TRIPPULSE: Multi-Agent Travel Planning with Review-Grounded Reasoning

Travel itinerary generation requires balancing strict spatio-temporal constraints with human preferences. Existing LLM-based planners mainly rely on structured attributes and pre- defined traveler personas, but real travel deci- sions are often shaped by reviews that reveal experiential factors such as comfort, safety, ser- vice quality, ambiance, crowding, and hidden risks absent from structured databases. Incor- porating such review information is therefore critical to realistic, user-centric itinerary gen- eration. We propose TRIPPULSE1, a multi- agent framework for review-grounded travel planning. Instead of relying on a monolithic planner (and face context and reasoning bot- tlenecks), TRIPPULSE2 decomposes itinerary generation into specialized agents (each op- erating over localized contexts) for accom- modations, transportation, meals, attractions, and events, coordinated through a global or- chestrator with scheduling mechanisms that enforce temporal and budget feasibility. We augment TRIPCRAFT with 100K+ real-world reviews and introduce Review-Grounded Per- sona Alignment (RGPA), an LLM-as-a-Judge metric for evaluating alignment with human- centric travel experiences. Experiments across multiple trip durations and diverse proprietary and open-source models show that TRIPPULSE maintains strong constraint satisfaction while generating more personalized and experien- tially grounded itineraries.

Stratified Consistency Distillation for Natural Language Formalization

Neurosymbolic reasoning has shown promising success in addressing complex reasoning tasks by combining large language models (LLMs) and symbolic solvers. While this approach shows promise, a fundamental challenge remains: improving the accuracy of translations from natural language to logical formulas. Current methods predominantly rely on prompt engineering, which is difficult to scale across different domains and input formats. Drawing inspiration from the success of fine-tuning in other model adaptation and alignment applications, we propose a fine-tuning-based Stratified Consistency Distillation approach: (1) We generate K logical translations per input using a frontier LLM and cluster them by semantic equivalence (2) Based on the entropy level, we apply majority voting (low entropy), LLM-as-a-Judge (medium entropy), or unification/abstention (high entropy), and (3) fine-tune a smaller model using the selected pseudo-labels. Our experiments show significant and consistent improvements in both Pass@K and our novel Equivalent Logical Similarity metrics, demonstrating the potential of advancing logical translation through consistency distillation.

TransMeme: A Multi-Agent Framework for Cross-Cultural Meme Transcreation

Internet memes are a pervasive form of multimodal online communication; however, such communication often involves users from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, adapting memes across cultures and languages is a central challenge for enabling mutual understanding in online communication. Unlike ordinary translation or standalone text rewriting, cross-cultural meme transcreation must jointly preserve communicative intent, adapt culture-dependent meaning for the target audience, and maintain coherence between text and image. In this work, we first provide an explicit task analysis of cross-cultural meme transcreation and identify three core challenges: culture-specific knowledge understanding, intent and tone preservation, and multimodal consistency. Based on this analysis, we propose a multi-agent framework with specialized agents that are coordinated to address these challenges through cultural adaptation, target text rewriting, revision, and conditional visual adjustment. The framework strengthens target text adaptation with coordinated feedback to handle difficult cases that require deeper cultural or visual intervention. We evaluate the framework on bidirectional Chinese-English meme transcreation using both human evaluation and LLM-as-a-Judge. Our method consistently outperforms all baselines across both evaluation settings. In human evaluation, it achieves the best performance on all four dimensions and delivers a 33.1% average improvement over the strongest baseline, while in LLM-as-a-Judge, it attains the highest Top-1 ranking rate (60% versus 26% for the second-best baseline). Further analysis indicates that each component contributes to the performance. Our error analysis suggests that the remaining bottlenecks lie in humor reconstruction and image-text alignment rather than simple cultural knowledge gaps, pointing to future work on humor transfer.

Multi-Expert Conformal Risk Control for Pairwise LLM Judging in Open-Ended Dialogue

In this paper, we explore multi-expert Conformal Risk Control (CRC) algorithms for pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation in open-ended dialogue. Our core insight is that multi-expert aggregation offers a complementary remedy to CRC: whereas CRC controls risk at the decision threshold through abstention, aggregation sanitizes the scoring function at its source. Guided by this, we first design two multi-expert CRC methods: Score Averaging and Decision Voting, which aggregate at the score and decision levels, respectively. While both strategies outperform single-expert methods on homogeneous expert panels, on heterogeneous LLM judges they remain risk-valid but recover only limited coverage, because a uniform threshold cannot match the experts' distinct scoring scales. To resolve this issue, we further propose Marginal-Calibrated Conformal Consensus (MC3): it captures distinct per-expert scales via initial threshold ratios, while jointly tuning a unified decision function $C_t(x)$ applied identically in both calibration and test, thereby preserving exchangeability. To evaluate our framework, we construct Panel, a 1,800-pair human pairwise-preference benchmark for open-ended dialogue. It is built on responses generated by four open-weight LLMs over dialogue contexts from three domains (ESConv, MSC, DREAM), with full logit access. In experiments, we find that both Score Averaging and Decision Voting substantially improve accuracy and acceptance rate on homogeneous panels. Notably, MC3 extends these gains to heterogeneous panels by accommodating distinct per-expert scoring scales across all three datasets.

