Daily Papers

Despite the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a wide range of tasks and scenarios, developing a method for reliably evaluating LLMs across varied contexts continues to be challenging. Modern evaluation approaches often use LLMs to assess responses generated by LLMs. However, the meta-evaluation conducted to assess the effectiveness of these LLMs as evaluators is typically constrained by the coverage of existing benchmarks or requires extensive human annotation. This underscores the urgency of methods for scalable meta-evaluation that can effectively, reliably, and efficiently evaluate the performance of LLMs as evaluators across diverse tasks and scenarios, particularly in potentially new, user-defined scenarios. To fill this gap, we propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework that leverages the capabilities of multiple communicative LLM agents. This framework supports multi-round discussions to assist human annotators in discerning the most capable LLMs as evaluators, which significantly eases their workload in cases that used to require large-scale annotations during meta-evaluation. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available at: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/scaleeval.

Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has gained significant attention as a promising line of research to improve the factual accuracy and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Despite its conceptual appeal, current MAD research suffers from critical limitations in evaluation practices, including limited benchmark coverage, weak baseline comparisons, and inconsistent setups. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of 5 representative MAD methods across 9 benchmarks using 4 foundational models. Surprisingly, our findings reveal that MAD often fail to outperform simple single-agent baselines such as Chain-of-Thought and Self-Consistency, even when consuming significantly more inference-time computation. To advance MAD research, we further explore the role of model heterogeneity and find it as a universal antidote to consistently improve current MAD frameworks. Based on our findings, we argue that the field must stop overvaluing MAD in its current form; for true advancement, we must critically rethink evaluation paradigms and actively embrace model heterogeneity as a core design principle.

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results in natural language understanding, yet their reasoning capabilities remain limited when operating as single agents. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been proposed to address this limitation by enabling collaborative reasoning among multiple models in a round-table debate manner. While effective, MAD introduces substantial computational overhead due to the number of agents involved and the frequent communication required. In this paper, we propose MARS (Multi-Agent Review System), a role-based collaboration framework inspired by the review process. In MARS, an author agent generates an initial solution, reviewer agents provide decisions and comments independently, and a meta-reviewer integrates the feedback to make the final decision and guide further revision. This design enhances reasoning quality while avoiding costly reviewer-to-reviewer interactions, thereby controlling token consumption and inference time. We compared MARS with both MAD and other state-of-the-art reasoning strategies across multiple benchmarks. Extensive experiments with different LLMs show that MARS matches the accuracy of MAD while reducing both token usage and inference time by approximately 50\%. Code is available at https://github.com/xwang97/MARS.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) and vision-language model (VLM) debate systems employ specialized roles for complex problem-solving, yet model specializations are not leveraged to decide which model should fill which role. We propose dynamic role assignment, a framework that runs a Meta-Debate to select suitable agents before the actual debate. The meta-debate has two stages: (1) proposal, where candidates provide role-tailored arguments, and (2) peer review, where proposals are scored with data and role-specific criteria to choose the best agent for each position. We evaluate our method on LLM problem solving benchmarks. Applied on top of existing debate systems, our approach consistently outperforms uniform assignments (filling all roles with the same model) by up to 74.8% and random assignments (assigning models to roles without considering their suitability) by up to 29.7%, depending on the task and the specific assignment. This work establishes a new paradigm for multi-agent system design, shifting from static agent deployment to dynamic and capability-aware selection.

As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent's responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil's Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents' arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent's answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.

Text evaluation has historically posed significant challenges, often demanding substantial labor and time cost. With the emergence of large language models (LLMs), researchers have explored LLMs' potential as alternatives for human evaluation. While these single-agent-based approaches show promise, experimental results suggest that further advancements are needed to bridge the gap between their current effectiveness and human-level evaluation quality. Recognizing that best practices of human evaluation processes often involve multiple human annotators collaborating in the evaluation, we resort to a multi-agent debate framework, moving beyond single-agent prompting strategies. The multi-agent-based approach enables a group of LLMs to synergize with an array of intelligent counterparts, harnessing their distinct capabilities and expertise to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in handling intricate tasks. In this paper, we construct a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models on open-ended questions and traditional natural language generation (NLG) tasks. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments. Our code is available at https://github.com/chanchimin/ChatEval.

As an agent-level reasoning and coordination paradigm, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) orchestrates multiple agents through structured debate to improve answer quality and support complex reasoning. However, existing research on MAD suffers from two fundamental limitations: evaluations are conducted under fragmented and inconsistent settings, hindering fair comparison, and are largely restricted to single-modality scenarios that rely on textual inputs only. To address these gaps, we introduce M3MAD-Bench, a unified and extensible benchmark for evaluating MAD methods across Multi-domain tasks, Multi-modal inputs, and Multi-dimensional metrics. M3MAD-Bench establishes standardized protocols over five core task domains: Knowledge, Mathematics, Medicine, Natural Sciences, and Complex Reasoning, and systematically covers both pure text and vision-language datasets, enabling controlled cross-modality comparison. We evaluate MAD methods on nine base models spanning different architectures, scales, and modality capabilities. Beyond accuracy, M3MAD-Bench incorporates efficiency-oriented metrics such as token consumption and inference time, providing a holistic view of performance--cost trade-offs. Extensive experiments yield systematic insights into the effectiveness, robustness, and efficiency of MAD across text-only and multimodal scenarios. We believe M3MAD-Bench offers a reliable foundation for future research on standardized MAD evaluation. The code is available at http://github.com/liaolea/M3MAD-Bench.

The remarkable growth in large language model (LLM) capabilities has spurred exploration into multi-agent systems, with debate frameworks emerging as a promising avenue for enhanced problem-solving. These multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches, where agents collaboratively present, critique, and refine arguments, potentially offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models. Despite prior studies leveraging MAD, a systematic understanding of its effectiveness compared to self-agent methods, particularly under varying conditions, remains elusive. This paper seeks to fill this gap by conceptualizing MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities. We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks. Our study systematically examines the influence of task difficulty, model scale, and agent diversity on MAD's performance. Key findings reveal that, for mathematical reasoning, MAD offers limited advantages over self-agent scaling but becomes more effective with increased problem difficulty and decreased model capability, while agent diversity shows little benefit. Conversely, for safety tasks, MAD's collaborative refinement can increase vulnerability, but incorporating diverse agent configurations facilitates a gradual reduction in attack success through the collaborative refinement process. We believe our findings provide critical guidance for the future development of more effective and strategically deployed MAD systems.

Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), which excel at collaborative decision-making and complex problem-solving. Recently, researchers have further investigated Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) frameworks, which enhance the reasoning and collaboration capabilities of MAS through information exchange and debate among multiple agents. However, existing approaches often rely on unguided initialization, causing agents to adopt identical reasoning paths that lead to the same errors. As a result, effective debate among agents is hindered, and the final outcome frequently degenerates into simple majority voting. To solve the above problem, in this paper, we introduce Dynamic Multi-Agent Debate (DynaDebate), which enhances the effectiveness of multi-agent debate through three key mechanisms: (1) Dynamic Path Generation and Allocation, which employs a dedicated Path Generation Agent to generate diverse and logical solution paths with adaptive redundancy; (2) Process-Centric Debate, which shifts the focus from surface-level outcome voting to rigorous step-by-step logic critique to ensure process correctness; (3) A Trigger-Based Verification Agent, which is activated upon disagreement and uses external tools to objectively resolve deadlocks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DynaDebate achieves superior performance across various benchmarks, surpassing existing state-of-the-art MAD methods.

Multi-Agent Debate~(MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models through collaborative reasoning. Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear. In this work, we disentangle MAD into two key components--Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate--and assess their respective contributions. Through extensive experiments across seven NLP benchmarks, we find that Majority Voting alone accounts for most of the performance gains typically attributed to MAD. To explain this, we propose a theoretical framework that models debate as a stochastic process. We prove that it induces a martingale over agents' belief trajectories, implying that debate alone does not improve expected correctness. Guided by these insights, we demonstrate that targeted interventions, by biasing the belief update toward correction, can meaningfully enhance debate effectiveness. Overall, our findings suggest that while MAD has potential, simple ensembling methods remain strong and more reliable alternatives in many practical settings. Code is released in https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/debate-or-vote.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost. Studies show that, under homogeneous agents and uniform belief updates, debate preserves expected correctness and therefore cannot reliably improve outcomes. Drawing on findings from human deliberation and collective decision-making, we identify two key mechanisms missing from vanilla MAD: (i) diversity of initial viewpoints and (ii) explicit, calibrated confidence communication. We propose two lightweight interventions. First, a diversity-aware initialisation that selects a more diverse pool of candidate answers, increasing the likelihood that a correct hypothesis is present at the start of debate. Second, a confidence-modulated debate protocol in which agents express calibrated confidence and condition their updates on others' confidence. We show theoretically that diversity-aware initialisation improves the prior probability of MAD success without changing the underlying update dynamics, while confidence-modulated updates enable debate to systematically drift to the correct hypothesis. Empirically, across six reasoning-oriented QA benchmarks, our methods consistently outperform vanilla MAD and majority vote. Our results connect human deliberation with LLM-based debate and demonstrate that simple, principled modifications can substantially enhance debate effectiveness.

Large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable for high-stakes claim verification due to hallucinations and shallow reasoning. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and multi-agent debate (MAD) address this, they are limited by one-pass retrieval and unstructured debate dynamics. We propose a courtroom-style multi-agent framework, PROClaim, that reformulates verification as a structured, adversarial deliberation. Our approach integrates specialized roles (e.g., Plaintiff, Defense, Judge) with Progressive RAG (P-RAG) to dynamically expand and refine the evidence pool during the debate. Furthermore, we employ evidence negotiation, self-reflection, and heterogeneous multi-judge aggregation to enforce calibration, robustness, and diversity. In zero-shot evaluations on the Check-COVID benchmark, PROClaim achieves 81.7% accuracy, outperforming standard multi-agent debate by 10.0 percentage points, with P-RAG driving the primary performance gains (+7.5 pp). We ultimately demonstrate that structural deliberation and model heterogeneity effectively mitigate systematic biases, providing a robust foundation for reliable claim verification. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mnc13/PROClaim.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced autonomous agents' planning and decision-making, yet they struggle with complex tasks requiring diverse expertise and multi-step reasoning. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, introduced in NLP research, address this gap by enabling structured debates among LLM-based agents to refine solutions iteratively. MAD promotes divergent thinking through role-specific agents, dynamic interactions, and structured decision-making. Recognizing parallels between Software Engineering (SE) and collaborative human problem-solving, this study investigates MAD's effectiveness on two SE tasks. We adapt MAD systems from NLP, analyze agent interactions to assess consensus-building and iterative refinement, and propose two enhancements targeting observed weaknesses. Our findings show that structured debate and collaboration improve problem-solving and yield strong performance in some cases, highlighting MAD's potential for SE automation while identifying areas for exploration.

We present R-Debater, an agentic framework for generating multi-turn debates built on argumentative memory. Grounded in rhetoric and memory studies, the system views debate as a process of recalling and adapting prior arguments to maintain stance consistency, respond to opponents, and support claims with evidence. Specifically, R-Debater integrates a debate knowledge base for retrieving case-like evidence and prior debate moves with a role-based agent that composes coherent utterances across turns. We evaluate on standardized ORCHID debates, constructing a 1,000-item retrieval corpus and a held-out set of 32 debates across seven domains. Two tasks are evaluated: next-utterance generation, assessed by InspireScore (subjective, logical, and factual), and adversarial multi-turn simulations, judged by Debatrix (argument, source, language, and overall). Compared with strong LLM baselines, R-Debater achieves higher single-turn and multi-turn scores. Human evaluation with 20 experienced debaters further confirms its consistency and evidence use, showing that combining retrieval grounding with structured planning yields more faithful, stance-aligned, and coherent debates across turns.

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

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) has raised great concerns in the community due to the issue of data contamination. Existing work designed evaluation protocols using well-defined algorithms for specific tasks, which cannot be easily extended to diverse scenarios. Moreover, current evaluation benchmarks can only provide the overall benchmark results and cannot support a fine-grained and multifaceted analysis of LLMs' abilities. In this paper, we propose meta probing agents (MPA), a general dynamic evaluation protocol inspired by psychometrics to evaluate LLMs. MPA is the key component of DyVal 2, which naturally extends the previous DyVal~zhu2023dyval. MPA designs the probing and judging agents to automatically transform an original evaluation problem into a new one following psychometric theory on three basic cognitive abilities: language understanding, problem solving, and domain knowledge. These basic abilities are also dynamically configurable, allowing multifaceted analysis. We conducted extensive evaluations using MPA and found that most LLMs achieve poorer performance, indicating room for improvement. Our multifaceted analysis demonstrated the strong correlation between the basic abilities and an implicit Matthew effect on model size, i.e., larger models possess stronger correlations of the abilities. MPA can also be used as a data augmentation approach to enhance LLMs. Code is available at: https://github.com/microsoft/promptbench.

