Reward model (RM) plays a pivotal role in reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) for aligning large language models (LLMs). However, classical RMs trained on human preferences are vulnerable to reward hacking and generalize poorly to out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs. By contrast, strong LLM judges equipped with reasoning capabilities demonstrate superior generalization, even without additional training, but incur significantly higher inference costs, limiting their applicability in online RLHF. In this work, we propose an uncertainty-based routing framework that efficiently complements a fast RM with a strong but costly LLM judge. Our approach formulates advantage estimation in policy gradient (PG) methods as pairwise preference classification, enabling principled uncertainty quantification to guide routing. Uncertain pairs are forwarded to the LLM judge, while confident ones are evaluated by the RM. Experiments on RM benchmarks demonstrate that our uncertainty-based routing strategy significantly outperforms random judge calling at the same cost, and downstream alignment results showcase its effectiveness in improving online RLHF.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for scalable evaluation, yet such LLM--as--a--Judge systems exhibit systematic biases that are decoupled from semantic quality, most notably verbosity bias. Meanwhile, human supervision is costly and typically selective, yielding reliable positive judgments but leaving most outputs unlabelled and potentially mixed in quality. We formulate LLM evaluation under selective human supervision as a positive--unlabelled learning problem and propose a geometric auditing framework based on Partial Optimal Transport. By aligning a small set of human--verified positives with a reliable subset of unlabelled outputs in a fixed embedding space, our method identifies human--consistent preferences and corrects biased judges without retraining. Experiments demonstrate improved alignment with human preferences, increased robustness to presentation biases, and interpretable confidence estimates, offering a scalable and statistically grounded alternative to existing LLM--as--a--judge pipelines.

Computer use agents are LLM-based agents that can directly interact with a graphical user interface, by processing screenshots or accessibility trees. While these systems are gaining popularity, their safety has been largely overlooked, despite the fact that evaluating and understanding their potential for harmful behavior is essential for widespread adoption. To address this gap, we introduce OS-HARM, a new benchmark for measuring safety of computer use agents. OS-HARM is built on top of the OSWorld environment (Xie et al., 2024) and aims to test models across three categories of harm: deliberate user misuse, prompt injection attacks, and model misbehavior.

Large language models are increasingly used as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs at scale, but their assessments often diverge systematically from human judgments.

Reward model (RM) plays a pivotal role in reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) for aligning large language models (LLMs). However, classical RMs trained on human preferences are vulnerable to reward hacking and generalize poorly to out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs. By contrast, strong LLM judges equipped with reasoning capabilities demonstrate superior generalization, even without additional training, but incur significantly higher inference costs, limiting their applicability in online RLHF. In this work, we propose an uncertainty-based routing framework that efficiently complements a fast RM with a strong but costly LLM judge. Our approach formulates advantage estimation in policy gradient (PG) methods as pairwise preference classification, enabling principled uncertainty quantification to guide routing. Uncertain pairs are forwarded to the LLM judge, while confident ones are evaluated by the RM. Experiments on RM benchmarks demonstrate that our uncertainty-based routing strategy significantly outperforms random judge calling at the same cost, and downstream alignment results showcase its effectiveness in improving online RLHF.

Requests for name changes in the electronic proceedings will be accepted with no questions asked. However name changes may cause bibliographic tracking issues. Authors are asked to consider this carefully and discuss it with their co-authors prior to requesting a name change in the electronic proceedings. Use the Report an Issue link to request a name change.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in lieu of humans. While scalable, their judgments are noisy due to imperfect specificity and sensitivity of LLMs, leading to biased accuracy estimates. Although bias-correction methods exist, they are underutilized in LLM research and typically assume exact knowledge of the model's specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, in general we only have estimates of these values and it is not well known how to properly construct confidence intervals using only estimates. This work presents a simple plug-in framework that corrects such bias and constructs confidence intervals reflecting uncertainty from both test and calibration dataset, enabling practical and statistically sound LLM-based evaluation. Additionally, to reduce uncertainty in the accuracy estimate, we introduce an adaptive algorithm that efficiently allocates calibration sample sizes.

We introduce EvilGenie, a benchmark for reward hacking in programming settings. We source problems from LiveCodeBench and create an environment in which agents can easily reward hack, such as by hardcoding test cases or editing the testing files. We measure reward hacking in three ways: held out unit tests, LLM judges, and test file edit detection. We verify these methods against human review and each other. We find the LLM judge to be highly effective at detecting reward hacking in unambiguous cases, and observe only minimal improvement from the use of held out test cases. In addition to testing many models using Inspect's basic_agent scaffold, we also measure reward hacking rates for three popular proprietary coding agents: OpenAI's Codex, Anthropic's Claude Code, and Google's Gemini CLI Using GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro, respectively. We observe explicit reward hacking by both Codex and Claude Code, and misaligned behavior by all three agents. Our codebase can be found at https://github.com/JonathanGabor/EvilGenie.

AI agents capable of controlling user interfaces have the potential to transform human interaction with digital devices. To accelerate this transformation, two fundamental building blocks are essential: high-quality datasets that enable agents to achieve complex and human-relevant goals, and robust evaluation methods that allow researchers and practitioners to rapidly enhance agent performance. In this paper, we introduce DigiData, a large-scale, high-quality, diverse, multi-modal dataset designed for training mobile control agents. Unlike existing datasets, which derive goals from unstructured interactions, DigiData is meticulously constructed through comprehensive exploration of app features, resulting in greater diversity and higher goal complexity. Additionally, we present DigiData-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating mobile control agents on real-world complex tasks. We demonstrate that the commonly used step-accuracy metric falls short in reliably assessing mobile control agents and, to address this, we propose dynamic evaluation protocols and AI-powered evaluations as rigorous alternatives for agent assessment. Our contributions aim to significantly advance the development of mobile control agents, paving the way for more intuitive and effective human-device interactions.