The Limits of Automatic Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of generating text that challenges human performance in domains requiring creativity, yet evaluating creativity in LLM-generated content remains a significant challenge. Here, we investigate whether current automatic evaluation methods can reliably capture human judgments of creativity. We collect human evaluations of human- and AI-generated short stories from the WritingPrompts dataset across 11 dimensions of creativity, and compare these judgments with automated objective metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. Our experiments reveal substantial misalignment between automatic evaluations and human assessments. In particular, LLM-based judges exhibit a systematic preference for AI-generated stories, consistently favoring their stylistic characteristics over the unpredictability and other qualities of human-authored texts. Furthermore, correlation analyses show that widely used automatic metrics exhibit near-zero alignment with human judgments across both human- and AI-generated stories, suggesting that they fail to capture important dimensions of creativity. These findings highlight fundamental limitations in current approaches to the automatic evaluation of creative text and underscore the difficulty of reducing the multidimensional and subjective nature of creativity to computational metrics.

Designing a Robust LLM-Based Evaluation System for Agentic AI in Drug Discovery Through Human Alignment

Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are reshaping scientific workflows in chemistry and drug discovery, but evaluating their open-ended, tool-augmented outputs remains a fundamental bottleneck. Reference-based metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE fail to capture semantic correctness, while expert human evaluation does not scale to the iteration speed these systems demand. The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative, but existing drug discovery benchmarks deploy LLM judges without validating their alignment with human experts. In this work, we present an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework for ChatInvent, an agentic drug discovery assistant deployed at AstraZeneca, with four contributions. First, we define four output-quality evaluation dimensions---Completeness, Relevancy, Structural Clarity, and Scope Adherence---alongside deterministic Tool Call Correctness checks. Second, we validate the judge through a human alignment study with five expert annotators, comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, and Llama 3.1 70B as candidate judges. Third, we optimize the best-performing judge using few-shot demonstrations of human-annotated examples, improving alignment with the human majority vote from 0.80 to 0.86. Fourth, applying the optimized judge to 70 held-out questions, we surface concrete limitations and find that informal phrasings do not systematically degrade output quality; if anything, it is helpful to have the LLM rewrite the original question before querying the agent. Our framework provides a reusable template for human-aligned evaluation of agentic systems in scientific domains.

A Multi-Agent Platform for Automated Enterprise Analytics and Insight Generation

This paper proposes a multi-agent framework built on CrewAI [1] for conversational business intelligence. Five specialized AI agents operate in a sequential pipeline to process natural language queries, retrieve and analyze data, generate visualizations via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) [2], and deliver actionable insights. The platform features a defense-in-depth security architecture for multi-tenant data isolation and a query parameterization mechanism for transforming conversational insights into reusable dashboard components. Evaluation across 300 end-to-end test cases spanning synthetic and production enterprise datasets demonstrates 95.3% functional accuracy, a mean response latency of 24 seconds, and a response quality score of 4.52/5.0 as assessed by an LLM-as-a-Judge framework, with a 93.0% hallucination-free rate, representing a 22.6 percentage point accuracy improvement and 20.2% quality gain over a single-agent baseline. Cross-model evaluation across four LLM backends and human expert validation confirm architectural generalizability and evaluator reliability. An ablation study confirms that the Data Analysis and Report Aggregation agents are the primary drivers of output quality.

Beyond Text Matching: Towards Reference-Free Evaluation for Human-Oriented Binary Reverse Engineering

Human-Oriented Binary Reverse Engineering (HOBRE) aims to transform decompiled pseudocode into a more human-friendly representation, thereby reducing the cognitive burden of reverse analysis and improving efficiency. However, reliably evaluating HOBRE outputs remains a fundamental challenge: human evaluation is costly, time-consuming, and difficult to scale, while existing automated metrics either require executable test cases and runtime environments that are often unavailable for real-world binaries, or rely on high-quality source code references that are typically inaccessible and fail to capture semantically equivalent but lexically diverse outputs. Although LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm is naturally well-suited to HOBRE evaluation, its effectiveness remains underexplored. This paper presents the first systematic investigation of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm for HOBRE across three representative tasks: function name recovery, binary code summarization, and decompilation optimization. We introduce BinJudgeBench, the first expert-annotated, reference-free evaluation benchmark based on multi-dimensional human judgment, where LLM-as-a-Judge achieves an average correlation of 63.20\% with human judgment, outperforming traditional automated metrics at 35.04\%. By analyzing judge configurations across backbone LLMs, prompting strategies, and decoding temperatures, we find that no ``one-size-fits-all'' configuration exists, as the optimal setup varies across tasks and individual samples. To address this, we propose BinJudge, which employs a lightweight routing mechanism to adaptively select the optimal judge configuration for each task and sample. BinJudge improves correlation with human experts by 4.5\%-24.7\% and reduces API cost to 0.06$\times$-0.84$\times$ of that of static best configurations, providing a scalable, cost-effective, and high-fidelity automated evaluation scheme for HOBRE.