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

Current AI benchmarks evaluate agents on task execution within human-designed workflows. These evaluations fundamentally fail to measure a critical next-level capability: whether models can autonomously develop agent systems. We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development. Specifically, a code agent (the meta-agent) is given a sandboxed environment, an evaluation API, and a time limitation to iteratively program an agent artifact that maximizes performance on a held-out test set across five domains. To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking. Leveraging this framework, we demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models. Moreover, the design process exhibits high variance, and high optimization pressure surfaces emergent adversarial behaviors like ground-truth exfiltration-highlighting critical deficits in both robustness and model alignment. Ultimately, MAC provides a rigorous, open-source benchmark for autonomous AI research and development, offering an empirical proxy for evaluating recursive self-improvement. Benchmark is publicly available at: https://github.com/ant-research/meta-agent-challenge.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) has recently emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). Yet, whether LLM agents can genuinely engage in deliberative reasoning, beyond simple ensembling or majority voting, remains unclear. We address this question through a controlled study using the Knight--Knave--Spy logic puzzle, which enables precise, step-wise evaluation of debate outcomes and processes under verifiable ground truth. We systematically set up six structural and cognitive factors, including agent team size, composition, confidence visibility, debate order, debate depth, and task difficulty, to disentangle their respective effects on collective reasoning. Our results show that intrinsic reasoning strength and group diversity are the dominant drivers of debate success, while structural parameters such as order or confidence visibility offer limited gains. Beyond outcomes, process-level analyses identify key behavioral patterns: majority pressure suppresses independent correction, effective teams overturn incorrect consensus, and rational, validity-aligned reasoning most strongly predicts improvement. These findings provide valuable insights into how and why LLM debates succeed or fail, offering guidance for designing interpretable and truth-seeking multi-agent reasoning systems.

Large language models are increasingly being used to assess and forecast research ideas, yet we lack scalable ways to evaluate the quality of models' judgments about these scientific ideas. Towards this goal, we introduce PoT, a semi-verifiable benchmarking framework that links scientific idea judgments to downstream signals that become observable later (e.g., citations and shifts in researchers' agendas). PoT freezes a pre-cutoff snapshot of evidence in an offline sandbox and asks models to forecast post-cutoff outcomes, enabling verifiable evaluation when ground truth arrives, scalable benchmarking without exhaustive expert annotation, and analysis of human-model misalignment against signals such as peer-review awards. In addition, PoT provides a controlled testbed for agent-based research judgments that evaluate scientific ideas, comparing tool-using agents to non-agent baselines under prompt ablations and budget scaling. Across 30,000+ instances spanning four benchmark domains, we find that, compared with non-agent baselines, higher interaction budgets generally improve agent performance, while the benefit of tool use is strongly task-dependent. By combining time-partitioned, future-verifiable targets with an offline sandbox for tool use, PoT supports scalable evaluation of agents on future-facing scientific idea judgment tasks.

Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of "tit for tat" state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents. Codes: https://github.com/Skytliang/Multi-Agents-Debate

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) need to adapt their predictions to diverse cultural contexts to benefit diverse communities across the world. While previous efforts have focused on single-LLM, single-turn approaches, we propose to exploit the complementary strengths of multiple LLMs to promote cultural adaptability. We introduce a Multi-Agent Debate framework, where two LLM-based agents debate over a cultural scenario and collaboratively reach a final decision. We propose two variants: one where either LLM agents exclusively debate and another where they dynamically choose between self-reflection and debate during their turns. We evaluate these approaches on 7 open-weight LLMs (and 21 LLM combinations) using the NormAd-ETI benchmark for social etiquette norms in 75 countries. Experiments show that debate improves both overall accuracy and cultural group parity over single-LLM baselines. Notably, multi-agent debate enables relatively small LLMs (7-9B) to achieve accuracies comparable to that of a much larger model (27B parameters).

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks. Recent research has introduced Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, which leverage multiple LLMs to simulate human debate and thereby improve task performance. However, while some LLMs may possess superior knowledge or reasoning capabilities for specific tasks, they often struggle to clearly communicate this advantage during debates, in part due to a lack of confidence expression. Moreover, inappropriate confidence expression can cause agents in MAD systems to either stubbornly maintain incorrect beliefs or converge prematurely on suboptimal answers, ultimately reducing debate effectiveness and overall system performance. To address these challenges, we propose incorporating confidence expression into MAD systems to allow LLMs to explicitly communicate their confidence levels. To validate this approach, we develop ConfMAD, a MAD framework that integrates confidence expression throughout the debate process. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, and we further analyze how confidence influences debate dynamics, offering insights into the design of confidence-aware MAD systems.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed breakthroughs in automated code generation, Small Language Models (SLMs) often encounter reasoning bottlenecks and failure loops when addressing complex logical requirements. To overcome these challenges, we propose DebateCoder, a multi-agent collaborative framework designed to improve the reasoning ability of SLMs (e.g., Pangu-1B) in resource-constrained environments. DebateCoder uses a structured role-playing protocol with three agents: User Agent (A_UA), Technical Agent (A_TA), and Quality Assurance Agent (A_QA). It also includes an Adaptive Confidence Gating mechanism with a 95% threshold to balance accuracy and inference efficiency. In addition, we introduce a multi-turn deliberation module and a reviewer-guided analytical debugging loop for orthogonal pre-generation debate and post-generation refinement. Experiments on HumanEval and MBPP show that DebateCoder achieves 70.12% Pass@1 on HumanEval, outperforming MapCoder while reducing API overhead by about 35%. These results indicate that collaborative protocols can mitigate limitations of small-parameter models and provide a scalable, efficient approach to high-quality automated software engineering.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

Accurately modeling opinion change through social interactions is crucial for addressing issues like misinformation and polarization. While role-playing large language models (LLMs) offer a promising way to simulate human-like interactions, existing research shows that single-agent alignment does not guarantee authentic multi-agent group dynamics. Current LLM role-play setups often produce unnatural dynamics (e.g., premature convergence), without an empirical benchmark to measure authentic human opinion trajectories. To bridge this gap, we introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs. DEBATE contains 29,417 messages from multi-round debate conversations among over 2,792 U.S.-based participants discussing 107 controversial topics, capturing both publicly-expressed messages and privately-reported opinions. Using DEBATE, we systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics. We further demonstrate DEBATE's utility for aligning LLMs with human behavior through supervised fine-tuning, achieving improvements in surface-level metrics (e.g., ROUGE-L and message length) while highlighting limitations in deeper semantic alignment (e.g., semantic similarity). Our findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of role-playing LLM agents for realistically simulating human-like social dynamics.

Large language models frequently encounter conflicts between their parametric knowledge and contextual input, often resulting in factual inconsistencies or hallucinations. We propose Self-Reflective Debate for Contextual Reliability (SR-DCR), a lightweight framework that integrates token-level self-confidence with an asymmetric multi-agent debate to adjudicate such conflicts. A critic, deprived of context, challenges a defender who argues from the given passage; a judge model evaluates the debate and determines the context's reliability. The final answer is selected by combining the verdict with model confidence. Experiments on the ClashEval benchmark demonstrate that SR-DCR consistently enhances robustness to misleading context while maintaining accuracy on trustworthy inputs, outperforming both classical debate and confidence-only baselines with minimal computational overhead. The code is available at https://github.com/smiles724/Self-Reflective-Debates.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have given rise to the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm, showcasing their potential to deliver human-like judgments. However, in the field of machine translation (MT) evaluation, current LLM-as-a-judge methods fall short of learned automatic metrics. In this paper, we propose Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate (M-MAD), a systematic LLM-based multi-agent framework for advanced LLM-as-a-judge MT evaluation. Our findings demonstrate that M-MAD achieves significant advancements by (1) decoupling heuristic MQM criteria into distinct evaluation dimensions for fine-grained assessments; (2) employing multi-agent debates to harness the collaborative reasoning capabilities of LLMs; (3) synthesizing dimension-specific results into a final evaluation judgment to ensure robust and reliable outcomes. Comprehensive experiments show that M-MAD not only outperforms all existing LLM-as-a-judge methods but also competes with state-of-the-art reference-based automatic metrics, even when powered by a suboptimal model like GPT-4o mini. Detailed ablations and analysis highlight the superiority of our framework design, offering a fresh perspective for LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/SU-JIAYUAN/M-MAD.

With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), general-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements. However, evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks. We observe that current agent benchmarks are heavily confounded by extraneous factors, including system prompts, toolset configurations, and environmental dynamics. Existing evaluations often rely on fragmented, researcher-specific frameworks where the prompt engineering for reasoning and tool usage varies significantly, making it difficult to attribute performance gains to the model itself. Additionally, the lack of standardized environmental data leads to untraceable errors and non-reproducible results. This lack of standardization introduces substantial unfairness and opacity into the field. We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation. To this end, we introduce a proposal aimed at standardizing agent evaluation.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

AI agents deployed as persistent assistants must maintain correct beliefs as their information environment evolves. In practice, evidence is scattered across heterogeneous sources that often contradict one another, new information can invalidate earlier conclusions, and user preferences surface through corrections rather than explicit instructions. Existing benchmarks largely assume static, single-authority settings and do not evaluate whether agents can keep up with this complexity. We introduce ClawArena, a benchmark for evaluating AI agents in evolving information environments. Each scenario maintains a complete hidden ground truth while exposing the agent only to noisy, partial, and sometimes contradictory traces across multi-channel sessions, workspace files, and staged updates. Evaluation is organized around three coupled challenges: multi-source conflict reasoning, dynamic belief revision, and implicit personalization, whose interactions yield a 14-category question taxonomy. Two question formats, multi-choice (set-selection) and shell-based executable checks, test both reasoning and workspace grounding. The current release contains 64 scenarios across 8 professional domains, totaling 1{,}879 evaluation rounds and 365 dynamic updates. Experiments on five agent frameworks and five language models show that both model capability (15.4% range) and framework design (9.2%) substantially affect performance, that self-evolving skill frameworks can partially close model-capability gaps, and that belief revision difficulty is determined by update design strategy rather than the mere presence of updates. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/ClawArena.

Reproducibility crises across sciences highlight the limitations of the paper-centric review system in assessing the rigor and reproducibility of research. AI agents that autonomously design and generate large volumes of research outputs exacerbate these challenges. In this work, we address the growing challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators. We propose the first execution-grounded evaluation framework that verifies research beyond narrative review by examining code and data alongside the paper. We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent, an automated evaluation framework that assesses the coherence of the experimental process, the reproducibility of results, and the generalizability of findings. We show that our framework achieves above 80% agreement with human judges, identifies substantial methodological problems, and surfaces 51 additional issues that human reviewers miss. Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.

As recommender systems transition toward agentic, multi-turn conversational interfaces, evaluation paradigms have struggled to keep pace. Current benchmarks often rely on "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluations, which introduce subjectivity, high costs and inconsistency. We present τ-Rec, a benchmark for agentic recommender systems that replaces subjective evaluation with verifiable rewards and a reveal-tagged elicitation (RTE) mechanism that controls how task constraints surface during dialogue. By testing agents against structured catalog predicates and employing a pass^k reliability metric, τ-Rec provides a systematic test for consistent reasoning. Our evaluation of nine configurations across five model families -- GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen3-32B and GPT-5 mini -- reveals a steep reliability cliff, where even the best model achieves only ~57% at pass^1 and ~38% at pass^4, highlighting a critical gap in current conversational agent deployment. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/nbharaths/tau-rec.

LLM-as-a-Judge has revolutionized AI evaluation by leveraging large language models for scalable assessments. However, as evaluands become increasingly complex, specialized, and multi-step, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge has become constrained by inherent biases, shallow single-pass reasoning, and the inability to verify assessments against real-world observations. This has catalyzed the transition to Agent-as-a-Judge, where agentic judges employ planning, tool-augmented verification, multi-agent collaboration, and persistent memory to enable more robust, verifiable, and nuanced evaluations. Despite the rapid proliferation of agentic evaluation systems, the field lacks a unified framework to navigate this shifting landscape. To bridge this gap, we present the first comprehensive survey tracing this evolution. Specifically, we identify key dimensions that characterize this paradigm shift and establish a developmental taxonomy. We organize core methodologies and survey applications across general and professional domains. Furthermore, we analyze frontier challenges and identify promising research directions, ultimately providing a clear roadmap for the next generation of agentic evaluation.

