Current benchmarks for assessing vision-language models (VLMs) often focus on their perception or problem-solving capabilities and neglect other critical aspects such as fairness, multilinguality, or toxicity. Furthermore, they differ in their evaluation procedures and the scope of the evaluation, making it difficult to compare models. To address these issues, we extend the HELM framework to VLMs to present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM). VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects:,,,,,,,, and . In doing so, we produce a comprehensive, multi-dimensional view of the capabilities of the VLMs across these important factors.

Force field-based molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are indispensable for probing the structure, dynamics, and functions of biomolecular systems, including proteins and protein-ligand complexes. Despite their broad utility in drug discovery and protein engineering, the technical complexity of MD setup, encompassing parameterization, input preparation, and software configuration, remains a major barrier for widespread and efficient usage. Agentic LLMs have demonstrated their capacity to autonomously execute multi-step scientific processes, and to date, they have not successfully been used to automate protein-ligand MD workflows. Here, we present DynaMate, a modular multi-agent framework that autonomously designs and executes complete MD workflows for both protein and protein-ligand systems, and offers free energy binding affinity calculations with the MM/PB(GB)SA method. The framework integrates dynamic tool use, web search, PaperQA, and a self-correcting behavior. DynaMate comprises three specialized modules, interacting to plan the experiment, perform the simulation, and analyze the results. We evaluated its performance across twelve benchmark systems of varying complexity, assessing success rate, efficiency, and adaptability. DynaMate reliably performed full MD simulations, corrected runtime errors through iterative reasoning, and produced meaningful analyses of protein-ligand interactions. This automated framework paves the way toward standardized, scalable, and time-efficient molecular modeling pipelines for future biomolecular and drug design applications.

Language Models (LMs) struggle with complex, interdependent instructions, particularly in high-stakes domains like finance where precision is critical. We introduce FIFE, a novel, high-difficulty benchmark designed to assess LM instruction-following capabilities for financial analysis tasks. FIFE comprises 88 human-authored prompts and employs a verification system with chainable, verifiable constraints for fine-grained reward signals. We evaluate 53 models (proprietary, open-weight, open-source) in a zero-shot setting. Our key findings reveal a clear performance hierarchy: the top open-weight model (76.1 strict / 79.5 loose) surpasses the leading proprietary system (65.9 strict / 70.5 loose), while the best open-source models lag significantly (45.5 strict / 48.9 loose). However, even top-performing models struggle with FIFE's complex requirements, failing to achieve perfect compliance. We release our dataset and code as an open-source resource to promote research in Reinforcement Learning for the financial domain.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into everyday life and information ecosystems, concerns about their implicit biases continue to persist. While prior work has primarily examined socio-demographic and left--right political dimensions, little attention has been paid to how LLMs align with broader geopolitical value systems, particularly the democracy--authoritarianism spectrum. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to assess such alignment, combining (1) the F-scale, a psychometric tool for measuring authoritarian tendencies, (2) FavScore, a newly introduced metric for evaluating model favorability toward world leaders, and (3) role-model probing to assess which figures are cited as general role-models by LLMs. We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increased favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin. Further, models are found to often cite authoritarian figures as role models, even outside explicit political contexts. These results shed light on ways LLMs may reflect and potentially reinforce global political ideologies, highlighting the importance of evaluating bias beyond conventional socio-political axes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/irenestrauss/Democratic-Authoritarian-Bias-LLMs.

Recent black-box counterfactual generation frameworks fail to take into account the semantic content of the proposed edits, while relying heavily on training to guide the generation process. We propose a novel, plug-and-play black-box counterfactual generation framework, which suggests step-by-step edits based on theoretical guarantees of optimal edits to produce human-level counterfactual explanations with zero training. Our framework utilizes a pre-trained image editing diffusion model, and operates without access to the internals of the classifier, leading to an explainable counterfactual generation process. Throughout our experimentation, we showcase the explanatory gap between human reasoning and neural model behavior by utilizing both Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Vision Transformer (ViT) and Large Vision Language Model (LVLM) classifiers, substantiated through a comprehensive human evaluation.

We introduce LLM CHESS, an evaluation framework designed to probe the generalization of reasoning and instruction-following abilities in large language models (LLMs) through extended agentic interaction in the domain of chess. We rank over 50 open and closed source models by playing against a random opponent using a range of behavioral metrics, including win and loss rates, move quality, move legality, hallucinated actions, and game duration. For a subset of top reasoning models, we derive an Elo estimate by playing against a chess engine with variably configured skill, which allows for comparisons between models in an easily understandable way. Despite the simplicity of the instruction-following task and the weakness of the opponent, many state-of-the-art models struggle to complete games or achieve consistent wins. Similar to other benchmarks on complex reasoning tasks, our experiments reveal a clear separation between reasoning and non-reasoning models. However, unlike existing static benchmarks, the stochastic and dynamic nature of LLM CHESS uniquely reduces overfitting and memorization while preventing benchmark saturation, proving difficult even for top reasoning models. To support future work on evaluating reasoning and instruction-following in LLMs, we release our experimental framework, a public leaderboard, and a dataset of associated games.