Shape Your Feed: An LLM-based Agentic System for Conversational Recommendation

Industrial recommendation systems predominantly adopt a passive ranking paradigm that infers user preferences from implicit behavioral signals (e.g., clicks, dwell time) rather than explicit, natural language inputs. As a result, users experience a persistent discrepancy between their explicit interests and what passive behavioral algorithms deliver, limiting their ability to express nuanced preferences or steer their feed in real time. To address this growing gap between how recommendations are optimized and how users wish to articulate their interests, we present Shape Your Feed (SYF), an LLM-based agentic recommendation framework that enables real-time, multimodal co-curation of content. SYF employs a three-tier architecture: (i) a Perception Flow that captures fine-grained user intent from text prompts, voice commands, and UI interactions; (ii) a Serving Flow that performs real-time agentic re-ranking and pruning of candidate items, grounded in a persistent Semantic Profile encoding evolving user preferences; and (iii) a Self-Evolution Flow that aligns system behavior with human judgments via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and an LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble. Offline evaluations show that SYF's alignment scoring module achieves 98.85% accuracy, substantially improving over strong few-shot baselines. Large-scale online A/B experiments on production traffic further demonstrate that SYF improves feed relevance and user sentiment, indicating a practical and scalable path toward interactive, user-steerable recommendation in industrial settings.

Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metrics

Reference-based text evaluation metrics, which are widely used to assess natural language generation systems, score a candidate response by comparing it with a reference response. The reliability of an evaluation metric is usually judged by its statistical correlation with human ratings. However, as these metrics are increasingly used as optimization objectives, correlation alone is no longer sufficient: agents may strategically game the evaluation metric. We study this issue through two complementary notions of alignment. A metric is statistically aligned if it correlates with human ratings and strategically aligned if it resists perturbations that do not add task-relevant information. We make two contributions. First, we propose test principles for reference-based metrics consisting of human-rating correlation, degradation sensitivity, and manipulation robustness. These principles evaluate whether a metric agrees with human judgments, penalizes low-effort information loss, and resists strategic score inflation. Second, we develop a unified design framework for mutual-information-based metrics that decomposes existing and new metrics into four choices: information measure, estimation method, text representation, and prediction mechanism. Across peer review, summarization, and question answering, we find that strong human-rating correlation does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge achieves high correlation but is susceptible to manipulation. In contrast, mutual-information-based metrics substantially improve manipulation robustness. Our framework also uncovers a new metric that achieves the strongest overall robustness in our experiments while remaining competitive on human-rating correlation.

Theia: Large-Scale Multimodal Captioning and Automated Validation of the Incidents1M Dataset for Data-Free Distillation

The deployment of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in critical domains like disaster management requires high-quality multimodal datasets, especially for transferring knowledge via Data-Free Knowledge Distillation (DFKD). However, existing datasets in this domain either entirely lack descriptive text, such as Incidents1M, or suffer from severe text-image semantic misalignment, such as CrisisMMD. In this work, we present a novel methodology to construct and automatically validate a large-scale multimodal dataset for disaster response. Starting from the vision-only Incidents1M, we successfully recovered 100,000 images and generated high-fidelity textual descriptions using two distinct Qwen3.5 architectures: a 4B dense model and a 35B Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model. To ensure the generated captions provide reliable semantic anchoring for DFKD, we introduce an image-blind LLM-as-a-Judge validation pipeline leveraging Qwen3.5-9B. By intentionally obscuring the original image from the judge, this evaluator accurately simulates the modality gap of the student model during data-free distillation. Our evaluation across 173,179 label pairs demonstrates a high semantic agreement (78.65/100) between the two architectures. Furthermore, the automated evaluation reveals a conservative captioning behaviour, characterized by a high Precision (77.6%) and low Recall (46.0%). This minimizes the false positive noise, while simultaneously exposing underlying human annotation inconsistencies in the original ground truth. This work provides a scalable, LLM-validated multimodal dataset and a reproducible framework to advance cross-modal knowledge distillation.