Multi-Agent Debate has emerged as a promising framework for improving the reasoning quality of large language models through iterative inter-agent communication. However, broadcasting all agent messages at every round introduces noise and redundancy that can degrade debate quality and waste computational resources. Current approaches rely on uncertainty estimation to filter low-confidence responses before broadcasting, but this approach is unreliable due to miscalibrated confidence scores and sensitivity to threshold selection. To address this, we propose Diversity-Aware Retention (DAR), a lightweight debate framework that, at each debate round, selects the subset of agent responses that maximally disagree with each other and with the majority vote before broadcasting. Through an explicit index-based retention mechanism, DAR preserves the original messages without modification, ensuring that retained disagreements remain authentic. Experiments on diverse reasoning and question answering benchmarks demonstrate that our selective message propagation consistently improves debate performance, particularly as the number of agents scales, where noise accumulation is most severe. Our results highlight that what agents hear is as important as what agents say in multi-agent reasoning systems. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/DA2I2-SLM/DAR.

Automated peer review has evolved from simple text classification to structured feedback generation. However, current state-of-the-art systems still struggle with "surface-level" critiques: they excel at summarizing content but often fail to accurately assess novelty and significance or identify deep methodological flaws because they evaluate papers in a vacuum, lacking the external context a human expert possesses. In this paper, we introduce ScholarPeer, a search-enabled multi-agent framework designed to emulate the cognitive processes of a senior researcher. ScholarPeer employs a dual-stream process of context acquisition and active verification. It dynamically constructs a domain narrative using a historian agent, identifies missing comparisons via a baseline scout, and verifies claims through a multi-aspect Q&A engine, grounding the critique in live web-scale literature. We evaluate ScholarPeer on DeepReview-13K and the results demonstrate that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art approaches in side-by-side evaluations and reduces the gap to human-level diversity.

Multi-agent debates have been introduced to improve the accuracy of Large Language Models (LLMs) by having multiple agents discuss solutions to a problem over several rounds of debate. However, models often generate incorrect yet confident-sounding responses, which can mislead others. This issue arises partly because agents do not consider how confident their peers are. To address this, we propose DebUnc, a debate framework that uses uncertainty metrics to assess agent confidence. Confidence is then conveyed through a modified attention mechanism that adjusts token weights, or through textual prompts. Evaluations across benchmarks show that attention-based methods are particularly effective and that performance continues to improve as uncertainty estimation becomes more reliable. The code is available at https://github.com/lukeyoffe/debunc.

Recent advancements in visual generative models have enabled high-quality image and video generation, opening diverse applications. However, evaluating these models often demands sampling hundreds or thousands of images or videos, making the process computationally expensive, especially for diffusion-based models with inherently slow sampling. Moreover, existing evaluation methods rely on rigid pipelines that overlook specific user needs and provide numerical results without clear explanations. In contrast, humans can quickly form impressions of a model's capabilities by observing only a few samples. To mimic this, we propose the Evaluation Agent framework, which employs human-like strategies for efficient, dynamic, multi-round evaluations using only a few samples per round, while offering detailed, user-tailored analyses. It offers four key advantages: 1) efficiency, 2) promptable evaluation tailored to diverse user needs, 3) explainability beyond single numerical scores, and 4) scalability across various models and tools. Experiments show that Evaluation Agent reduces evaluation time to 10% of traditional methods while delivering comparable results. The Evaluation Agent framework is fully open-sourced to advance research in visual generative models and their efficient evaluation.

We test the robustness of debate as a method of scalable oversight by training models to debate with data generated via self-play. In a long-context reading comprehension task, we find that language model based evaluators answer questions more accurately when judging models optimized to win debates. By contrast, we find no such relationship for consultancy models trained to persuade a judge without an opposing debater present. In quantitative and qualitative comparisons between our debate models and novel consultancy baselines, we find evidence that debate training encourages stronger and more informative arguments, showing promise that it can help provide high-quality supervision for tasks that are difficult to directly evaluate.

Although artificial intelligence (AI) has become deeply integrated into various stages of the research workflow and achieved remarkable advancements, academic rebuttal remains a significant and underexplored challenge. This is because rebuttal is a complex process of strategic communication under severe information asymmetry rather than a simple technical debate. Consequently, current approaches struggle as they largely imitate surface-level linguistics, missing the essential element of perspective-taking required for effective persuasion. In this paper, we introduce RebuttalAgent, the first framework to ground academic rebuttal in Theory of Mind (ToM), operationalized through a ToM-Strategy-Response (TSR) pipeline that models reviewer mental state, formulates persuasion strategy, and generates strategy-grounded response. To train our agent, we construct RebuttalBench, a large-scale dataset synthesized via a novel critique-and-refine approach. Our training process consists of two stages, beginning with a supervised fine-tuning phase to equip the agent with ToM-based analysis and strategic planning capabilities, followed by a reinforcement learning phase leveraging the self-reward mechanism for scalable self-improvement. For reliable and efficient automated evaluation, we further develop Rebuttal-RM, a specialized evaluator trained on over 100K samples of multi-source rebuttal data, which achieves scoring consistency with human preferences surpassing powerful judge GPT-4.1. Extensive experiments show RebuttalAgent significantly outperforms the base model by an average of 18.3% on automated metrics, while also outperforming advanced proprietary models across both automated and human evaluations. Disclaimer: the generated rebuttal content is for reference only to inspire authors and assist in drafting. It is not intended to replace the author's own critical analysis and response.

The emergence of LLM-based agents represents a paradigm shift in AI, enabling autonomous systems to plan, reason, use tools, and maintain memory while interacting with dynamic environments. This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of evaluation methodologies for these increasingly capable agents. We systematically analyze evaluation benchmarks and frameworks across four critical dimensions: (1) fundamental agent capabilities, including planning, tool use, self-reflection, and memory; (2) application-specific benchmarks for web, software engineering, scientific, and conversational agents; (3) benchmarks for generalist agents; and (4) frameworks for evaluating agents. Our analysis reveals emerging trends, including a shift toward more realistic, challenging evaluations with continuously updated benchmarks. We also identify critical gaps that future research must address-particularly in assessing cost-efficiency, safety, and robustness, and in developing fine-grained, and scalable evaluation methods. This survey maps the rapidly evolving landscape of agent evaluation, reveals the emerging trends in the field, identifies current limitations, and proposes directions for future research.

Claim verification is critical for enhancing digital literacy. However, the state-of-the-art single-LLM methods struggle with complex claim verification that involves multi-faceted evidences. Inspired by real-world fact-checking practices, we propose DebateCV, the first claim verification framework that adopts a debate-driven methodology using multiple LLM agents. In our framework, two Debaters take opposing stances on a claim and engage in multi-round argumentation, while a Moderator evaluates the arguments and renders a verdict with justifications. To further improve the performance of the Moderator, we introduce a novel post-training strategy that leverages synthetic debate data generated by the zero-shot DebateCV, effectively addressing the scarcity of real-world debate-driven claim verification data. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing claim verification methods under varying levels of evidence quality. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DebateCV-6781.

Multimodal agents offer a promising path to automating complex document-intensive workflows. Yet, a critical question remains: do these agents demonstrate genuine strategic reasoning, or merely stochastic trial-and-error search? To address this, we introduce MADQA, a benchmark of 2,250 human-authored questions grounded in 800 heterogeneous PDF documents. Guided by Classical Test Theory, we design it to maximize discriminative power across varying levels of agentic abilities. To evaluate agentic behaviour, we introduce a novel evaluation protocol measuring the accuracy-effort trade-off. Using this framework, we show that while the best agents can match human searchers in raw accuracy, they succeed on largely different questions and rely on brute-force search to compensate for weak strategic planning. They fail to close the nearly 20% gap to oracle performance, persisting in unproductive loops. We release the dataset and evaluation harness to help facilitate the transition from brute-force retrieval to calibrated, efficient reasoning.

In recent years, instruction fine-tuning (IFT) on large language models (LLMs) has garnered considerable attention to enhance model performance on unseen tasks. Attempts have been made on automatic construction and effective selection for IFT data. However, we posit that previous methods have not fully harnessed the potential of LLMs for enhancing data quality. The responses within IFT data could be further enhanced by leveraging the capabilities of LLMs themselves. In this paper, we propose CoEvol, an LLM-based multi-agent cooperation framework for the improvement of responses to instructions. To effectively refine the responses, we develop an iterative framework following a debate-advise-edit-judge paradigm. A two-stage multi-agent debate strategy is further devised to ensure the diversity and reliability of editing suggestions within the framework. Empirically, models equipped with CoEvol outperform competitive baselines evaluated by MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing instruction-following capabilities for LLMs.

Writing persuasive arguments is a challenging task for both humans and machines. It entails incorporating high-level beliefs from various perspectives on the topic, along with deliberate reasoning and planning to construct a coherent narrative. Current language models often generate surface tokens autoregressively, lacking explicit integration of these underlying controls, resulting in limited output diversity and coherence. In this work, we propose a persona-based multi-agent framework for argument writing. Inspired by the human debate, we first assign each agent a persona representing its high-level beliefs from a unique perspective, and then design an agent interaction process so that the agents can collaboratively debate and discuss the idea to form an overall plan for argument writing. Such debate process enables fluid and nonlinear development of ideas. We evaluate our framework on argumentative essay writing. The results show that our framework can generate more diverse and persuasive arguments through both automatic and human evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in natural language generation but often confidently produce incorrect responses, especially in tasks like mathematical reasoning. Chain-of-thought prompting, self-verification, and multi-agent debate are among the strategies proposed to improve the reasoning and factual accuracy of LLMs. Building on Du et al.'s multi-agent debate framework, we find that multi-agent debate helps at any model scale, and that diversity of thought elicits stronger reasoning in debating LLMs. Across various model sizes, performance on mathematical reasoning tasks benefits most when diverse trained models are used. Remarkably, after 4 rounds of debate, a diverse set of medium-capacity models (Gemini-Pro, Mixtral 7BX8, and PaLM 2-M) outperforms GPT-4 on the GSM-8K benchmark, scoring 91% accuracy. By comparison, when 3 instances of Gemini-Pro are used, performance only reaches 82%. Finally, this diverse set of medium-capacity models sets a new state-of-the-art performance on the ASDiv benchmark (94%). These results underscore the idea that the future of AI is agentic, with diverse cooperating agents yielding emergent capabilities beyond even the most powerful individual models.

Large language models (LLMs) have improved significantly in their reasoning through extensive training on massive datasets. However, relying solely on additional data for improvement is becoming increasingly impractical, highlighting the need for models to autonomously enhance their reasoning without external supervision. In this paper, we propose Debate, Train, Evolve (DTE), a novel ground truth-free training framework that uses multi-agent debate traces to evolve a single language model. We also introduce a new prompting strategy Reflect-Critique-Refine, to improve debate quality by explicitly instructing agents to critique and refine their reasoning. Extensive evaluations on five reasoning benchmarks with six open-weight models show that our DTE framework achieve substantial improvements, with an average accuracy gain of 8.92% on the challenging GSM-PLUS dataset. Furthermore, we observe strong cross-domain generalization, with an average accuracy gain of 5.8% on all other benchmarks, suggesting that our method captures general reasoning capabilities.

We introduce AgenticSimLaw, a role-structured, multi-agent debate framework that provides transparent and controllable test-time reasoning for high-stakes tabular decision-making tasks. Unlike black-box approaches, our courtroom-style orchestration explicitly defines agent roles (prosecutor, defense, judge), interaction protocols (7-turn structured debate), and private reasoning strategies, creating a fully auditable decision-making process. We benchmark this framework on young adult recidivism prediction using the NLSY97 dataset, comparing it against traditional chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting across almost 90 unique combinations of models and strategies. Our results demonstrate that structured multi-agent debate provides more stable and generalizable performance compared to single-agent reasoning, with stronger correlation between accuracy and F1-score metrics. Beyond performance improvements, AgenticSimLaw offers fine-grained control over reasoning steps, generates complete interaction transcripts for explainability, and enables systematic profiling of agent behaviors. While we instantiate this framework in the criminal justice domain to stress-test reasoning under ethical complexity, the approach generalizes to any deliberative, high-stakes decision task requiring transparency and human oversight. This work addresses key LLM-based multi-agent system challenges: organization through structured roles, observability through logged interactions, and responsibility through explicit non-deployment constraints for sensitive domains. Data, results, and code will be available on github.com under the MIT license.

