As large language models become components of larger agentic systems, evaluation reliability becomes critical: unreliable sub-agents introduce brittleness into downstream system behavior. Yet current evaluation practice, reporting a single accuracy number from a single run, obscures the variance underlying these results, making it impossible to distinguish genuine capability improvements from lucky sampling. We propose adopting Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), a metric from measurement science, to characterize this variance. ICC decomposes observed variance into between-query variance (task difficulty) and within-query variance (agent inconsistency), highlighting whether reported results reflect true capability or measurement noise. We evaluated on GAIA (Levels 1-3, measuring agentic capabilities across varying reasoning complexity) and FRAMES (measuring retrieval and factuality across multiple documents). We found that ICC varies dramatically with task structure, with reasoning and retrieval tasks (FRAMES) exhibit ICC=0.4955-0.7118 across models, and agentic tasks (GAIA) exhibiting ICC=0.304-0.774 across models. For sub-agent replacement decisions in agentic systems, accuracy improvements are only trustworthy if ICC also improves. We demonstrate that ICC converges by n=8-16 trials for structured tasks and n>=32 for complex reasoning, enabling practitioners to set evidence-based resampling budgets. We recommend reporting accuracy alongside ICC and within-query variance as standard practice, and propose updated Evaluation Cards capturing these metrics. By making evaluation stability visible, we aim to transform agentic benchmarking from opaque leaderboard competition to trustworthy experimental science. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/youdotcom-oss/stochastic-agent-evals.

Purpose: Visually Guided Reaching (VGR) on the Kinarm robot yields sensitive kinematic biomarkers but requires 40-64 reaches, imposing time and fatigue burdens. We evaluate whether time-series foundation models can replace unrecorded trials from an early subset of reaches while preserving the reliability of standard Kinarm parameters. Methods: We analyzed VGR speed signals from 461 stroke and 599 control participants across 4- and 8-target reaching protocols. We withheld all but the first 8 or 16 reaching trials and used ARIMA, MOMENT, and Chronos models, fine-tuned on 70 percent of subjects, to forecast synthetic trials. We recomputed four kinematic features of reaching (reaction time, movement time, posture speed, maximum speed) on combined recorded plus forecasted trials and compared them to full-length references using ICC(2,1). Results: Chronos forecasts restored ICC >= 0.90 for all parameters with only 8 recorded trials plus forecasts, matching the reliability of 24-28 recorded reaches (Delta ICC <= 0.07). MOMENT yielded intermediate gains, while ARIMA improvements were minimal. Across cohorts and protocols, synthetic trials replaced reaches without materially compromising feature reliability. Conclusion: Foundation-model forecasting can greatly shorten Kinarm VGR assessment time. For the most impaired stroke survivors, sessions drop from 4-5 minutes to about 1 minute while preserving kinematic precision. This forecast-augmented paradigm promises efficient robotic evaluations for assessing motor impairments following stroke.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

We propose In-Context Clustering (ICC), a flexible LLM-based procedure for clustering data from diverse distributions. Unlike traditional clustering algorithms constrained by predefined similarity measures, ICC flexibly captures complex relationships among inputs through an attention mechanism. We show that pretrained LLMs exhibit impressive zero-shot clustering capabilities on text-encoded numeric data, with attention matrices showing salient cluster patterns. Spectral clustering using attention matrices offers surprisingly competitive performance. We further enhance the clustering capabilities of LLMs on numeric and image data through fine-tuning using the Next Token Prediction (NTP) loss. Moreover, the flexibility of LLM prompting enables text-conditioned image clustering, a capability that classical clustering methods lack. Our work extends in-context learning to an unsupervised setting, showcasing the effectiveness and flexibility of LLMs for clustering. Our code is available at https://agenticlearning.ai/icc.

We examined how model size, temperature, and prompt style affect Large Language Models' (LLMs) alignment within itself, between models, and with human in assessing clinical reasoning skills. Model size emerged as a key factor in LLM-human score alignment. Study highlights the importance of checking alignments across multiple levels.

