Modern web agents possess computer use abilities that allow them to interact with webpages by sending commands to a virtual keyboard and mouse. While such agents have considerable potential to assist human users with complex tasks, evaluating their capabilities in real-world settings poses a major challenge. To this end, we introduce BEARCUBS, a "small but mighty" benchmark of 111 information-seeking questions designed to evaluate a web agent's ability to search, browse, and identify factual information from the web. Unlike prior web agent benchmarks, solving BEARCUBS requires (1) accessing live web content rather than synthetic or simulated pages, which captures the unpredictability of real-world web interactions; and (2) performing a broad range of multimodal interactions (e.g., video understanding, 3D navigation) that cannot be bypassed via text-based workarounds. Each question in BEARCUBS has a corresponding short, unambiguous answer and a human-validated browsing trajectory, allowing for transparent evaluation of agent performance and strategies. A human study confirms that BEARCUBS questions are solvable but non-trivial (84.7% human accuracy), revealing search inefficiencies and domain knowledge gaps as common failure points. By contrast, state-of-the-art computer-using agents underperform, with the best-scoring system (OpenAI's Operator) reaching only 24.3% accuracy. These results highlight critical areas for improvement, including reliable source selection and more powerful multimodal capabilities. To facilitate future research, BEARCUBS will be updated periodically to replace invalid or contaminated questions, keeping the benchmark fresh for future generations of web agents.

LLM developers are increasingly reliant on synthetic data, but generating high-quality data for complex long-context reasoning tasks remains challenging. We introduce CLIPPER, a compression-based approach for generating synthetic data tailored to narrative claim verification - a task that requires reasoning over a book to verify a given claim. Instead of generating claims directly from the raw text of the book, which results in artifact-riddled claims, CLIPPER first compresses the book into chapter outlines and book summaries and then uses these intermediate representations to generate complex claims and corresponding chain-of-thoughts. Compared to naive approaches, CLIPPER produces claims that are more valid, grounded, and complex. Using CLIPPER, we construct a dataset of 19K synthetic book claims paired with their source texts and chain-of-thought reasoning, and use it to fine-tune three open-weight models. Our best model achieves breakthrough results on narrative claim verification (from 28% to 76% accuracy on our test set) and sets a new state-of-the-art for sub-10B models on the NoCha leaderboard. Further analysis shows that our models generate more detailed and grounded chain-of-thought reasoning while also improving performance on other narrative understanding tasks (e.g., NarrativeQA).

The most effective techniques to detect LLM-generated text rely on inserting a detectable signature -- or watermark -- during the model's decoding process. Most existing watermarking methods require access to the underlying LLM's logits, which LLM API providers are loath to share due to fears of model distillation. As such, these watermarks must be implemented independently by each LLM provider. In this paper, we develop PostMark, a modular post-hoc watermarking procedure in which an input-dependent set of words (determined via a semantic embedding) is inserted into the text after the decoding process has completed. Critically, PostMark does not require logit access, which means it can be implemented by a third party. We also show that PostMark is more robust to paraphrasing attacks than existing watermarking methods: our experiments cover eight baseline algorithms, five base LLMs, and three datasets. Finally, we evaluate the impact of PostMark on text quality using both automated and human assessments, highlighting the trade-off between quality and robustness to paraphrasing. We release our code, outputs, and annotations at https://github.com/lilakk/PostMark.

While long-context large language models (LLMs) can technically summarize book-length documents (>100K tokens), the length and complexity of the documents have so far prohibited evaluations of input-dependent aspects like faithfulness. In this paper, we conduct the first large-scale human evaluation of faithfulness and content selection on LLM-generated summaries of fictional books. Our study mitigates the issue of data contamination by focusing on summaries of books published in 2023 or 2024, and we hire annotators who have fully read each book prior to the annotation task to minimize cost and cognitive burden. We collect FABLES, a dataset of annotations on 3,158 claims made in LLM-generated summaries of 26 books, at a cost of $5.2K USD, which allows us to rank LLM summarizers based on faithfulness: Claude-3-Opus significantly outperforms all closed-source LLMs, while the open-source Mixtral is on par with GPT-3.5-Turbo. An analysis of the annotations reveals that most unfaithful claims relate to events and character states, and they generally require indirect reasoning over the narrative to invalidate. While LLM-based auto-raters have proven reliable for factuality and coherence in other settings, we implement several LLM raters of faithfulness and find that none correlates strongly with human annotations, especially with regard to detecting unfaithful claims. Our experiments suggest that detecting unfaithful claims is an important future direction not only for summarization evaluation but also as a testbed for long-context understanding. Finally, we move beyond faithfulness by exploring content selection errors in book-length summarization: we develop a typology of omission errors related to crucial narrative elements and also identify a systematic over-emphasis on events occurring towards the end of the book.

Summarizing book-length documents (>100K tokens) that exceed the context window size of large language models (LLMs) requires first breaking the input document into smaller chunks and then prompting an LLM to merge, update, and compress chunk-level summaries. Despite the complexity and importance of this task, it has yet to be meaningfully studied due to the challenges of evaluation: existing book-length summarization datasets (e.g., BookSum) are in the pretraining data of most public LLMs, and existing evaluation methods struggle to capture errors made by modern LLM summarizers. In this paper, we present the first study of the coherence of LLM-based book-length summarizers implemented via two prompting workflows: (1) hierarchically merging chunk-level summaries, and (2) incrementally updating a running summary. We obtain 1193 fine-grained human annotations on GPT-4 generated summaries of 100 recently-published books and identify eight common types of coherence errors made by LLMs. Because human evaluation is expensive and time-consuming, we develop an automatic metric, BooookScore, that measures the proportion of sentences in a summary that do not contain any of the identified error types. BooookScore has high agreement with human annotations and allows us to systematically evaluate the impact of many other critical parameters (e.g., chunk size, base LLM) while saving $15K and 500 hours in human evaluation costs. We find that closed-source LLMs such as GPT-4 and Claude 2 produce summaries with higher BooookScore than the oft-repetitive ones generated by LLaMA 2. Incremental updating yields lower BooookScore but higher level of detail than hierarchical merging, a trade-off sometimes preferred by human annotators. We release code and annotations after blind review to spur more principled research on book-length summarization.