The rise of LLM-based agents has opened new frontiers in AI applications, yet evaluating these agents remains a complex and underdeveloped area. This survey provides an in-depth overview of the emerging field of LLM agent evaluation, introducing a two-dimensional taxonomy that organizes existing work along (1) evaluation objectives -- what to evaluate, such as agent behavior, capabilities, reliability, and safety -- and (2) evaluation process -- how to evaluate, including interaction modes, datasets and benchmarks, metric computation methods, and tooling. In addition to taxonomy, we highlight enterprise-specific challenges, such as role-based access to data, the need for reliability guarantees, dynamic and long-horizon interactions, and compliance, which are often overlooked in current research. We also identify future research directions, including holistic, more realistic, and scalable evaluation. This work aims to bring clarity to the fragmented landscape of agent evaluation and provide a framework for systematic assessment, enabling researchers and practitioners to evaluate LLM agents for real-world deployment.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in autonomous information retrieval and report generation, showing great potential to assist humans in complex research tasks. Current evaluation frameworks primarily rely on LLM-generated references or LLM-derived evaluation dimensions. While these approaches offer scalability, they often lack the reliability of expert-verified content and struggle to provide objective, fine-grained assessments of critical dimensions. To bridge this gap, we introduce Wiki Live Challenge (WLC), a live benchmark that leverages the newest Wikipedia Good Articles (GAs) as expert-level references. Wikipedia's strict standards for neutrality, comprehensiveness, and verifiability serve as a great challenge for DRAs, with GAs representing the pinnacle of which. We curate a dataset of 100 recent Good Articles and propose Wiki Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising a fine-grained evaluation method with 39 criteria for writing quality and rigorous metrics for factual verifiability. Extensive experiments on various DRA systems demonstrate a significant gap between current DRAs and human expert-level Wikipedia articles, validating the effectiveness of WLC in advancing agent research. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/WangShao2000/Wiki_Live_Challenge

Peer review is fundamental to the integrity and advancement of scientific publication. Traditional methods of peer review analyses often rely on exploration and statistics of existing peer review data, which do not adequately address the multivariate nature of the process, account for the latent variables, and are further constrained by privacy concerns due to the sensitive nature of the data. We introduce AgentReview, the first large language model (LLM) based peer review simulation framework, which effectively disentangles the impacts of multiple latent factors and addresses the privacy issue. Our study reveals significant insights, including a notable 37.1% variation in paper decisions due to reviewers' biases, supported by sociological theories such as the social influence theory, altruism fatigue, and authority bias. We believe that this study could offer valuable insights to improve the design of peer review mechanisms.

Contemporary evaluation techniques are inadequate for agentic systems. These approaches either focus exclusively on final outcomes -- ignoring the step-by-step nature of agentic systems, or require excessive manual labour. To address this, we introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We apply the Agent-as-a-Judge to the task of code generation. To overcome issues with existing benchmarks and provide a proof-of-concept testbed for Agent-as-a-Judge, we present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks. It includes rich manual annotations, like a total of 365 hierarchical user requirements. We benchmark three of the popular agentic systems using Agent-as-a-Judge and find it dramatically outperforms LLM-as-a-Judge and is as reliable as our human evaluation baseline. Altogether, we believe that Agent-as-a-Judge marks a concrete step forward for modern agentic systems -- by providing rich and reliable reward signals necessary for dynamic and scalable self-improvement.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

Identifying and articulating limitations is essential for transparent and rigorous scientific research. However, zero-shot large language models (LLMs) approach often produce superficial or general limitation statements (e.g., dataset bias or generalizability). They usually repeat limitations reported by authors without looking at deeper methodological issues and contextual gaps. This problem is made worse because many authors disclose only partial or trivial limitations. We propose LimAgents, a multi-agent LLM framework for generating substantive limitations. LimAgents integrates OpenReview comments and author-stated limitations to provide stronger ground truth. It also uses cited and citing papers to capture broader contextual weaknesses. In this setup, different agents have specific roles as sequential role: some extract explicit limitations, others analyze methodological gaps, some simulate the viewpoint of a peer reviewer, and a citation agent places the work within the larger body of literature. A Judge agent refines their outputs, and a Master agent consolidates them into a clear set. This structure allows for systematic identification of explicit, implicit, peer review-focused, and literature-informed limitations. Moreover, traditional NLP metrics like BLEU, ROUGE, and cosine similarity rely heavily on n-gram or embedding overlap. They often overlook semantically similar limitations. To address this, we introduce a pointwise evaluation protocol that uses an LLM-as-a-Judge to measure coverage more accurately. Experiments show that LimAgents substantially improve performance. The RAG + multi-agent GPT-4o mini configuration achieves a +15.51% coverage gain over zero-shot baselines, while the Llama 3 8B multi-agent setup yields a +4.41% improvement.

Current embodied VLM evaluation relies on static, expert-defined, manually annotated benchmarks that exhibit severe redundancy and coverage imbalance. This labor intensive paradigm drains computational and annotation resources, inflates costs, and distorts model rankings, ultimately stifling iterative development. To address this, we propose Agentic Automatic Evaluation (A2Eval), the first agentic framework that automates benchmark curation and evaluation through two collaborative agents. The Data Agent autonomously induces capability dimensions and assembles a balanced, compact evaluation suite, while the Eval Agent synthesizes and validates executable evaluation pipelines, enabling fully autonomous, high-fidelity assessment. Evaluated across 10 benchmarks and 13 models, A2Eval compresses evaluation suites by 85%, reduces overall computational costs by 77%, and delivers a 4.6x speedup while preserving evaluation quality. Crucially, A2Eval corrects systematic ranking biases, improves human alignment to Spearman's rho=0.85, and maintains high ranking fidelity (Kendall's tau=0.81), establishing a new standard for high-fidelity, low-cost embodied assessment. Our code and data will be public soon.

For web agents to be practically useful, they must adapt to the continuously evolving web environment characterized by frequent updates to user interfaces and content. However, most existing benchmarks only capture the static aspects of the web. To bridge this gap, we introduce WebCanvas, an innovative online evaluation framework for web agents that effectively addresses the dynamic nature of web interactions. WebCanvas contains three main components to facilitate realistic assessments: (1) A novel evaluation metric which reliably capture critical intermediate actions or states necessary for task completions while disregarding noise caused by insignificant events or changed web-elements. (2) A benchmark dataset called Mind2Web-Live, a refined version of original Mind2Web static dataset containing 542 tasks with 2439 intermediate evaluation states; (3) Lightweight and generalizable annotation tools and testing pipelines that enables the community to collect and maintain the high-quality, up-to-date dataset. Building on WebCanvas, we open-source an agent framework with extensible modules for reasoning, providing a foundation for the community to conduct online inference and evaluations. Our best-performing agent achieves a task success rate of 23.1% and a task completion rate of 48.8% on the Mind2Web-Live test set. Additionally, we analyze the performance discrepancies across various websites, domains, and experimental environments. We encourage the community to contribute further insights on online agent evaluation, thereby advancing this field of research.

The emergence of agentic recommender systems powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) represents a paradigm shift in personalized recommendations, leveraging LLMs' advanced reasoning and role-playing capabilities to enable autonomous, adaptive decision-making. Unlike traditional recommendation approaches, agentic recommender systems can dynamically gather and interpret user-item interactions from complex environments, generating robust recommendation strategies that generalize across diverse scenarios. However, the field currently lacks standardized evaluation protocols to systematically assess these methods. To address this critical gap, we propose: (1) an interactive textual recommendation simulator incorporating rich user and item metadata and three typical evaluation scenarios (classic, evolving-interest, and cold-start recommendation tasks); (2) a unified modular framework for developing and studying agentic recommender systems; and (3) the first comprehensive benchmark comparing 10 classical and agentic recommendation methods. Our findings demonstrate the superiority of agentic systems and establish actionable design guidelines for their core components. The benchmark environment has been rigorously validated through an open challenge and remains publicly available with a continuously maintained leaderboard~\footnote[2]{https://tsinghua-fib-lab.github.io/AgentSocietyChallenge/pages/overview.html}, fostering ongoing community engagement and reproducible research. The benchmark is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/SGJQovo/AgentRecBench{https://huggingface.co/datasets/SGJQovo/AgentRecBench}.

When people reason about cause and effect, they often consider many competing "what if" scenarios before deciding which explanation fits best. Analogously, advanced language models capable of causal inference can consider multiple interventions and counterfactuals to judge the validity of causal claims. Crucially, this type of reasoning is less like a single calculation and more like an internal dialogue between alternative hypotheses. In this paper, we make this dialogue explicit through a dual-agent debate framework where one model provides a structured causal inference, and the other critically examines this reasoning for logical flaws. When disagreements arise, agents attempt to persuade each other, challenging each other's logic and revising their conclusions until they converge on a mutually agreed answer. To take advantage of this deliberative process, we specifically use reasoning language models, whose strengths in both causal inference and adversarial debate remain under-explored relative to standard large language models. We evaluate our approach on the CLadder dataset, a benchmark linking natural language questions to formally defined causal graphs across all three rungs of Pearl's ladder of causation. With Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1 as debater agents, we demonstrate that multi-agent debate improves DeepSeek-R1's overall accuracy in causal inference from 78.03% to 87.45%, with the counterfactual category specifically improving from 67.94% to 80.04% accuracy. Similarly, Qwen3's overall accuracy improves from 84.16% to 89.41%, and counterfactual questions from 71.53% to 80.35%, showing that strong models can still benefit greatly from debate with weaker agents. Our results highlight the potential of reasoning models as building blocks for multi-agent systems in causal inference, and demonstrate the importance of diverse perspectives in causal problem-solving.

Despite the growing adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scientific research workflows, automated support for academic rebuttal, a crucial step in academic communication and peer review, remains largely underexplored. Existing approaches typically rely on off-the-shelf LLMs or simple pipelines, which struggle with long-context understanding and often fail to produce targeted and persuasive responses. In this paper, we propose DRPG, an agentic framework for automatic academic rebuttal generation that operates through four steps: Decompose reviews into atomic concerns, Retrieve relevant evidence from the paper, Plan rebuttal strategies, and Generate responses accordingly. Notably, the Planner in DRPG reaches over 98% accuracy in identifying the most feasible rebuttal direction. Experiments on data from top-tier conferences demonstrate that DRPG significantly outperforms existing rebuttal pipelines and achieves performance beyond the average human level using only an 8B model. Our analysis further demonstrates the effectiveness of the planner design and its value in providing multi-perspective and explainable suggestions. We also showed that DRPG works well in a more complex multi-round setting. These results highlight the effectiveness of DRPG and its potential to provide high-quality rebuttal content and support the scaling of academic discussions. Codes for this work are available at https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/DRPG-RebuttalAgent.

AI agents are increasingly used to solve complex, multi-step tasks, but existing multi-agent frameworks remain brittle as workflows grow in scale and depth. Small errors at intermediate stages can propagate through agent interactions, while insufficient grounding and weak verification mechanisms further limit reliability. We present Meta-Agent, a two-phase framework that automatically constructs and executes specialized multi-agent systems from natural-language task descriptions. In the construction phase, a task planner decomposes a problem into a directed acyclic graph of agent specifications with explicit input/output contracts and verification criteria. A web search module grounds each specification with external evidence, and a code generation module produces system prompts and tool configurations. A construction-time verification stage then validates generated artifacts and triggers targeted regeneration when failures are detected. In the execution phase, a coordinator dispatches subtasks across the agent graph while execution-time verification gates intermediate outputs. We further introduce a three-level error attribution mechanism that distinguishes local, upstream, and structural failures, enabling targeted recovery strategies ranging from localized retries to partial re-execution and re-decomposition. We evaluate Meta-Agent across coding, contextual learning, and open-ended reasoning tasks. Experiments against strong multi-agent baselines and ablation studies demonstrate consistent improvements in task success rate, error recovery, and workflow stability. The results highlight the importance of tightly integrating planning, grounding, and verification for building reliable multi-agent systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in general natural language processing tasks but often fall short in complex reasoning tasks. Recent studies have explored human-like problem-solving strategies, such as self-correct, to push further the boundary of single-model reasoning ability. In this work, we let a single model "step outside the box" by engaging multiple models to correct each other. We introduce a multi-agent collaboration strategy that emulates the academic peer review process. Each agent independently constructs its own solution, provides reviews on the solutions of others, and assigns confidence levels to its reviews. Upon receiving peer reviews, agents revise their initial solutions. Extensive experiments on three different types of reasoning tasks show that our collaboration approach delivers superior accuracy across all ten datasets compared to existing methods. Further study underscores the effectiveness of integrating confidence in reviews, demonstrates the superiority of feedback exchange over mere solution sharing, and highlights the role of capability and diversity in fostering successful collaboration.