Quantifying the causal influence of input features within neural networks has become a topic of increasing interest. Existing approaches typically assess direct, indirect, and total causal effects. This work treats NNs as structural causal models (SCMs) and extends our focus to include intrinsic causal contributions (ICC). We propose an identifiable generative post-hoc framework for quantifying ICC. We also draw a relationship between ICC and Sobol' indices. Our experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that ICC generates more intuitive and reliable explanations compared to existing global explanation techniques.

After more than a year of Israeli bombing, tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths, and a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the world was largely united in saying "enough is enough". United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 12667 in December was clear in its demand: An immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Countries as diverse as Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Colombia echoed that call. And yet, bucking that consensus were nine "no" votes – chief among them, as is typical when it comes to resolutions calling for Israel to adhere to international law or human rights, was the United States. The US has provided unwavering support to Israel throughout its war on Gaza, even as Israel faces accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its prime minister has an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant to his name.

Given the need to elucidate the mechanisms underlying illnesses and their treatment, as well as the lack of harmonization of acquisition and post-processing protocols among different magnetic resonance system vendors, this work is to determine if metabolite concentrations obtained from different sessions, machine models and even different vendors of 3 T scanners can be highly reproducible and be pooled for diagnostic analysis, which is very valuable for the research of rare diseases. Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning once on two separate days within one week (one session per day, each session including two proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) scans with no more than a 5-minute interval between scans (no off-bed activity)) on each machine. were analyzed for reliability of within- and between- sessions using the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and for reproducibility of across the machines using correlation coefficient. As for within- and between- session, all CV values for a group of all the first or second scans of a session, or for a session were almost below 20%, and most of the ICCs for metabolites range from moderate (0.4-0.59) to excellent (0.75-1), indicating high data reliability. When it comes to the reproducibility across the three scanners, all Pearson correlation coefficients across the three machines approached 1 with most around 0.9, and majority demonstrated statistical significance (P<0.01). Additionally, the intra-vendor reproducibility was greater than the inter-vendor ones.

Grading programming assignments is crucial for guiding students to improve their programming skills and coding styles. This study presents an automated grading framework, CodEv, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to provide consistent and constructive feedback. We incorporate Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting techniques to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs and ensure that the grading is aligned with human evaluation. Our framework also integrates LLM ensembles to improve the accuracy and consistency of scores, along with agreement tests to deliver reliable feedback and code review comments. The results demonstrate that the framework can yield grading results comparable to human evaluators, by using smaller LLMs. Evaluation and consistency tests of the LLMs further validate our approach, confirming the reliability of the generated scores and feedback.

Item Response Theory (IRT) has been widely used in educational psychometrics to assess student ability, as well as the difficulty and discrimination of test questions. In this context, discrimination specifically refers to how effectively a question distinguishes between students of different ability levels, and it does not carry any connotation related to fairness. In recent years, IRT has been successfully used to evaluate the predictive performance of Machine Learning (ML) models, but this paper marks its first application in fairness evaluation. In this paper, we propose a novel Fair-IRT framework to evaluate a set of predictive models on a set of individuals, while simultaneously eliciting specific parameters, namely, the ability to make fair predictions (a feature of predictive models), as well as the discrimination and difficulty of individuals that affect the prediction results. Furthermore, we conduct a series of experiments to comprehensively understand the implications of these parameters for fairness evaluation. Detailed explanations for item characteristic curves (ICCs) are provided for particular individuals. We propose the flatness of ICCs to disentangle the unfairness between individuals and predictive models. The experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this framework as a fairness evaluation tool. Two real-world case studies illustrate its potential application in evaluating fairness in both classification and regression tasks. Our paper aligns well with the Responsible Web track by proposing a Fair-IRT framework to evaluate fairness in ML models, which directly contributes to the development of a more inclusive, equitable, and trustworthy AI.