The recent shift toward the Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (HL7 FHIR) standard opens a new frontier for clinical AI, demanding LLM agents to navigate complex, resource-based data models instead of conventional structured health data. However, existing benchmarks have lagged behind this transition, lacking the realism needed to evaluate recent LLMs on interoperable clinical data. To bridge this gap, we introduce FHIR-AgentBench--a benchmark that grounds 2,931 real-world clinical questions in the HL7 FHIR standard. Using this benchmark, we systematically evaluate agentic frameworks, comparing different data retrieval strategies (direct FHIR API calls vs. specialized tools), interaction patterns (single-turn vs. multi-turn), and reasoning strategies (natural language vs. code generation). Our experiments highlight the practical challenges of retrieving data from intricate FHIR resources and the difficulty of reasoning over them--both of which critically affect question answering performance.

Abstract--Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a critical technique for grounding Large Language Models (LLMs) in factual evidence, yet evaluating RAG systems in specialized, safety-critical domains remains a significant challenge. Existing evaluation frameworks often rely on heuristic-based metrics that fail to capture domain-specific nuances and other works utilize LLM-as-a-Judge approaches that lack validated alignment with human judgment. This paper introduces RAGalyst, an automated, human-aligned agentic framework designed for the rigorous evaluation of domain-specific RAG systems. RAGalyst features an agentic pipeline that generates high-quality, synthetic question-answering (QA) datasets from source documents, incorporating an agentic filtering step to ensure data fidelity. The framework refines two key LLM-as-a-Judge metrics--Answer Correctness and Answerability--using prompt optimization to achieve a strong correlation with human annotations. Applying this framework to evaluate various RAG components across three distinct domains (military operations, cybersecurity, and bridge engineering), we find that performance is highly context-dependent. No single embedding model, LLM, or hyperparam-eter configuration proves universally optimal. Additionally, we provide an analysis on the most common low Answer Correctness reasons in RAG. These findings highlight the necessity of a systematic evaluation framework like RAGalyst, which empowers practitioners to uncover domain-specific trade-offs and make informed design choices for building reliable and effective RAG systems. RAGalyst is available on our Github. Although modern Large Language Models (LLMs) are great synthesizers of information, they still suffer from hallucinations [1], [2], which refers to the generation of content that appears plausible but is factually incorrect or unsupported by evidence. Mitigating hallucinations is especially important in safety-critical applications (e.g., military operations, cybersecurity, and bridge engineering) where inaccurate information can lead to serious consequences and undermine trust in artificial intelligence (AI) systems [3], [4]. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has been widely adopted to mitigate hallucinations by grounding responses in provided context [5], [6]. A key advantage of RAG is its ability to provide models with dynamic, inference-time access to private and domain-relevant documents [5], [7].

This paper investigates Reinforcement Learning (RL) approaches to enhance the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Model (LLM) agents in long-horizon, multi-turn scenarios. Although RL algorithms such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) have been widely applied to train multi-turn LLM agents, they typically rely only on sparse outcome rewards and lack dense intermediate signals across multiple decision steps, limiting their performance on complex reasoning tasks. To bridge this gap, we present the first systematic study of \textit{turn-level reward design} for multi-turn RL algorithms and agent applications. By integrating turn-level rewards, we extend GRPO and PPO to their respective multi-turn variants, enabling fine-grained credit assignment. We conduct case studies on multi-turn reasoning-augmented search agents, where we carefully design two types of turn-level rewards: verifiable and LLM-as-judge. Our experiments on multi-turn search tasks demonstrate that incorporating well-designed turn-level rewards enables RL algorithms to significantly outperform baseline methods with trajectory-level rewards. Both training and validation reward curves illustrate that our method achieves \textit{greater stability}, \textit{faster convergence}, and \textit{higher accuracy}. Numerical results across diverse question-answering datasets further show that our approach consistently delivers highest answer correctness and 100\% format correctness.

RAG systems enhance LLMs by incorporating external knowledge, which is crucial for domains that demand factual accuracy and up-to-date information. However, evaluating the multifaceted quality of RAG outputs, spanning aspects such as contextual coherence, query relevance, factual correctness, and informational completeness, poses significant challenges. Existing evaluation methods often rely on simple lexical overlap metrics, which are inadequate for capturing these nuances, or involve complex multi-stage pipelines with intermediate steps like claim extraction or require finetuning specialized judge models, hindering practical efficiency. To address these limitations, we propose CCRS (Contextual Coherence and Relevance Score), a novel suite of five metrics that utilizes a single, powerful, pretrained LLM as a zero-shot, end-to-end judge. CCRS evaluates: Contextual Coherence (CC), Question Relevance (QR), Information Density (ID), Answer Correctness (AC), and Information Recall (IR). We apply CCRS to evaluate six diverse RAG system configurations on the challenging BioASQ dataset. Our analysis demonstrates that CCRS effectively discriminates between system performances, confirming, for instance, that the Mistral-7B reader outperforms Llama variants. We provide a detailed analysis of CCRS metric properties, including score distributions, convergent/discriminant validity, tie rates, population statistics, and discriminative power. Compared to the complex RAGChecker framework, CCRS offers comparable or superior discriminative power for key aspects like recall and faithfulness, while being significantly more computationally efficient. CCRS thus provides a practical, comprehensive, and efficient framework for evaluating and iteratively improving RAG systems.