To make AI systems broadly useful for challenging real-world tasks, we need them to learn complex human goals and preferences. One approach to specifying complex goals asks humans to judge during training which agent behaviors are safe and useful, but this approach can fail if the task is too complicated for a human to directly judge. To help address this concern, we propose training agents via self play on a zero sum debate game. Given a question or proposed action, two agents take turns making short statements up to a limit, then a human judges which of the agents gave the most true, useful information. In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to convince a sparse classifier, boosting the classifier's accuracy from 59.4% to 88.9% given 6 pixels and from 48.2% to 85.2% given 4 pixels. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical aspects of the debate model, focusing on potential weaknesses as the model scales up, and we propose future human and computer experiments to test these properties.

Agents are predominantly evaluated and optimized via task success metrics, which are coarse, rely on manual design from experts, and fail to reward intermediate emergent behaviors. We propose AutoLibra, a framework for agent evaluation, that transforms open-ended human feedback, e.g., "If you find that the button is disabled, don't click it again", or "This agent has too much autonomy to decide what to do on its own", into metrics for evaluating fine-grained behaviors in agent trajectories. AutoLibra accomplishes this by grounding feedback to an agent's behavior, clustering similar positive and negative behaviors, and creating concrete metrics with clear definitions and concrete examples, which can be used for prompting LLM-as-a-Judge as evaluators. We further propose two meta-metrics to evaluate the alignment of a set of (induced) metrics with open feedback: "coverage" and "redundancy". Through optimizing these meta-metrics, we experimentally demonstrate AutoLibra's ability to induce more concrete agent evaluation metrics than the ones proposed in previous agent evaluation benchmarks and discover new metrics to analyze agents. We also present two applications of AutoLibra in agent improvement: First, we show that AutoLibra-induced metrics serve as better prompt-engineering targets than the task success rate on a wide range of text game tasks, improving agent performance over baseline by a mean of 20%. Second, we show that AutoLibra can iteratively select high-quality fine-tuning data for web navigation agents. Our results suggest that AutoLibra is a powerful task-agnostic tool for evaluating and improving language agents.

As agentic systems tackle increasingly complex multi-step tasks, evaluating their trajectories presents a major bottleneck - human annotation of a single trajectory on popular agentic benchmarks can take hours, making it difficult to scale evaluations for measuring performance or curating training data. This has driven widespread reliance on automated approaches such as LLM-as-a-judge (LLMJ) to critique agents at the process and outcome-levels at scale, however, the soundness of LLMJ critiques often goes unmeasured. Here, we introduce Counsel, the first public dataset of meta-evaluations for agentic tasks. Counsel consists of process-level critiques from open-weight LLMJs on two agent benchmarks: tau-bench (customer support agents) and DA-Code (coding agents), and human meta-evaluations of these critiques. Human annotators label critiques on each flagged error as "spot on", "correct location but poor reasoning", or "should not have flagged", achieving reliable inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's alpha of 0.78). The resulting dataset stratifies LLMJ critiques by human alignment across both error location within a trajectory and reasoning quality, serving as valuable data to calibrate, improve, or train LLMJs for agents. Comparing open-weight judges, we find that more capable judge models and more reasoning effort both enabled improved human agreement, with the strongest judge reaching ~88% agreement on location and ~65% on reasoning. Counsel is generated using open-weight models and is permissively licensed for broad community use, which we hope will enable rigorous study and improved alignment of LLM-based evaluators for agentic systems.

In this work, we propose MetaAgent, an agentic paradigm inspired by the principle of learning-by-doing, where expertise is developed through hands-on practice and continual self-improvement. MetaAgent starts with a minimal workflow, equipped only with basic reasoning and adaptive help-seeking abilities. When a knowledge gap is encountered, MetaAgent generates natural language help requests, which are routed to the most suitable external tool by a dedicated tool router. As MetaAgent solves tasks, it continually conducts self-reflection and answer verification, distilling actionable experience into concise texts that are dynamically incorporated into future task contexts. Besides, MetaAgent autonomously builds in-house tools and a persistent knowledge base by organizing its tool-use history, further enhancing its ability to retrieve and integrate relevant information We term this continual, data-driven process as meta tool learning, through which MetaAgent incrementally refines its reasoning and tool-use strategies, without changing model parameters or requiring further post-training. Evaluated on challenging knowledge discovery benchmarks, including GAIA, WebWalkerQA, and BrowseCamp, MetaAgent consistently outperforms workflow-based baselines and matches or exceeds end-to-end trained agents, demonstrating the promise of self-evolving agentic systems for robust, general-purpose knowledge discovery. We provide our source codes in https://github.com/qhjqhj00/MetaAgent.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations. This underscores the need for robust evaluation methodologies to accurately assess LLM-based applications. Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation. Recent research has explored leveraging LLMs to mimic human reasoning and decision-making processes for evaluation purposes known as LLM-as-a-judge framework. However, these existing frameworks have two significant limitations. First, they lack the flexibility to adapt to different text styles, including various answer and ground truth styles, thereby reducing their generalization performance. Second, the evaluation scores produced by these frameworks are often skewed and hard to interpret, showing a low correlation with human judgment. To address these challenges, we propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications. This system iteratively refines evaluation prompts and balances the trade-off between the adaptive requirements of downstream tasks and the alignment with human perception. Our experimental results show that the proposed multi-agent LLM Judge framework not only enhances evaluation accuracy compared to existing methods but also produces evaluation scores that better align with human perception.

Recent advancements in AI agents have demonstrated their growing potential to drive and support scientific discovery. In this work, we introduce MLR-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI agents on open-ended machine learning research. MLR-Bench includes three key components: (1) 201 research tasks sourced from NeurIPS, ICLR, and ICML workshops covering diverse ML topics; (2) MLR-Judge, an automated evaluation framework combining LLM-based reviewers with carefully designed review rubrics to assess research quality; and (3) MLR-Agent, a modular agent scaffold capable of completing research tasks through four stages: idea generation, proposal formulation, experimentation, and paper writing. Our framework supports both stepwise assessment across these distinct research stages, and end-to-end evaluation of the final research paper. We then use MLR-Bench to evaluate six frontier LLMs and an advanced coding agent, finding that while LLMs are effective at generating coherent ideas and well-structured papers, current coding agents frequently (e.g., in 80% of the cases) produce fabricated or invalidated experimental results--posing a major barrier to scientific reliability. We validate MLR-Judge through human evaluation, showing high agreement with expert reviewers, supporting its potential as a scalable tool for research evaluation. We open-source MLR-Bench to help the community benchmark, diagnose, and improve AI research agents toward trustworthy and transparent scientific discovery.

Recently, Agentic AI has become an increasingly popular research field. However, we argue that current agent research practices lack standardization and scientific rigor, making it hard to conduct fair comparisons among methods. As a result, it is still unclear how different design choices in agent frameworks affect effectiveness, and measuring their progress remains challenging. In this work, we conduct a systematic empirical study on GAIA benchmark and BrowseComp to examine the impact of popular design choices in key agent components in a fair and rigorous manner. We find that the lack of a standard evaluation protocol makes previous works, even open-sourced ones, non-reproducible, with significant variance between random runs. Therefore, we introduce a more robust evaluation protocol to stabilize comparisons. Our study reveals which components and designs are crucial for effective agents, while others are redundant, despite seeming logical. Based on our findings, we build and open-source OAgents, a new foundation agent framework that achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source projects. OAgents offers a modular design for various agent components, promoting future research in Agentic AI.

This paper presents a pilot study aimed at introducing multi-agent debate into multimodal reasoning. The study addresses two key challenges: the trivialization of opinions resulting from excessive summarization and the diversion of focus caused by distractor concepts introduced from images. These challenges stem from the inductive (bottom-up) nature of existing debating schemes. To address the issue, we propose a deductive (top-down) debating approach called Blueprint Debate on Graphs (BDoG). In BDoG, debates are confined to a blueprint graph to prevent opinion trivialization through world-level summarization. Moreover, by storing evidence in branches within the graph, BDoG mitigates distractions caused by frequent but irrelevant concepts. Extensive experiments validate that BDoG is able to achieve state-of-the-art results in ScienceQA and MMBench with significant improvements over previous methods. The source code can be accessed at https://github.com/thecharm/BDoG.

Scientific Research, vital for improving human life, is hindered by its inherent complexity, slow pace, and the need for specialized experts. To enhance its productivity, we propose a ResearchAgent, a large language model-powered research idea writing agent, which automatically generates problems, methods, and experiment designs while iteratively refining them based on scientific literature. Specifically, starting with a core paper as the primary focus to generate ideas, our ResearchAgent is augmented not only with relevant publications through connecting information over an academic graph but also entities retrieved from an entity-centric knowledge store based on their underlying concepts, mined and shared across numerous papers. In addition, mirroring the human approach to iteratively improving ideas with peer discussions, we leverage multiple ReviewingAgents that provide reviews and feedback iteratively. Further, they are instantiated with human preference-aligned large language models whose criteria for evaluation are derived from actual human judgments. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines, showcasing its effectiveness in generating novel, clear, and valid research ideas based on human and model-based evaluation results.

Language agents, i.e., LLM agents, progress rapidly and are increasingly deployed in production environments. This trend underscores the urgent need for rigorous and realistic evaluations. However, most existing benchmarks evaluate agents in simplified, idealized settings. They typically rely on pre-packaged tool interfaces, overlook critical steps, and assume inputs are clean and fully specified. Consequently, they understate the difficulty of real deployments, where uncertainty and noise are ubiquitous and agents must proactively explore the environment to uncover new tools. To bridge this gap, we present AgentGym2, a new evaluation framework with task instances grounded in real-world end-to-end working demands. Beyond reasoning and planning, it measures agents' ability to execute end-to-end procedures, discover tools via exploration, compose tools for unseen tasks, and remain robust to noisy and underspecified information. Experiments on 15 proprietary and open-source models show that even SOTA systems like Gemini and GPT-5 struggle on AgentGym2, revealing a substantial gap between the capability of current agents and the demands of real-world applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with creative generation, and multi-agent frameworks that improve reasoning through interaction can paradoxically hinder creativity by inducing content homogenization. We introduce LLM Review, a peer-review-inspired framework implementing Blind Peer Review: agents exchange targeted feedback while revising independently, preserving divergent creative trajectories. To enable rigorous evaluation, we propose SciFi-100, a science fiction writing dataset with a unified framework combining LLM-as-a-judge scoring, human annotation, and rule-based novelty metrics. Experiments demonstrate that LLM Review consistently outperforms multi-agent baselines, and smaller models with our framework can surpass larger single-agent models, suggesting interaction structure may substitute for model scale.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

Deep research systems are widely used for multi-step web research, analysis, and cross-source synthesis, yet their evaluation remains challenging. Existing benchmarks often require annotation-intensive task construction, rely on static evaluation dimensions, or fail to reliably verify facts when citations are missing. To bridge these gaps, we introduce DeepResearchEval, an automated framework for deep research task construction and agentic evaluation. For task construction, we propose a persona-driven pipeline generating realistic, complex research tasks anchored in diverse user profiles, applying a two-stage filter Task Qualification and Search Necessity to retain only tasks requiring multi-source evidence integration and external retrieval. For evaluation, we propose an agentic pipeline with two components: an Adaptive Point-wise Quality Evaluation that dynamically derives task-specific evaluation dimensions, criteria, and weights conditioned on each generated task, and an Active Fact-Checking that autonomously extracts and verifies report statements via web search, even when citations are missing.

