We calculate the agreement of human judgment and our automatic evaluation (i.e., ConvBenchEval()) and find it reaches 81.83% (seeing Table 3 - 6 for detailed agreement of each turn of overall). It demonstrates the effectiveness of ConvBenchEval(), which uses ChatGPT. The agreement between ChatGPT and GPT4 is very high at 87.38%. It demonstrates that using different LLMs as judges slightly influences the evaluation results. ConvBenchEval() armed with ChatGPT can is reliable and low-cost. From the above tables, we also observe that though GPT4V is expensive and can capture images, its judgment performs worse than GPT4's judgment.

Moreover, 33.7% of the questions are cross-page questions

LLMs' proficiency as judges for coding tasks using a curated, human-annotated dataset, exploring their evaluation capabilities and potential biases, including whether they favor their own generated solutions. Our findings underscore the potential of these benchmarks to advance LLM development and application in coding assistance.

Evaluating open-ended responses from large audio language models (LALMs) is challenging because human annotators often genuinely disagree on answer correctness due to multiple valid interpretations, partial correctness, and subjective judgment. Traditional metrics reporting only mean scores fail to capture this uncertainty. We present ORCA (Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment), a framework that models the variability in human judgments using Beta distributions to predict both expected correctness and uncertainty. Our three-stage annotation framework combines human judgment with structured feedback and iterative refinement to simultaneously curate training data and improve benchmark quality. We collected 11,721 annotations across 3,580 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on two audio QA benchmarks, achieving inter-annotator agreement of 0.82 (Krippendorff's alpha). ORCA achieves 0.91 Spearman correlation with mean human judgments, matching or outperforming LLM-judge baselines while providing uncertainty estimates and requiring significantly less compute. We release our models, code, and curated dataset.

Answer verification methods are widely employed in language model training pipelines spanning data curation, evaluation, and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). While prior work focus on developing unified verifiers applicable across multiple reasoning scenarios, significant challenges remain in computation-oriented scientific domains, such as algebraic equivalence checking and physical constant substitution. In this paper, we introduce \model, a tool-augmented verifier that leverages external executors to perform precise computations and symbolic simplifications. \model enables robust verification that goes beyond simple semantic matching. We propose a novel two-stage pipeline, which begin with cold-start fine-tuning and followed by multi-turn reinforcement learning with tool integration. Extensive experiments conducted on STEM subjects, general QA, and long-form reasoning tasks demonstrates strong generalization of \model. The results shows that the \model achieves state-of-the-art performance on VerifyBench-Hard and SCI-Bench. And we also employ our \model in RLVR as a reward model, the results show that it consistently outperforms both rubric-based and model-based verifiers on AIME'24 and AIME'25, demonstrating strong potential to enhance reasoning capabilities of LLM. Our model is released at \hyperlink{https://huggingface.co/Nanbeige/CoSineVerifier-Tool-4B}{https://huggingface.co/Nanbeige/CoSineVerifier-Tool-4B}.

Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential in enhancing psychiatric practice, from improving diagnostic accuracy to streamlining clinical documentation and therapeutic support. However, existing evaluation resources heavily rely on small clinical interview corpora, social media posts, or synthetic dialogues, which limits their clinical validity and fails to capture the full complexity of diagnostic reasoning. In this work, we introduce PsychiatryBench, a rigorously curated benchmark grounded exclusively in authoritative, expert-validated psychiatric textbooks and casebooks. PsychiatryBench comprises eleven distinct question-answering tasks ranging from diagnostic reasoning and treatment planning to longitudinal follow-up, management planning, clinical approach, sequential case analysis, and multiple-choice/extended matching formats totaling 5,188 expert-annotated items. {\color{red}We evaluate a diverse set of frontier LLMs (including Google Gemini, DeepSeek, Sonnet 4.5, and GPT 5) alongside leading open-source medical models such as MedGemma using both conventional metrics and an "LLM-as-judge" similarity scoring framework. Our results reveal substantial gaps in clinical consistency and safety, particularly in multi-turn follow-up and management tasks, underscoring the need for specialized model tuning and more robust evaluation paradigms. PsychiatryBench offers a modular, extensible platform for benchmarking and improving LLM performance in mental health applications.

Recent advances in reinforcement learning (RL) have significantly improved the complex reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Despite these successes, existing methods mainly focus on single-domain RL (e.g., mathematics) with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and their reliance on purely online RL frameworks restricts the exploration space, thereby limiting reasoning performance. In this paper, we address these limitations by leveraging rubrics to provide both fine-grained reward signals and offline guidance. We propose $\textbf{RGR-GRPO}$ (Reward and Guidance through Rubrics), a rubric-driven RL framework for multi-domain reasoning. RGR-GRPO enables LLMs to receive dense and informative rewards while exploring a larger solution space during GRPO training. Extensive experiments across 14 benchmarks spanning multiple domains demonstrate that RGR-GRPO consistently outperforms RL methods that rely solely on alternative reward schemes or offline guidance. Compared with verifiable online RL baseline, RGR-GRPO achieves average improvements of +7.0%, +5.4%, +8.4%, and +6.6% on mathematics, physics, chemistry, and general reasoning tasks, respectively. Notably, RGR-GRPO maintains stable entropy fluctuations during off-policy training and achieves superior pass@k performance, reflecting sustained exploration and effective breakthrough beyond existing performance bottlenecks.

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has been propelled by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and test-time scaling. However, the limited output length of LLMs constrains the depth of reasoning attainable in a single inference process. Multi-agent reasoning systems offer a promising alternative by employing multiple agents including Solver, Verifier, and Corrector, to iteratively refine solutions. While effective in closed-source models like Gemini 2.5 Pro, they struggle to generalize to open-source models due to insufficient critic and correction capabilities. To address this, we propose MarsRL, a novel reinforcement learning framework with agentic pipeline parallelism, designed to jointly optimize all agents in the system. MarsRL introduces agent-specific reward mechanisms to mitigate reward noise and employs pipeline-inspired training to enhance efficiency in handling long trajectories. Applied to Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking-2507, MarsRL improves AIME2025 accuracy from 86.5% to 93.3% and BeyondAIME from 64.9% to 73.8%, even surpassing Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507. These findings highlight the potential of MarsRL to advance multi-agent reasoning systems and broaden their applicability across diverse reasoning tasks.