Vision-language models (VLMs) have made great strides in addressing temporal understanding tasks, which involve characterizing visual changes across a sequence of images. However, recent works have suggested that when making predictions, VLMs may rely on static feature biases, such as background or object features, rather than dynamic visual changes. Static feature biases are a type of shortcut and can contribute to systematic prediction errors on downstream tasks; as a result, identifying and characterizing error-inducing static feature biases is critical prior to real-world model deployment. Existing approaches for identifying such systematic failure modes in trained models (i) are typically designed for non-temporal settings and (ii) are challenging to evaluate in temporal settings due to the lack of quantitative evaluation frameworks. In this work, we address these challenges by introducing TRoVe, an automated approach for discovering error-inducing static feature biases learned by temporal VLMs. Given a trained VLM and an annotated validation dataset associated with a downstream classification task, TRoVe extracts candidate static features from the dataset and scores each feature by (i) the effect of the feature on classification errors as well as (ii) the extent to which the VLM relies on the feature when making predictions. In order to quantitatively evaluate TRoVe, we introduce an evaluation framework consisting of 101 trained temporal VLMs paired with ground-truth annotations for learned static feature biases. We use this framework to demonstrate that TRoVe can accurately identify error-inducing static feature biases in VLMs, achieving a 28.6% improvement over the closest baseline. Finally, we apply TRoVe to 7 off-the-shelf VLMs and 2 temporal understanding tasks, surfacing previously-unknown static feature biases and demonstrating that knowledge of learned biases can aid in improving model performance at test time.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown impressive success across modalities such as image, video, and audio in a variety of understanding and generation tasks. However, current MLLMs are surprisingly poor at understanding webpage screenshots and generating their corresponding HTML code. To address this problem, we propose Web2Code, a benchmark consisting of a new large-scale webpage-to-code dataset for instruction tuning and an evaluation framework for the webpage understanding and HTML code translation abilities of MLLMs. For dataset construction, we leverage pretrained LLMs to enhance existing webpage-to-code datasets as well as generate a diverse pool of new webpages rendered into images. Specifically, the inputs are webpage images and instructions, while the responses are the webpage's HTML code. We further include diverse natural language QA pairs about the webpage content in the responses to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the web content. To evaluate model performance in these tasks, we develop an evaluation framework for testing MLLMs' abilities in webpage understanding and web-to-code generation. Extensive experiments show that our proposed dataset is beneficial not only to our proposed tasks but also in the general visual domain. We hope our work will contribute to the development of general MLLMs suitable for web-based content generation and task automation.

To mitigate these risks, current evaluation benchmarks predominantly employ expert-designed contextual scenarios to assess how well LLMs align with human values. However, the labor-intensive nature of these benchmarks limits their test scope, hindering their ability to generalize to the extensive variety of open-world use cases and identify rare but crucial long-tail risks. Additionally, these static tests fail to adapt to the rapid evolution of LLMs, making it hard to evaluate timely alignment issues. To address these challenges, we propose ALI-Agent, an evaluation framework that leverages the autonomous abilities of LLM-powered agents to conduct in-depth and adaptive alignment assessments. ALI-Agent operates through two principal stages: Emulation and Refinement.

Thus, in this paper, we seek to establish a new gold standard for small molecule drug discovery benchmarking, W elQrate .

Compositionality facilitates the comprehension of novel objects using acquired concepts and the maintenance of a knowledge pool. This is particularly crucial for continual learners to prevent catastrophic forgetting and enable compositionally forward transfer of knowledge. However, the existing state-of-the-art benchmarks inadequately evaluate the capability of compositional generalization, leaving an intriguing question unanswered. To comprehensively assess this capability, we introduce two vision benchmarks, namely Compositional GQA (CGQA) and Compositional OBJects365 (COBJ), along with a novel evaluation framework called Compositional Few-Shot Testing (CFST). These benchmarks evaluate the systematicity, productivity, and substitutivity aspects of compositional generalization. Experimental results on five baselines and two modularity-based methods demonstrate that current continual learning techniques do exhibit somewhat favorable compositionality in their learned feature extractors. Nonetheless, further efforts are required in developing modularity-based approaches to enhance compositional generalization. We anticipate that our proposed benchmarks and evaluation protocol will foster research on continual learning and compositionality.

Post-hoc gradient-based interpretability methods [Simonyan et al., 2013, Smilkov et al., 2017] that provide instance-specific explanations of model predictions are often based on assumption (A): magnitude of input gradients--gradients of logits with respect to input--noisily highlight discriminative task-relevant features. In this work, we test the validity of assumption (A) using a three-pronged approach:1. We develop an evaluation framework, DiffROAR, to test assumption (A) on four image classification benchmarks. Our results suggest that (i) input gradients of standard models (i.e., trained on original data) may grossly violate (A), whereas (ii) input gradients of adversarially robust models satisfy (A).2. We then introduce BlockMNIST, an MNIST-based semi-real dataset, that by design encodes a priori knowledge of discriminative features. Our analysis on BlockMNIST leverages this information to validate as well as characterize differences between input gradient attributions of standard and robust models.3. Finally, we theoretically prove that our empirical findings hold on a simplified version of the BlockMNIST dataset. Specifically, we prove that input gradients of standard one-hidden-layer MLPs trained on this dataset do not highlight instance-specific signal coordinates, thus grossly violating assumption (A).Our findings motivate the need to formalize and test common assumptions in interpretability in a falsifiable manner [Leavitt and Morcos, 2020].

Document-level claim extraction remains an open challenge in the field of fact-checking, and subsequently, methods for evaluating extracted claims have received limited attention. In this work, we explore approaches to aligning two sets of claims pertaining to the same source document and computing their similarity through an alignment score. We investigate techniques to identify the best possible alignment and evaluation method between claim sets, with the aim of providing a reliable evaluation framework. Our approach enables comparison between model-extracted and human-annotated claim sets, serving as a metric for assessing the extraction performance of models and also as a possible measure of inter-annotator agreement. We conduct experiments on newly collected dataset--claims extracted from comments under Czech and Slovak news articles--domains that pose additional challenges due to the informal language, strong local context, and subtleties of these closely related languages. The results draw attention to the limitations of current evaluation approaches when applied to document-level claim extraction and highlight the need for more advanced methods--ones able to correctly capture semantic similarity and evaluate essential claim properties such as atomicity, checkworthiness, and decontextualization.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in biomedical research. However, current evaluation frameworks may inadequately assess their effectiveness as research collaborators. This rapid review examines benchmarking practices for AI systems in preclinical biomedical research. Three major databases and two preprint servers were searched from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2025, identifying 14 benchmarks that assess AI capabilities in literature understanding, experimental design, and hypothesis generation. The results revealed that all current benchmarks assess isolated component capabilities, including data analysis quality, hypothesis validity, and experimental protocol design. However, authentic research collaboration requires integrated workflows spanning multiple sessions, with contextual memory, adaptive dialogue, and constraint propagation. This gap implies that systems excelling on component benchmarks may fail as practical research co-pilots. A process-oriented evaluation framework is proposed that addresses four critical dimensions absent from current benchmarks: dialogue quality, workflow orchestration, session continuity, and researcher experience. These dimensions are essential for evaluating AI systems as research co-pilots rather than as isolated task executors.