-step tool use. Existing benchmarks have advanced tool-use agent evaluation, but often focus on isolated API calls, short trajectories, or settings that are difficult to scale or control. We introduce E-Bench, a fully synthetic benchmark with 323 state-changing tasks across three product domains: Honor of Kings, QQ Music, and Tencent Meeting. E-Bench decouples environment synthesis from task synthesis: graph-guided database filling builds reusable, orphan-free product environments, while generator-solver asymmetry creates tasks with both an information gap and a tool gap, requiring agents to discover hidden data and compose multiple tool calls before changing state. Outcomes are graded deterministically by database-state diffs. Since both environments and tasks are synthetic, E-Bench is controllable at the environment level and scalable at the task level. Benchmarking 11 cutting-edge LLMs shows that multi-step tool use remains challenging: Pass^3 stays below 60% for the strongest models, and even with code execution in the E-Bench-Code extension, reliability (Pass^3) remains below 70%.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AI

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AhaBench: Do Agents Learn from Prior Experience? A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Continual Learning

Modern language agents are expected to operate over long horizons: they ask follow-up questions, reuse worked examples, handle tool feedback, and adapt to delayed consequences. Most evaluations still reset the agent after a prompt or score only the final state of one trajectory. AhaBench asks a more operational question: when a fixed model receives useful experience, does its later behavior improve under a related evaluation condition where the obvious support has been removed, changed, or delayed? The suite contains three components. Aha-Puzzle tests no-hint exploration after solved hidden-state puzzles; Aha-Euler turns Project-Euler-style mathematical ideas into generated taught/held-out tasks with exact validators; and Aha-Vending, an open-source implementation inspired by Vending-Bench, tests whether a simulated vending agent remains profitable while handling delayed feedback and operational incidents. AhaBench reports a three-part scorecard: Initial Score measures starting competence, Post-Experience Score measures the later empirical outcome, and Learning Lift is their difference. This decomposition is the main empirical message: models that use visible support well, models that reach high post-experience scores, and models that improve most during a run are not always the same. On the common eight-model panel, Claude Opus 4.6 leads aggregate Post-Experience Score at 64.3 and aggregate Learning Lift at +25.8, with Gemini 3.1 Pro close behind at 63.4. The component results explain the split: puzzle traces raise supported scores but often fail to become no-hint exploration behavior; Aha-Euler full teaching reaches 78.6-100.0% while answer-only transfer ranges from 0.0 to 73.9%; and Aha-Vending separates profitable incident handling from bankruptcy and no-order failure. We release benchmark tasks, rubrics, validators, simulator code, and interfaces for evaluating new agents.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

LLMEval-Logic: A Solver-Verified Chinese Benchmark for Logical Reasoning of LLMs with Adversarial Hardening

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on natural-language logical reasoning is essential because rule-governed tasks require conclusions to follow strictly from stated premises. Many existing logical-reasoning benchmarks are generated by templating natural-language items from sampled formulas, provide only coarse or unaudited formal annotations, and are now quickly saturated by frontier reasoning models. We present LLMEval-Logic, a Chinese logical reasoning benchmark built from realistic situational scenarios. Its pipeline forward-authors and expert-audits natural-language items together with their reference formalizations, verifies annotated answers with Z3, constructs expert rubrics for natural-to-formal grading, and hardens selected items through a closed-loop adversarial workflow. The benchmark is released in two paired subsets: a 246-item Base subset shipped with 1,400 expert-developed rubric atoms, and a 190-item Hard subset with 938 multi-step sub-questions over closed model spaces. Evaluating 14 frontier LLMs on LLMEval-Logic reveals substantial gaps in current models: the best model reaches only 37.5% Hard Item Accuracy, and even with reference symbols the highest joint Z3+Rubric formalization score among evaluated models reaches only 60.16%. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval/LLMEval-Logic.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can Deep Research Agents Retrieve and Organize? Evaluating the Synthesis Gap with Expert Taxonomies

Deep Research Agents increasingly automate survey writing, yet existing benchmarks do not jointly test whether they retrieve the papers experts consider essential and organize those papers into paper-grounded taxonomies. We introduce TaxoBench, a benchmark built from 72 highly cited LLM surveys, 3,815 cited papers, and their expert-authored taxonomies. TaxoBench evaluates systems in two settings: Deep Research mode measures end-to-end retrieval and organization from a topic, while Bottom-Up mode provides the expert paper set and isolates organization. We evaluate leaf-level assignments with ARI and V-Measure and hierarchy-level structure with US-TED, US-NTED, and Sem-Path. Across 7 Deep Research Agents and 16 LLM configurations, the best agent retrieves only 20.92% of expert-cited papers, and none of 70 standard Bottom-Up runs reaches the experts' average depth of 4.86. A controlled probe shows that models which match this depth do so by fragmenting the taxonomy, reducing alignment with the expert reference. We further find that raw Sem-Path remains near a no-organization floor even when a newer model generation gains 3.68 pp ARI; after depth matching, humans lead on all 10 matched surveys by 13.27 pp. These results identify retrieval and hierarchical organization as separate bottlenecks and show why hierarchy metrics must be calibrated before they are used to compare models.

cs.CL↗