This position paper argues for two claims regarding AI testing and evaluation. First, to remain informative about deployment behaviour, evaluations need account for the possibility that AI systems understand their circumstances and reason strategically. Second, game-theoretic analysis can inform evaluation design by formalising and scrutinising the reasoning in evaluation-based safety cases. Drawing on examples from existing AI systems, a review of relevant research, and formal strategic analysis of a stylised evaluation scenario, we present evidence for these claims and motivate several research directions.

Recent advances in enhancing the reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) have been remarkably successful. LLMs trained with Reinforcement Learning (RL) for reasoning demonstrate strong performance in challenging tasks such as mathematics and coding, even with relatively small model sizes. However, despite these impressive improvements in task accuracy, the assessment of creativity in LLM generations has been largely overlooked in reasoning tasks, in contrast to writing tasks. The lack of research on creativity assessment in reasoning primarily stems from two challenges: (1) the difficulty of defining the range of creativity, and (2) the necessity of human evaluation in the assessment process. To address these challenges, we propose CLAWS, a novel method that defines and classifies mathematical solutions into Typical, Creative, and Hallucinated categories without human evaluation, by leveraging attention weights across prompt sections and output. CLAWS outperforms five existing white-box detection methods--Perplexity, Logit Entropy, Window Entropy, Hidden Score, and Attention Score--on five 7-8B math RL models (DeepSeek, Qwen, Mathstral, OpenMath2, and Oreal). We validate CLAWS on 4,545 math problems collected from 181 math contests (A(J)HSME, AMC, AIME). Our code is available at https://github.com/kkt94/CLAWS.

Realistic 3D indoor scene synthesis is vital for embodied AI and digital content creation. It can be naturally divided into two subtasks: object generation and layout generation. While recent generative models have significantly advanced object-level quality and controllability, layout generation remains challenging due to limited datasets. Existing methods either overfit to these datasets or rely on predefined constraints to optimize numerical layout that sacrifice flexibility. As a result, they fail to generate scenes that are both open-vocabulary and aligned with fine-grained user instructions.

Human-like agents have long been one of the goals in pursuing artificial intelligence. Although reinforcement learning (RL) has achieved superhuman performance in many domains, relatively little attention has been focused on designing human-like RL agents. As a result, many reward-driven RL agents often exhibit unnatural behaviors compared to humans, raising concerns for both interpretability and trustworthiness. To achieve human-like behavior in RL, this paper first formulates human-likeness as trajectory optimization, where the objective is to find an action sequence that closely aligns with human behavior while also maximizing rewards, and adapts the classic receding-horizon control to human-like learning as a tractable and efficient implementation. To achieve this, we introduce Macro Action Quantization (MAQ), a human-like RL framework that distills human demonstrations into macro actions via Vector-Quantized VAE. Experiments on D4RL Adroit benchmarks show that MAQ significantly improves human-likeness, increasing trajectory similarity scores, and achieving the highest human-likeness rankings among all RL agents in the human evaluation study. Our results also demonstrate that MAQ can be easily integrated into various off-the-shelf RL algorithms, opening a promising direction for learning human-like RL agents.

In dueling bandits, an agent explores and exploits choices (i.e., arms) by learning from their stochastic feedback in the form of relative preferences. Prior related studies focused on unbiased feedback. In practice, however, the feedback provided by evaluators can be biased. For example, human users are likely to provide biased evaluation towards large language models due to their heterogeneous background. In this work, we aim to minimize the regret in dueling bandits considering evaluators' biased feedback.

Despite the rapid advancement of LLM-based agents, the reliable evaluation of their safety and security remains a significant challenge. Existing rule-based or LLM-based evaluators often miss dangers in agents' step-by-step actions, overlook subtle meanings, fail to see how small issues compound, and get confused by unclear safety or security rules. To overcome this evaluation crisis, we introduce AgentAuditor, a universal, training-free, memory-augmented reasoning framework that empowers LLM evaluators to emulate human expert evaluators. AgentAuditor constructs an experiential memory by having an LLM adaptively extract structured semantic features (e.g., scenario, risk, behavior) and generate associated chain-of-thought reasoning traces for past interactions. A multi-stage, contextaware retrieval-augmented generation process then dynamically retrieves the most relevant reasoning experiences to guide the LLM evaluator's assessment of new cases. Moreover, we develop ASSEBench, the first benchmark designed to check how well LLM-based evaluators can spot both safety risks and security threats. ASSEBench comprises 2293 meticulously annotated interaction records, covering 15 risk types across 29 application scenarios. A key feature of ASSEBench is its nuanced approach to ambiguous risk situations, employing "Strict" and "Lenient" judgment standards. Experiments demonstrate that AgentAuditor not only consistently improves the evaluation performance of LLMs across all benchmarks but also sets a new state-of-the-art in LLM-as-a-judge for agent safety and security, achieving human-level accuracy.

With the rapid growth of video generative models (VGMs), it is essential to develop reliable and comprehensive automatic metrics for AI-generated videos (AIGVs). Existing methods either use off-the-shelf models optimized for other tasks or rely on human assessment data to train specialized evaluators. These approaches are constrained to specific evaluation aspects and are difficult to scale with the increasing demands for finer-grained and more comprehensive evaluations. To address this issue, this work investigates the feasibility of using multimodal large language models (MLLMs) as a unified evaluator for AIGVs, leveraging their strong visual perception and language understanding capabilities. To evaluate the performance of automatic metrics in unified AIGV evaluation, we introduce a benchmark called UVE-Bench. UVE-Bench collects videos generated by state-of-the-art VGMs and provides pairwise human preference annotations across 15 evaluation aspects. Using UVE-Bench, we extensively evaluate 18 MLLMs. Our empirical results suggest that while advanced MLLMs (e.g., Qwen2VL-72B and InternVL2.5-78B)

We interact with computers on an everyday basis, be it in everyday life or work, and many aspects of work can be done entirely with access to a computer and the Internet. At the same time, thanks to improvements in large language models (LLMs), there has also been a rapid development in AI agents that interact with and affect change in their surrounding environments. But how performant are AI agents at accelerating or even autonomously performing work-related tasks? The answer to this question has important implications both for industry looking to adopt AI into their workflows and for economic policy to understand the effects that adoption of AI may have on the labor market. To measure the progress of these LLM agents' performance on performing real-world professional tasks, in this paper we introduce TheAgentCompany, an extensible benchmark for evaluating AI agents that interact with the world in similar ways to those of a digital worker: by browsing the Web, writing code, running programs, and communicating with other coworkers. We build a self-contained environment with internal web sites and data that mimics a small software company environment, and create a variety of tasks that may be performed by workers in such a company. We test baseline agents powered by both closed API-based and open-weights language models (LMs), and find that the most competitive agent can complete 30% of tasks autonomously. This paints a nuanced picture on task automation with LM agents-in a setting simulating a real workplace, a good portion of simpler tasks could be solved autonomously, but more difficult long-horizon tasks are still beyond the reach of current systems. We release code, data, environment, and experiments on https://the-agent-company.com.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator's limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Reasoning-based Bias Detector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types--verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment--evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD's strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides--especially on consequential topics where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI systems remain truthful even when their capabilities exceed those of their evaluators. Yet when humans serve as evaluators, their own beliefs and biases can impair judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims on COVID-19 and climate change where people hold strong prior beliefs.