Agentic search, as a more autonomous and adaptive paradigm of retrieval augmentation, is driving the evolution of intelligent search systems. However, existing evaluation frameworks fail to align well with the goals of agentic search. First, the complex queries commonly used in current benchmarks often deviate from realistic user search scenarios. Second, prior approaches tend to introduce noise when extracting ground truth for end-to-end evaluations, leading to distorted assessments at a fine-grained level. Third, most current frameworks focus solely on the quality of final answers, neglecting the evaluation of the iterative process inherent to agentic search. To address these limitations, we propose RAVine -- a Reality-Aligned eValuation framework for agentic LLMs with search. RAVine targets multi-point queries and long-form answers that better reflect user intents, and introduces an attributable ground truth construction strategy to enhance the accuracy of fine-grained evaluation. Moreover, RAVine examines model's interaction with search tools throughout the iterative process, and accounts for factors of efficiency. We benchmark a series of models using RAVine and derive several insights, which we hope will contribute to advancing the development of agentic search systems. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/SwordFaith/RAVine.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) as general-purpose agents is essential for understanding their capabilities and facilitating their integration into practical applications. However, the evaluation process presents substantial challenges. A primary obstacle is the benchmarking of agent performance across diverse scenarios within a unified framework, especially in maintaining partially-observable environments and ensuring multi-round interactions. Moreover, current evaluation frameworks mostly focus on the final success rate, revealing few insights during the process and failing to provide a deep understanding of the model abilities. To address these challenges, we introduce AgentBoard, a pioneering comprehensive benchmark and accompanied open-source evaluation framework tailored to analytical evaluation of LLM agents. AgentBoard offers a fine-grained progress rate metric that captures incremental advancements as well as a comprehensive evaluation toolkit that features easy assessment of agents for multi-faceted analysis through interactive visualization. This not only sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of LLM agents but also propels the interpretability of their performance to the forefront. Ultimately, AgentBoard serves as a significant step towards demystifying agent behaviors and accelerating the development of stronger LLM agents.

This paper investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs have shown promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality. The findings suggest that combining LLMs with real-time external knowledge retrieval offers a promising direction for developing more effective and reliable counter-argumentation systems.

Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it suffers from inconsistencies, reviewer subjectivity, and scalability challenges. We introduce ReviewerToo, a modular framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review to complement human judgment with systematic and consistent assessments. ReviewerToo supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria, and can be partially or fully integrated into real conference workflows. We validate ReviewerToo on a carefully curated dataset of 1,963 paper submissions from ICLR 2025, where our experiments with the gpt-oss-120b model achieves 81.8% accuracy for the task of categorizing a paper as accept/reject compared to 83.9% for the average human reviewer. Additionally, ReviewerToo-generated reviews are rated as higher quality than the human average by an LLM judge, though still trailing the strongest expert contributions. Our analysis highlights domains where AI reviewers excel (e.g., fact-checking, literature coverage) and where they struggle (e.g., assessing methodological novelty and theoretical contributions), underscoring the continued need for human expertise. Based on these findings, we propose guidelines for integrating AI into peer-review pipelines, showing how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts. Our work provides a foundation for systematic, hybrid peer-review systems that scale with the growth of scientific publishing.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to a medical-domain benchmark, validating JADE across professional domains. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

Critique ability, a meta-cognitive capability of humans, presents significant challenges for LLMs to improve. Recent works primarily rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) using critiques generated by a single LLM like GPT-4. However, these model-generated critiques often exhibit flaws due to the inherent complexity of the critique. Consequently, fine-tuning LLMs on such flawed critiques typically limits the model's performance and propagates these flaws into the learned model. To overcome these challenges, this paper proposes a novel data generation pipeline, named MultiCritique, that improves the critique ability of LLMs by utilizing multi-agent feedback in both the SFT and reinforcement learning (RL) stages. First, our data generation pipeline aggregates high-quality critiques from multiple agents instead of a single model, with crucial information as input for simplifying the critique. Furthermore, our pipeline improves the preference accuracy of critique quality through multi-agent feedback, facilitating the effectiveness of RL in improving the critique ability of LLMs. Based on our proposed MultiCritique data generation pipeline, we construct the MultiCritiqueDataset for the SFT and RL fine-tuning stages. Extensive experimental results on two benchmarks demonstrate: 1) the superior quality of our constructed SFT dataset compared to existing critique datasets; 2) additional improvements to the critique ability of LLMs brought by the RL stage. Notably, our fine-tuned 7B model significantly surpasses other advanced 7B-13B open-source models, approaching the performance of advanced 70B LLMs and GPT-4. Codes, datasets and model weights will be publicly available.

The acceleration of Large Language Models (LLMs) research has opened up new possibilities for evaluating generated texts. They serve as scalable and economical evaluators, but the question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. Prior research efforts in the meta-evaluation of LLMs as judges limit the prompting of an LLM to a single use to obtain a final evaluation decision. They then compute the agreement between LLMs' outputs and human labels. This lacks interpretability in understanding the evaluation capability of LLMs. In light of this challenge, we propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices. Our experiments illustrate that it not only provides a more interpretable window for how well LLMs evaluate, but also leads to improvements up to 39.6% for different LLMs on a variety of meta-evaluation benchmarks.

Understanding and reasoning on the web-scale scientific literature is a crucial touchstone for large language model (LLM) based agents designed to support complex knowledge-intensive tasks. However, existing works are mainly restricted to tool-free tasks within isolated papers, largely due to the lack of a benchmark for cross-paper reasoning and multi-tool orchestration in real research scenarios. In this work, we propose PaperArena, an evaluation benchmark for agents to address real-world research questions that typically require integrating information across multiple papers with the assistance of external tools. Given a research question, agents should integrate diverse formats across multiple papers through reasoning and interacting with appropriate tools, thereby producing a well-grounded answer. To support standardized evaluation, we provide a modular and extensible platform for agent execution, offering tools such as multimodal parsing, context retrieval, and programmatic computation. Experimental results reveal that even the most advanced LLM powering a well-established agent system achieves merely 38.78% average accuracy. On the hard subset, accuracy drops to only 18.47%, highlighting great potential for improvement. We also present several empirical findings, including that all agents tested exhibit inefficient tool usage, often invoking more tools than necessary to solve a task. We invite the community to adopt PaperArena to develop and evaluate more capable agents for scientific discovery. Our code and data are available https://github.com/Melmaphother/PaperArena.

Multi-agent debate has been shown to improve reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, it is compute-intensive, requiring generation of long transcripts before answering questions. To address this inefficiency, we develop a framework that distills multi-agent debate into a single LLM through a two-stage fine-tuning pipeline combining debate structure learning with internalization via dynamic reward scheduling and length clipping. Across multiple models and benchmarks, our internalized models match or exceed explicit multi-agent debate performance using up to 93% fewer tokens. We then investigate the mechanistic basis of this capability through activation steering, finding that internalization creates agent-specific subspaces: interpretable directions in activation space corresponding to different agent perspectives. We further demonstrate a practical application: by instilling malicious agents into the LLM through internalized debate, then applying negative steering to suppress them, we show that distillation makes harmful behaviors easier to localize and control with smaller reductions in general performance compared to steering base models. Our findings offer a new perspective for understanding multi-agent capabilities in distilled models and provide practical guidelines for controlling internalized reasoning behaviors. Code available at https://github.com/johnsk95/latent_agents

The promise of general-purpose agents - systems that perform tasks in unfamiliar environments without domain-specific engineering - remains largely unrealized. Existing agents are predominantly specialized, and while emerging implementations like OpenAI SDK Agent and Claude Code hint at broader capabilities, no systematic evaluation of their general performance has been pursued. Current agentic benchmarks assume domain-specific integration, encoding task information in ways that preclude fair evaluation of general agents. This paper frames general-agent evaluation as a first-class research objective. We propose conceptual principles for such evaluation, a Unified Protocol enabling agent-benchmark integration, and Exgentic - a practical framework for general agent evaluation. We benchmark five prominent agent implementations across six environments as the first Open General Agent Leaderboard. Our experiments show that general agents generalize across diverse environments, achieving performance comparable to domain-specific agents without any environment-specific tuning. We release our evaluation protocol, framework, and leaderboard to establish a foundation for systematic research on general-purpose agents.

Despite growing enthusiasm for Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), where multiple LLM agents collaborate to accomplish tasks, their performance gains across popular benchmarks remain minimal compared to single-agent frameworks. This gap highlights the need to analyze the challenges hindering MAS effectiveness. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive study of MAS challenges. We analyze five popular MAS frameworks across over 150 tasks, involving six expert human annotators. We identify 14 unique failure modes and propose a comprehensive taxonomy applicable to various MAS frameworks. This taxonomy emerges iteratively from agreements among three expert annotators per study, achieving a Cohen's Kappa score of 0.88. These fine-grained failure modes are organized into 3 categories, (i) specification and system design failures, (ii) inter-agent misalignment, and (iii) task verification and termination. To support scalable evaluation, we integrate MASFT with LLM-as-a-Judge. We also explore if identified failures could be easily prevented by proposing two interventions: improved specification of agent roles and enhanced orchestration strategies. Our findings reveal that identified failures require more complex solutions, highlighting a clear roadmap for future research. We open-source our dataset and LLM annotator.

The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) towards autonomous agents has catalyzed progress in Deep Research. While retrieval capabilities are well-benchmarked, the post-retrieval synthesis stage--where agents must digest massive amounts of context and consolidate fragmented evidence into coherent, long-form reports--remains under-evaluated due to the subjectivity of open-ended writing. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepSynth-Eval, a benchmark designed to objectively evaluate information consolidation capabilities. We leverage high-quality survey papers as gold standards, reverse-engineering research requests and constructing "Oracle Contexts" from their bibliographies to isolate synthesis from retrieval noise. We propose a fine-grained evaluation protocol using General Checklists (for factual coverage) and Constraint Checklists (for structural organization), transforming subjective judgment into verifiable metrics. Experiments across 96 tasks reveal that synthesizing information from hundreds of references remains a significant challenge. Our results demonstrate that agentic plan-and-write workflows significantly outperform single-turn generation, effectively reducing hallucinations and improving adherence to complex structural constraints.

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set ρ and a priority π. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance injective priority, yet accepted under partial activations, one of which no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. Tight bounds and multi-agent variants are left open.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) leveraging the impressive capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant potential for tackling complex tasks. However, most current MAS depend on manually designed agent roles and communication protocols. These manual designs often fail to align with the underlying LLMs' strengths and struggle to adapt to novel tasks. Recent automatic MAS approaches attempt to mitigate these limitations but typically necessitate a validation set for tuning and yield static MAS designs lacking adaptability during inference. We introduce MAS-ZERO, the first self-evolved, inference-time framework for automatic MAS design. MAS-ZERO employs meta-level design to iteratively generate, evaluate, and refine MAS configurations tailored to each problem instance, without requiring a validation set. Critically, it enables dynamic agent composition and problem decomposition through meta-feedback on solvability and completeness. Experiments across math, graduate-level QA, and software engineering benchmarks, using both closed-source and open-source LLM backbones of varying sizes, demonstrate that MAS-ZERO outperforms both manual and automatic MAS baselines, achieving a 7.44% average accuracy improvement over the next strongest baseline while maintaining cost-efficiency. These findings underscore the promise of meta-level self-evolved design for creating effective and adaptive MAS.

Large language models and autonomous AI agents have evolved rapidly, resulting in a diverse array of evaluation benchmarks, frameworks, and collaboration protocols. However, the landscape remains fragmented and lacks a unified taxonomy or comprehensive survey. Therefore, we present a side-by-side comparison of benchmarks developed between 2019 and 2025 that evaluate these models and agents across multiple domains. In addition, we propose a taxonomy of approximately 60 benchmarks that cover general and academic knowledge reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, code generation and software engineering, factual grounding and retrieval, domain-specific evaluations, multimodal and embodied tasks, task orchestration, and interactive assessments. Furthermore, we review AI-agent frameworks introduced between 2023 and 2025 that integrate large language models with modular toolkits to enable autonomous decision-making and multi-step reasoning. Moreover, we present real-world applications of autonomous AI agents in materials science, biomedical research, academic ideation, software engineering, synthetic data generation, chemical reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, geographic information systems, multimedia, healthcare, and finance. We then survey key agent-to-agent collaboration protocols, namely the Agent Communication Protocol (ACP), the Model Context Protocol (MCP), and the Agent-to-Agent Protocol (A2A). Finally, we discuss recommendations for future research, focusing on advanced reasoning strategies, failure modes in multi-agent LLM systems, automated scientific discovery, dynamic tool integration via reinforcement learning, integrated search capabilities, and security vulnerabilities in agent protocols.

Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses are essential for synthesizing research insights, but they remain time-intensive and labor-intensive due to the iterative processes of screening, evaluation, and data extraction. This paper introduces and evaluates LatteReview, a Python-based framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) and multi-agent systems to automate key elements of the systematic review process. Designed to streamline workflows while maintaining rigor, LatteReview utilizes modular agents for tasks such as title and abstract screening, relevance scoring, and structured data extraction. These agents operate within orchestrated workflows, supporting sequential and parallel review rounds, dynamic decision-making, and iterative refinement based on user feedback. LatteReview's architecture integrates LLM providers, enabling compatibility with both cloud-based and locally hosted models. The framework supports features such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for incorporating external context, multimodal reviews, Pydantic-based validation for structured inputs and outputs, and asynchronous programming for handling large-scale datasets. The framework is available on the GitHub repository, with detailed documentation and an installable package.

Agentic systems are becoming more capable: agents define strategies, take actions, and interact with different environments. This autonomy poses serious challenges for overseeing and assessing agent behavior. Most current tools are limited, focusing on observability with basic evaluation capabilities or imposing static, hand-crafted error taxonomies that cannot adapt to new domains. To address this gap, we present Agentic CLEAR, an automatic, dynamic, and easy-to-use evaluation framework. It produces textual insights into the agent behavior on three levels of granularity: system, trace, and node. Agentic CLEAR operates above the observability layer, enabling seamless integration and featuring an intuitive UI that makes agent evaluation highly accessible. In our experiments on four benchmarks, seven agentic settings, and tens of thousands of LLM calls, we show that Agentic CLEAR produces high-quality, data-driven, insightful feedback. Our analysis shows strong alignment with human-annotated errors and the ability to predict task success rate.

The rapid advancement of video generation has rendered existing evaluation systems inadequate for assessing state-of-the-art models, primarily due to simple prompts that cannot showcase the model's capabilities, fixed evaluation operators struggling with Out-of-Distribution (OOD) cases, and misalignment between computed metrics and human preferences. To bridge the gap, we propose VideoGen-Eval, an agent evaluation system that integrates LLM-based content structuring, MLLM-based content judgment, and patch tools designed for temporal-dense dimensions, to achieve a dynamic, flexible, and expandable video generation evaluation. Additionally, we introduce a video generation benchmark to evaluate existing cutting-edge models and verify the effectiveness of our evaluation system. It comprises 700 structured, content-rich prompts (both T2V and I2V) and over 12,000 videos generated by 20+ models, among them, 8 cutting-edge models are selected as quantitative evaluation for the agent and human. Extensive experiments validate that our proposed agent-based evaluation system demonstrates strong alignment with human preferences and reliably completes the evaluation, as well as the diversity and richness of the benchmark.

Evaluating large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems remains a critical challenge, as these systems must exhibit reliable coordination, transparent decision-making, and verifiable performance across evolving tasks. Existing evaluation approaches often limit themselves to single-response scoring or narrow benchmarks, which lack stability, extensibility, and automation when deployed in enterprise settings at multi-agent scale. We present AEMA (Adaptive Evaluation Multi-Agent), a process-aware and auditable framework that plans, executes, and aggregates multi-step evaluations across heterogeneous agentic workflows under human oversight. Compared to a single LLM-as-a-Judge, AEMA achieves greater stability, human alignment, and traceable records that support accountable automation. Our results on enterprise-style agent workflows simulated using realistic business scenarios demonstrate that AEMA provides a transparent and reproducible pathway toward responsible evaluation of LLM-based multi-agent systems. Keywords Agentic AI, Multi-Agent Systems, Trustworthy AI, Verifiable Evaluation, Human Oversight

Large language models (LLMs), while promising, face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues. SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments, alongside adjustable debate contentiousness levels. The platform typically involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments for their respective stances. The reasoning evaluation phase then employs Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles to appraise the quality of the arguments presented. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the contentiousness from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final, conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. Through case studies in three distinct application domains, this paper showcases SocraSynth's effectiveness in fostering rigorous research, dynamic reasoning, comprehensive assessment, and enhanced collaboration. This underscores the value of multi-agent interactions in leveraging LLMs for advanced knowledge extraction and decision-making support.

The rapid integration of large language model-based agents into recommender systems has driven a shift from static, ranking-based pipelines toward autonomous and interactive systems that can reason, plan, and act. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of this emerging landscape by introducing a unified taxonomy grounded in the level of autonomy and three core paradigms of agentic recommender systems: agent-assisted recommendation, agent-as-recommender, and agent-as-user-simulator. The autonomy framework organizes existing methods along increasing capabilities in proactivity, context awareness, interaction flexibility, and adaptivity. Building on this framework, the survey analyzes how each paradigm adopts different agentic architectures and how agents enhance key components such as profiles, memory, tool use, workflows, and optimization mechanisms. We further examine evaluation methodologies for agentic recommendation, covering automated metrics, LLM-based judging, and simulation-based assessment, and discuss their limitations in capturing reasoning quality, user experience, and system behavior. Beyond existing evaluation protocols, we further discuss unresolved issues in evaluating agentic recommender systems, including trajectory-level assessment, agent contribution analysis, and calibration of user simulation. Lastly, the survey outlines open challenges in lifelong user modeling, contextual abstraction, multimodal alignment, controllability, trustworthiness, privacy, scalability, and efficiency. Together, these analyses establish a unified foundation for understanding the current progress of agentic recommender systems and highlight promising opportunities for developing more autonomous, reliable, and human-aligned recommendation agents.

The rapid evolution of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) toward multimodal, high-stakes enterprise applications has outpaced the development of domain specific evaluation benchmarks. Existing datasets often rely on general-domain corpora or purely textual retrieval, failing to capture the complexity of specialized technical documents where information is inextricably multimodal and reasoning requires synthesizing disjoint evidence. We address this gap by introducing MiRAGE, a Multiagent framework for RAG systems Evaluation, that leverages a collaborative swarm of specialized agents to generate verified, domain-specific, multimodal, and multi-hop Question-Answer datasets. MiRAGE orchestrates a swarm of specialized agents: a recursive context optimization loop to aggregate scattered evidence, an adversarial verifier agent to guarantee factual grounding, and an agent to recognize the expert persona and the relevant domain to mimic expert cognitive workflows. Extensive empirical evaluation across four distinct domains (regulations, finance, quantitative biology, and journalism) demonstrates that MiRAGE generates datasets with significantly higher reasoning complexity (>2.3 average hops) and factual faithfulness. Our ablation studies point that MiRAGE can be powered by LLMs if textual descriptions of the images are available. Visual grounding still remains a frontier. By automating the creation of gold standard evaluation datasets that reflect the latent thematic structure of proprietary corpora, MiRAGE provides the necessary infrastructure to rigorously benchmark the next generation information retrieval systems.

High-dimensional decision-making tasks, such as business partner selection, involve evaluating large candidate pools with heterogeneous numerical, categorical, and textual features. While large language models (LLMs) offer strong in-context reasoning capabilities, single-agent or debate-style systems often struggle with scalability and consistency in such settings. We propose PartnerMAS, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that decomposes evaluation into three layers: a Planner Agent that designs strategies, Specialized Agents that perform role-specific assessments, and a Supervisor Agent that integrates their outputs. To support systematic evaluation, we also introduce a curated benchmark dataset of venture capital co-investments, featuring diverse firm attributes and ground-truth syndicates. Across 140 cases, PartnerMAS consistently outperforms single-agent and debate-based multi-agent baselines, achieving up to 10--15\% higher match rates. Analysis of agent reasoning shows that planners are most responsive to domain-informed prompts, specialists produce complementary feature coverage, and supervisors play an important role in aggregation. Our findings demonstrate that structured collaboration among LLM agents can generate more robust outcomes than scaling individual models, highlighting PartnerMAS as a promising framework for high-dimensional decision-making in data-rich domains.

We introduce ResearchGym, a benchmark and execution environment for evaluating AI agents on end-to-end research. To instantiate this, we repurpose five oral and spotlight papers from ICML, ICLR, and ACL. From each paper's repository, we preserve the datasets, evaluation harness, and baseline implementations but withhold the paper's proposed method. This results in five containerized task environments comprising 39 sub-tasks in total. Within each environment, agents must propose novel hypotheses, run experiments, and attempt to surpass strong human baselines on the paper's metrics. In a controlled evaluation of an agent powered by GPT-5, we observe a sharp capability--reliability gap. The agent improves over the provided baselines from the repository in just 1 of 15 evaluations (6.7%) by 11.5%, and completes only 26.5% of sub-tasks on average. We identify recurring long-horizon failure modes, including impatience, poor time and resource management, overconfidence in weak hypotheses, difficulty coordinating parallel experiments, and hard limits from context length. Yet in a single run, the agent surpasses the solution of an ICML 2025 Spotlight task, indicating that frontier agents can occasionally reach state-of-the-art performance, but do so unreliably. We additionally evaluate proprietary agent scaffolds including Claude Code (Opus-4.5) and Codex (GPT-5.2) which display a similar gap. ResearchGym provides infrastructure for systematic evaluation and analysis of autonomous agents on closed-loop research.

Large language models (LLMs) have sparked growing interest in automatic machine learning research agents. Among them, agents capable of autonomously proposing ideas and conducting machine learning experiments are particularly promising, as they maximize research automation and accelerate scientific progress by iteratively refining ideas based on experimental results. However, comprehensively evaluating such agents remains challenging. Existing benchmarks tend to overemphasize engineering aspects while neglecting academic rigor, creating barriers that obscure a clear assessment of an agent's scientific capabilities in machine learning research. They also suffer from limited task diversity, an overemphasis on application-oriented tasks over fundamental research problems, and limited scalability to realistic research settings. To address these limitations, we introduce FML-bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate automatic machine learning research agents on 8 diverse and fundamental machine learning research problems. It reduces coding burden, emphasizes fundamental problems rather than specific use cases, offers high task diversity, and is extensible to real-world machine learning GitHub repositories. Furthermore, we present a unified evaluation framework with five complementary metrics, designed to comprehensively assess agent performance on our benchmark. We evaluate state-of-the-art automatic research agents on FML-bench, and find that agents employing broad research exploration strategies outperform those focusing on narrow but deep exploration. These findings suggest that emphasizing the breadth of exploration may lead to more effective research outcomes than focusing solely on incremental refinement. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/qrzou/FML-bench.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning by letting multiple agents exchange answers and then aggregate their opinions. Yet recent studies reveal that agents are not neutral: they are prone to identity-driven sycophancy and self-bias, uncritically adopting a peer's view or stubbornly adhering to their own prior output, undermining the reliability of debate. In this work, we present the first principled framework that joins sycophancy and self-bias to mitigate and quantify identity bias in MAD. First, we formalize the debate dynamics as an identity-weighted Bayesian update process. Second, we propose response anonymization: by removing identity markers from prompts, agents cannot distinguish "self" from "peer", which forces equal weights on agent identity, thereby reducing bias and improving trustworthiness. Third, we define the Identity Bias Coefficient (IBC), a principled bias metric that measures an agent's tendency to follow its peer versus itself. Empirical studies across multiple models and benchmarks confirm that identity bias is widespread, with sycophancy far more common than self-bias. Our findings highlight the need to ensure that MAD systems reason based on content rather than identity. Code is released in https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/MAD-identity-bias.

We show that domain-general automatic evaluators can significantly improve the performance of agents for web navigation and device control. We experiment with multiple evaluation models that trade off between inference cost, modularity of design, and accuracy. We validate the performance of these models in several popular benchmarks for digital agents, finding between 74.4 and 92.9% agreement with oracle evaluation metrics. Finally, we use these evaluators to improve the performance of existing agents via fine-tuning and inference-time guidance. Without any additional supervision, we improve state-of-the-art performance by 29% on the popular benchmark WebArena, and achieve a 75% relative improvement in a challenging domain transfer scenario.

