Agile Earth Observation Satellites (AEOSs) constellations offer unprecedented flexibility for monitoring the Earth's surface, but their scheduling remains challenging under large-scale scenarios, dynamic environments, and stringent constraints. Existing methods often simplify these complexities, limiting their realworld performance. We address this gap with a unified framework integrating a standardized benchmark suite and a novel scheduling model. Our benchmark suite, AEOS-Bench, contains 3,907 finely tuned satellite assets and 16,410 scenarios.

Agile Earth Observation Satellites (AEOSs) constellations offer unprecedented flexibility for monitoring the Earth's surface, but their scheduling remains challenging under large-scale scenarios, dynamic environments, and stringent constraints. Existing methods often simplify these complexities, limiting their real-world performance. We address this gap with a unified framework integrating a standardized benchmark suite and a novel scheduling model. Our benchmark suite, AEOS-Bench, contains $3,907$ finely tuned satellite assets and $16,410$ scenarios.

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly critical, yet standard benchmarking methods rely on average accuracy, overlooking both the inherent stochasticity of LLM outputs and the heterogeneity of benchmark items. Item Response Theory (IRT) offers a principled framework for modeling latent model abilities and item characteristics, but conventional methods are computationally expensive and numerically unstable, limiting large-scale implementations. To address these challenges, we propose an interpretable and scalable framework for LLM evaluation based on the majorization-minimization principle. Our approach reformulates the problem as a sequence of constrained matrix factorization subproblems, enabling stable and efficient parameter estimation with theoretical guarantees for identifiability and convergence. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets, including MATH-500 and six Open LLM Leaderboard benchmarks, demonstrate that our method achieves superior scalability and interpretability. It delivers orders-of-magnitude speedups over competing methods while maintaining comparable or even higher estimation accuracy. Our results align with established scaling laws and offer insights into item difficulty and discrimination, informing more principled benchmark design.

The use of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has improved Large Language Models (LLMs) in collaborating with external data, yet significant challenges exist in real-world scenarios. In areas such as academic literature and finance question answering, data are often found in raw text and tables in HTML or PDF formats, which can be lengthy and highly unstructured. In this paper, we introduce a benchmark suite, namely Unstructured Document Analysis (UDA), that involves 2,965 real-world documents and 29,590 expert-annotated Q&A pairs. We revisit popular LLMand RAG-based solutions for document analysis and evaluate the design choices and answer qualities across multiple document domains and diverse query types. Our evaluation yields interesting findings and highlights the importance of data parsing and retrieval. We hope our benchmark can shed light and better serve real-world document analysis applications.

For (3), we relax our proposed test using techniques from robust statistics and imprecise probabilities.

Cleaning missing values: The human-generated questions may be unanswerable. Thus, we remove the Q&A items that lack available answers. Additionally, documents lacking any valid Q&A pairs are also removed.

Therefore, many existing SLP vectorization schemes are driven by hand-crafted heuristics (Liu et al., 2012;

Mutual Information (MI) is a fundamental metric for quantifying dependency between two random variables.

Modern benchmarks such as HELM MMLU account for multiple metrics like accuracy, robustness and efficiency. When trying to turn these metrics into a single ranking, natural aggregation procedures can become incoherent or unstable to changes in the model set. We formalize this aggregation as a social choice problem where each metric induces a preference ranking over models on each dataset, and a benchmark operator aggregates these votes across metrics. While prior work has focused on Arrow's impossibility result, we argue that the impossibility often originates from pathological examples and identify sufficient conditions under which these disappear, and meaningful multi-criteria benchmarking becomes possible. In particular, we deal with three restrictions on the combinations of rankings and prove that on single-peaked, group-separable and distance-restricted preferences, the benchmark operator allows for the construction of well-behaved rankings of the involved models. Empirically, we investigate several modern benchmark suites like HELM MMLU and verify which structural conditions are fulfilled on which benchmark problems.