Outcome-rewarded Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success in mathematical problem-solving. However, this success often masks a critical issue: models frequently achieve correct answers through fundamentally unsound reasoning processes, a phenomenon indicative of reward hacking. We introduce MathOlympiadEval, a new dataset with fine-grained annotations, which reveals a significant gap between LLMs' answer correctness and their low process correctness. Existing automated methods like LLM-as-a-judge struggle to reliably detect these reasoning flaws. To address this, we propose ParaStepVerifier, a novel methodology for meticulous, step-by-step verification of mathematical solutions. ParaStepVerifier identifies incorrect reasoning steps. Empirical results demonstrate that ParaStepVerifier substantially improves the accuracy of identifying flawed solutions compared to baselines, especially for complex, multi-step problems. This offers a more robust path towards evaluating and training LLMs with genuine mathematical reasoning.

Recent reinforcement learning approaches, such as outcome-supervised GRPO, have advanced Chain-of-Thought reasoning in large language models (LLMs), yet their adaptation to multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) is unexplored. To address the lack of rigorous evaluation for MLLM post-training methods, we introduce SEED-Bench-R1, a benchmark with complex real-world videos requiring balanced perception and reasoning. It offers a large training set and evaluates generalization across three escalating challenges: in-distribution, cross-environment, and cross-environment-task scenarios. Using SEED-Bench-R1, we find that standard GRPO, while improving answer accuracy, often reduces logical coherence between reasoning steps and answers, with only a 57.9% consistency rate. This stems from reward signals focusing solely on final answers, encouraging shortcuts, and strict KL penalties limiting exploration.To address this, we propose GRPO-CARE, a consistency-aware RL framework optimizing both answer correctness and reasoning coherence without explicit supervision. GRPO-CARE introduces a two-tiered reward: (1) a base reward for answer correctness, and (2) an adaptive consistency bonus, computed by comparing the model's reasoning-to-answer likelihood (via a slowly-evolving reference model) against group peers.This dual mechanism amplifies rewards for reasoning paths that are both correct and logically consistent. Replacing KL penalties with this adaptive bonus, GRPO-CARE outperforms standard GRPO on SEED-Bench-R1, achieving a 6.7% performance gain on the hardest evaluation level and a 24.5% improvement in consistency. It also shows strong transferability, improving model performance across diverse video understanding benchmarks. Our work contributes a systematically designed benchmark and a generalizable post-training framework, advancing the development of more interpretable and robust MLLMs.

Navigating the vast and rapidly growing body of scientific literature is a formidable challenge for aspiring researchers. Current approaches to supporting research idea generation often rely on generic large language models (LLMs). While LLMs are effective at aiding comprehension and summarization, they often fall short in guiding users toward practical research ideas due to their limitations. In this study, we present a novel structural framework for research ideation. Our framework, The Budget AI Researcher, uses retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) chains, vector databases, and topic-guided pairing to recombine concepts from hundreds of machine learning papers. The system ingests papers from nine major AI conferences, which collectively span the vast subfields of machine learning, and organizes them into a hierarchical topic tree. It uses the tree to identify distant topic pairs, generate novel research abstracts, and refine them through iterative self-evaluation against relevant literature and peer reviews, generating and refining abstracts that are both grounded in real-world research and demonstrably interesting. Experiments using LLM-based metrics indicate that our method significantly improves the concreteness of generated research ideas relative to standard prompting approaches. Human evaluations further demonstrate a substantial enhancement in the perceived interestingness of the outputs. By bridging the gap between academic data and creative generation, the Budget AI Researcher offers a practical, free tool for accelerating scientific discovery and lowering the barrier for aspiring researchers. Beyond research ideation, this approach inspires solutions to the broader challenge of generating personalized, context-aware outputs grounded in evolving real-world knowledge.

Reasoning models have achieved remarkable performance on tasks like math and logical reasoning thanks to their ability to search during reasoning. However, they still suffer from overthinking, often performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after reaching the correct answer. This raises the question: can models evaluate the correctness of their intermediate answers during reasoning? In this work, we study whether reasoning models encode information about answer correctness through probing the model's hidden states. The resulting probe can verify intermediate answers with high accuracy and produces highly calibrated scores. Additionally, we find models' hidden states encode correctness of future answers, enabling early prediction of the correctness before the intermediate answer is fully formulated. We then use the probe as a verifier to decide whether to exit reasoning at intermediate answers during inference, reducing the number of inference tokens by 24\% without compromising performance. These findings confirm that reasoning models do encode a notion of correctness yet fail to exploit it, revealing substantial untapped potential to enhance their efficiency.

Large Language Models have become a valuable source of information for our daily inquiries. However, after training, its data source quickly becomes out-of-date, making RAG a useful tool for providing even more recent or pertinent data. In this work, we investigate how RAG pipelines, with the course materials serving as a data source, might help students in K-12 education. The initial research utilizes Reddit as a data source for up-to-date cybersecurity information. Chunk size is evaluated to determine the optimal amount of context needed to generate accurate answers. After running the experiment for different chunk sizes, answer correctness was evaluated using RAGAs with average answer correctness not exceeding 50 percent for any chunk size. This suggests that Reddit is not a good source to mine for data for questions about cybersecurity threats. The methodology was successful in evaluating the data source, which has implications for its use to evaluate educational resources for effectiveness.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and text generation, the emergence of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) presents a promising avenue for improving the quality and reliability of generated text by leveraging information retrieved from user specified database. Benchmarking is essential to evaluate and compare the performance of the different RAG configurations in terms of retriever and generator, providing insights into their effectiveness, scalability, and suitability for the specific domain and applications. In this paper, we present a comprehensive framework to generate a domain relevant RAG benchmark. Our framework is based on automatic question-answer generation with Human (domain experts)-AI Large Language Model (LLM) teaming. As a case study, we demonstrate the framework by introducing PermitQA, a first-of-its-kind benchmark on the wind siting and permitting domain which comprises of multiple scientific documents/reports related to environmental impact of wind energy projects. Our framework systematically evaluates RAG performance using diverse metrics and multiple question types with varying complexity level. We also demonstrate the performance of different models on our benchmark.