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

Agents based on large language models leverage tools to modify environments, revolutionizing how AI interacts with the physical world. Unlike traditional NLP tasks that rely solely on historical dialogue for responses, these agents must consider more complex factors, such as inter-tool relationships, environmental feedback and previous decisions, when making choices. Current research typically evaluates agents via multi-turn dialogues. However, it overlooks the influence of these critical factors on agent behavior. To bridge this gap, we present an open-source and high-quality benchmark C^3-Bench. This benchmark integrates attack concepts and applies univariate analysis to pinpoint key elements affecting agent robustness. In concrete, we design three challenges: navigate complex tool relationships, handle critical hidden information and manage dynamic decision paths. Complementing these challenges, we introduce fine-grained metrics, innovative data collection algorithms and reproducible evaluation methods. Extensive experiments are conducted on 49 mainstream agents, encompassing general fast-thinking, slow-thinking and domain-specific models. We observe that agents have significant shortcomings in handling tool dependencies, long context information dependencies and frequent policy-type switching. In essence, C^3-Bench aims to expose model vulnerabilities through these challenges and drive research into the interpretability of agent performance. The benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/TencentHunyuan/C3-Benchmark.

With the rapid advancement of agent-based methods in recent years, Agentic RAG has undoubtedly become an important research direction. Multi-hop reasoning, which requires models to engage in deliberate thinking and multi-step interaction, serves as a critical testbed for assessing such capabilities. However, existing benchmarks typically provide only final questions and answers, while lacking the intermediate hop-level questions that gradually connect atomic questions to the final multi-hop query. This limitation prevents researchers from analyzing at which step an agent fails and restricts more fine-grained evaluation of model capabilities. Moreover, most current benchmarks are manually constructed, which is both time-consuming and labor-intensive, while also limiting scalability and generalization. To address these challenges, we introduce AgenticRAGTracer, the first Agentic RAG benchmark that is primarily constructed automatically by large language models and designed to support step-by-step validation. Our benchmark spans multiple domains, contains 1,305 data points, and has no overlap with existing mainstream benchmarks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that even the best large language models perform poorly on our dataset. For instance, GPT-5 attains merely 22.6\% EM accuracy on the hardest portion of our dataset. Hop-aware diagnosis reveals that failures are primarily driven by distorted reasoning chains -- either collapsing prematurely or wandering into over-extension. This highlights a critical inability to allocate steps consistent with the task's logical structure, providing a diagnostic dimension missing in traditional evaluations. We believe our work will facilitate research in Agentic RAG and inspire further meaningful progress in this area. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/YqjMartin/AgenticRAGTracer.

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

Agentic search such as Deep Research systems, where large language models autonomously browse the web, synthesize information, and return comprehensive citation-backed answers, represents a major shift in how users interact with web-scale information. While promising greater efficiency and cognitive offloading, the growing complexity and open-endedness of agentic search have outpaced existing evaluation benchmarks and methodologies, which largely assume short search horizons and static answers. In this paper, we introduce Mind2Web 2, a benchmark of 130 realistic, high-quality, and long-horizon tasks that require real-time web browsing and extensive information synthesis, constructed with over 1,000 hours of human labor. To address the challenge of evaluating time-varying and complex answers, we propose a novel Agent-as-a-Judge framework. Our method constructs task-specific judge agents based on a tree-structured rubric design to automatically assess both answer correctness and source attribution. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of nine frontier agentic search systems and human performance, along with a detailed error analysis to draw insights for future development. The best-performing system, OpenAI Deep Research, can already achieve 50-70% of human performance while spending half the time, showing a great potential. Altogether, Mind2Web 2 provides a rigorous foundation for developing and benchmarking the next generation of agentic search systems.

As intelligent agents become more generally-capable, i.e. able to master a wide variety of tasks, the complexity and cost of properly evaluating them rises significantly. Tasks that assess specific capabilities of the agents can be correlated and stochastic, requiring many samples for accurate comparisons, leading to added costs. In this paper, we propose a formal definition and a conceptual framework for active evaluation of agents across multiple tasks, which assesses the performance of ranking algorithms as a function of number of evaluation data samples. Rather than curating, filtering, or compressing existing data sets as a preprocessing step, we propose an online framing: on every iteration, the ranking algorithm chooses the task and agents to sample scores from. Then, evaluation algorithms report a ranking of agents on each iteration and their performance is assessed with respect to the ground truth ranking over time. Several baselines are compared under different experimental contexts, with synthetic generated data and simulated online access to real evaluation data from Atari game-playing agents. We find that the classical Elo rating system -- while it suffers from well-known failure modes, in theory -- is a consistently reliable choice for efficient reduction of ranking error in practice. A recently-proposed method, Soft Condorcet Optimization, shows comparable performance to Elo on synthetic data and significantly outperforms Elo on real Atari agent evaluation. When task variation from the ground truth is high, selecting tasks based on proportional representation leads to higher rate of ranking error reduction.

As language models (LMs) evolve from chat assistants to long-horizon agents capable of multi-step reasoning and tool use, existing benchmarks remain largely confined to structured or exam-style tasks that fall short of real-world professional demands. To this end, we introduce \OneMillion-Bench OneMillion-Bench, a benchmark of 400 expert-curated tasks spanning Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science, built to evaluate agents across economically consequential scenarios. Unlike prior work, the benchmark requires retrieving authoritative sources, resolving conflicting evidence, applying domain-specific rules, and making constraint decisions, where correctness depends as much on the reasoning process as the final answer. We adopt a rubric-based evaluation protocol scoring factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance, focused on expert-level problems to ensure meaningful differentiation across agents. Together, \$OneMillion-Bench provides a unified testbed for assessing agentic reliability, professional depth, and practical readiness in domain-intensive scenarios.

With ChatGPT-like large language models (LLM) prevailing in the community, how to evaluate the ability of LLMs is an open question. Existing evaluation methods suffer from following shortcomings: (1) constrained evaluation abilities, (2) vulnerable benchmarks, (3) unobjective metrics. We suggest that task-based evaluation, where LLM agents complete tasks in a simulated environment, is a one-for-all solution to solve above problems. We present AgentSims, an easy-to-use infrastructure for researchers from all disciplines to test the specific capacities they are interested in. Researchers can build their evaluation tasks by adding agents and buildings on an interactive GUI or deploy and test new support mechanisms, i.e. memory, planning and tool-use systems, by a few lines of codes. Our demo is available at https://agentsims.com .

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.

LLM agents are rapidly becoming the practical interface for task automation, yet the ecosystem lacks a principled way to choose among an exploding space of deployable configurations. Existing LLM leaderboards and tool/agent benchmarks evaluate components in isolation and remain fragmented across tasks, metrics, and candidate pools, leaving a critical research gap: there is little query-conditioned supervision for learning to recommend end-to-end agent configurations that couple a backbone model with a toolkit. We address this gap with AgentSelect, a benchmark that reframes agent selection as narrative query-to-agent recommendation over capability profiles and systematically converts heterogeneous evaluation artifacts into unified, positive-only interaction data. AgentSelectcomprises 111,179 queries, 107,721 deployable agents, and 251,103 interaction records aggregated from 40+ sources, spanning LLM-only, toolkit-only, and compositional agents. Our analyses reveal a regime shift from dense head reuse to long-tail, near one-off supervision, where popularity-based CF/GNN methods become fragile and content-aware capability matching is essential. We further show that Part~III synthesized compositional interactions are learnable, induce capability-sensitive behavior under controlled counterfactual edits, and improve coverage over realistic compositions; models trained on AgentSelect also transfer to a public agent marketplace (MuleRun), yielding consistent gains on an unseen catalog. Overall, AgentSelect provides the first unified data and evaluation infrastructure for agent recommendation, which establishes a reproducible foundation to study and accelerate the emerging agent ecosystem.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities in mathematical and scientific tasks. To enhance complex reasoning, multi-agent systems have been proposed to harness the collective intelligence of LLM agents. However, existing collaboration structures are either predefined or rely on majority voting or round-table debates, which can suppress correct but less dominant agent contributions. Recent approaches model multi-agent systems as graph networks but optimize purely for agent performance, neglecting the quality of interactions. We hypothesize that effective agent communication is crucial for multi-agent reasoning and that debating quality plays a significant role. To address this, we propose ours, a multi-agent verbal reinforcement learning algorithm that dynamically constructs and refines multi-agent collaboration structures. Our method defines action spaces and a feedback mechanism that evaluates communication robustness and coherence throughout the debate. The final decision is achieved through a majority vote over all the agents. We assess ours on various reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning, creative writing, scientific reasoning, and numerical sorting. Results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms single-agent prompting methods and state-of-the-art multi-agent frameworks on diverse tasks.

Agentic workflows -- where multiple large language model (LLM) instances interact to solve tasks -- are increasingly built on feedback mechanisms, where one model evaluates and critiques another. Despite the promise of feedback-driven improvement, the stability of agentic workflows rests on the reliability of the judge. However, judges may hallucinate information, exhibit bias, or act adversarially -- introducing critical vulnerabilities into the workflow. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of agentic workflows under deceptive or misleading feedback. We introduce a two-dimensional framework for analyzing judge behavior, along axes of intent (from constructive to malicious) and knowledge (from parametric-only to retrieval-augmented systems). Using this taxonomy, we construct a suite of judge behaviors and develop WAFER-QA, a new benchmark with critiques grounded in retrieved web evidence to evaluate robustness of agentic workflows against factually supported adversarial feedback. We reveal that even strongest agents are vulnerable to persuasive yet flawed critiques -- often switching correct answers after a single round of misleading feedback. Taking a step further, we study how model predictions evolve over multiple rounds of interaction, revealing distinct behavioral patterns between reasoning and non-reasoning models. Our findings highlight fundamental vulnerabilities in feedback-based workflows and offer guidance for building more robust agentic systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) still struggle with complex reasoning tasks. Motivated by the society of minds (Minsky, 1988), we propose ReConcile, a multi-model multi-agent framework designed as a round table conference among diverse LLM agents to foster diverse thoughts and discussion for improved consensus. ReConcile enhances the reasoning capabilities of LLMs by holding multiple rounds of discussion, learning to convince other agents to improve their answers, and employing a confidence-weighted voting mechanism. In each round, ReConcile initiates discussion between agents via a 'discussion prompt' that consists of (a) grouped answers and explanations generated by each agent in the previous round, (b) their uncertainties, and (c) demonstrations of answer-rectifying human explanations, used for convincing other agents. This discussion prompt enables each agent to revise their responses in light of insights from other agents. Once a consensus is reached and the discussion ends, ReConcile determines the final answer by leveraging the confidence of each agent in a weighted voting scheme. We implement ReConcile with ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude2 as the three agents. Our experimental results on various benchmarks demonstrate that ReConcile significantly enhances the reasoning performance of the agents (both individually and as a team), surpassing prior single-agent and multi-agent baselines by 7.7% and also outperforming GPT-4 on some of these datasets. We also experiment with GPT-4 itself as one of the agents in ReConcile and demonstrate that its initial performance also improves by absolute 10.0% through discussion and feedback from other agents. Finally, we also analyze the accuracy after every round and observe that ReConcile achieves better and faster consensus between agents, compared to a multi-agent debate baseline. Our code is available at: https://github.com/dinobby/ReConcile

Manual curation of evaluation datasets is struggling to keep up with the rapidly expanding capabilities and deployment scenarios of language models. Towards scalable model profiling, we introduce and validate a framework for evaluating LLMs, called Adaptive Evaluations. Adaptive evaluations use scaffolded language models (evaluator agents) to search through a target model's behavior on a domain dataset and create difficult questions (tasks) that can discover and probe the model's failure modes. We find that frontier models lack consistency when adaptively probed with our framework on a diverse suite of datasets and tasks, including but not limited to legal reasoning, forecasting, and online harassment. Generated questions pass human validity checks and often transfer to other models with different capability profiles, demonstrating that adaptive evaluations can also be used to create difficult domain-specific datasets.

Data-driven scientific discovery requires the iterative integration of scientific domain knowledge, statistical expertise, and an understanding of data semantics to make nuanced analytical decisions, e.g., about which variables, transformations, and statistical models to consider. LM-based agents equipped with planning, memory, and code execution capabilities have the potential to support data-driven science. However, evaluating agents on such open-ended tasks is challenging due to multiple valid approaches, partially correct steps, and different ways to express the same decisions. To address these challenges, we present BLADE, a benchmark to automatically evaluate agents' multifaceted approaches to open-ended research questions. BLADE consists of 12 datasets and research questions drawn from existing scientific literature, with ground truth collected from independent analyses by expert data scientists and researchers. To automatically evaluate agent responses, we developed corresponding computational methods to match different representations of analyses to this ground truth. Though language models possess considerable world knowledge, our evaluation shows that they are often limited to basic analyses. However, agents capable of interacting with the underlying data demonstrate improved, but still non-optimal, diversity in their analytical decision making. Our work enables the evaluation of agents for data-driven science and provides researchers deeper insights into agents' analysis approaches.