As language models (LMs) are increasingly adopted across domains, high-quality benchmarking frameworks that accurately estimate performance are essential for guiding deployment decisions. While frameworks such as Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) enable broad evaluation across tasks, they often rely on fixed prompts that fail to generalize across LMs, yielding unrepresentative performance estimates. Unless we approximate each LM's ceiling (maximum achievable via changes to the prompt), we risk underestimating performance. Declarative prompting frameworks, such as DSPy, offer a scalable alternative to manual prompt engineering by crafting structured prompts that can be optimized per task. However, such frameworks have not been systematically evaluated across established benchmarks. We present a reproducible DSPy+HELM framework that introduces structured prompting methods which elicit reasoning, enabling more accurate LM benchmarking. Using four prompting methods, we evaluate four frontier LMs across seven benchmarks (general/medical domain) against existing HELM baseline scores. We find that without structured prompting: (i) HELM underestimates LM performance (by 4% average), (ii) performance estimates vary more across benchmarks ($+$2% standard deviation), (iii) performance gaps are misrepresented (leaderboard rankings flip on 3/7 benchmarks), and (iv) introducing chain-of-thought reduces LM sensitivity to prompt design (smaller $Δ$ across prompts). To our knowledge, this is the first benchmarking study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework, demonstrating how scalable performance-ceiling approximation yields more robust, decision-useful benchmarks. We open-source (i) DSPy+HELM Integration (https://github.com/stanford-crfm/helm/pull/3893) and (ii) Prompt Optimization Pipeline (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/dspy-helm).

Designing effective agentic systems requires the seamless composition and integration of agents, tools, and models within dynamic and uncertain environments. Most existing methods rely on static, semantic retrieval approaches for tool or agent discovery. However, effective reuse and composition of existing components remain challenging due to incomplete capability descriptions and the limitations of retrieval methods. Component selection suffers because the decisions are not based on capability, cost, and real-time utility. To address these challenges, we introduce a structured, automated framework for agentic system composition that is inspired by the knapsack problem. Our framework enables a composer agent to systematically identify, select, and assemble an optimal set of agentic components by jointly considering performance, budget constraints, and compatibility. By dynamically testing candidate components and modeling their utility in real-time, our approach streamlines the assembly of agentic systems and facilitates scalable reuse of resources. Empirical evaluation with Claude 3.5 Sonnet across five benchmarking datasets shows that our online-knapsack-based composer consistently lies on the Pareto frontier, achieving higher success rates at significantly lower component costs compared to our baselines. In the single-agent setup, the online knapsack composer shows a success rate improvement of up to 31.6% in comparison to the retrieval baselines. In multi-agent systems, the online knapsack composer increases success rate from 37% to 87% when agents are selected from an agent inventory of 100+ agents. The substantial performance gap confirms the robust adaptability of our method across diverse domains and budget constraints.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit inconsistent behavior when answering paraphrased questions, suggesting a reliance on surface-level patterns rather than true semantic understanding. To address this limitation, we introduce RoParQ, a benchmark specifically constructed to evaluate cross-paraphrase consistency in closed-book multiple-choice QA. This benchmark is derived from standard datasets by generating paraphrases via proprietary models and selectively retaining examples that elicit inconsistent confidence from a judge model. We further propose XParaCon, a novel evaluation metric that quantifies a model's robustness by measuring the standard deviation of accuracies across question variants. Additionally, we implement a reasoning-based, paraphrase-aware Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) strategy designed to align models toward semantic invariance. Our experiments demonstrate that this targeted alignment significantly enhances robustness. Notably, fine-tuned lightweight models achieved consistency levels comparable to much larger pre-trained models. These results highlight the efficacy of our approach in mitigating superficial memorization and fostering more robust, reliable LLMs.

Computer Use Agents (CUAs) are designed to autonomously operate digital interfaces, yet they often fail to reliably determine whether a given task has been successfully completed. We present an autonomous evaluation and feedback framework that leverages Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to assess task completion directly from screenshots and task descriptions. Our dataset covers 42 built-in macOS applications and 1,260 human-labeled tasks, covering a wide range of scenarios. Our framework achieves up to 73% classification accuracy in task success detection and yields an average relative improvement of 27% in the overall task success rate of CUAs when evaluator feedback is applied. These results demonstrate that vision-based evaluation can serve as an actionable feedback mechanism that significantly improves the reliability and self-correction of autonomous computer-use agents.