PatientAgentBench: A Benchmark Framework for Evaluating Patient-Facing Health AI Agents

Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf. Primary care guards against diagnostic errors and unsafe care; agents assisting in this domain warrant evaluation against the same risks. Current benchmarks focus on medical knowledge, assessed through isolated question-answering or clinician-facing tasks. PatientAgentBench benchmarks patient-facing agentic healthcare; it evaluates a foundation model, wrapped in an agent with a sandbox of healthcare tools, conversing with a simulated patient. Each conversation is scored by an LLM-as-a-Jury across six dimensions via over a hundred conversation-agnostic, clinician-grounded criteria. To validate alignment, licensed clinicians annotated shared conversations, yielding 79-93% adjacent agreement between jury and expert raters, on par with or exceeding clinician inter-rater agreement. We benchmarked 10 models across four families on the same 1,200 scenarios and found clinical gaps. Triage quality is the most discriminating dimension: pass rates rise from 32% for the weakest models to 88% for the strongest, with agents often acting on administrative requests without clinical screening. Clinical safety and workflow accuracy follow the same pattern: the weakest models fail often, fabricating unexecuted actions, while frontier models fail on only 1-3% of cases, from unverified tool outputs and omitted crisis resources in an emergency. More capable models narrow these gaps but do not close them; the strongest scores only 4.25 of 5 overall. These failures surface only in sustained, tool-using conversations against realistic patient records, confirming that static benchmarks are insufficient as healthcare agentic systems gain autonomy. We release the framework as a reproducible, clinician-validated evaluation standard to help the field close this gap.

Enhancing LLMs through human feedback: a journey towards self-improvement

In the rapidly evolving landscape of information retrieval systems, the ability to adapt and improve through user feedback is paramount. This study introduces a novel methodology for refining the performance of a primary Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) system by strategically integrating an auxiliary feedback RAG system. By systematically harnessing human-generated feedback, the approach aims to enhance the accuracy, relevance, and overall quality of responses, driving the system towards self-improvement. Central to this methodology is a human-in-the-loop implementation, where user feedback is continuously collected, classified, and integrated into the inference workflow, enabling the system to learn and evolve iteratively. To validate the effectiveness of this approach, the study employs rigorous testing against three diverse benchmark datasets focused on general and custom domain knowledge, utilizing a LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation strategy. This comprehensive framework not only underscores the transformative potential of feedback-driven enhancements in RAG systems but also sets a precedent for future research in adaptive information retrieval technologies, marking a significant step in the journey towards autonomous refinement and optimization through user engagement.

CLExEval: A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Qualitative Evaluation of LLM Clinical Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong results on many medical benchmarks, but their clinical reasoning remains difficult to evaluate reliably. A central risk is an evaluation illusion: fluent and well-structured explanations can appear clinically convincing even when the final diagnosis is incorrect. We introduce CLExEval, a human-in-the-loop framework for evaluating LLM clinical reasoning under progressive information masking. CLExEval combines 5,600 expert-physician annotations with 200 clinical reasoning traces derived from 40 rare diagnostic cases. Our analysis identifies three recurring failure patterns: (i) verbosity bias, where GPT-4o-mini's diagnostic accuracy drops from 95.0% to 32.5% under information scarcity; (ii) a hidden knowledge paradox, where a specialist model reaches 92.5% maximum diagnostic potential but fails to retrieve that knowledge reliably in verbose contexts; and (iii) a 68.6% reasoning-to-output mismatch, where correct diagnoses appear in reasoning traces but are not reflected in final answers. We further evaluate the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm on a human-verified failure set (n = 142). GPT-4o-mini approved 47.9% of clinically incorrect outputs, while HuatuoGPT-o1 approved all validly scored failures and showed a positive self-preference bias. These results suggest that standalone automated clinical evaluations can substantially overestimate clinical reliability without expert-grounded validation.

A French OSCE Dialogue Dataset and Controllable Virtual Patient System for Clinical Training

The clinical and communication skills of medical students are commonly assessed through Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), which consist of brief scenario-driven simulations of doctor-patient interactions. However, training is often limited by the low availability of human standardized patients, motivating the development of realistic virtual patients (VPs). To address this gap, we introduce a French OSCE dialogue dataset comprising 240 student-patient training interactions. We build upon it a controllable LLM-based pipeline to generate synthetic OSCE dialogues. The pipeline integrates modular components, such as retrieval-based grounding and a reflection loop, to ensure patient fidelity, coherence, and realism. Additionally, we propose a multi-level evaluation framework assessing patient simulation quality, student performance, and linguistic quality, using an LLM-as-a-Judge approach. Experiments suggest that controllability modules generally improve patient fidelity and student evaluation consistency. Finally, we implement an interactive prototype in which students can practice with a VP and receive automatic feedback.

Can LLMs Judge Better Than They Generate? Evaluating Task Asymmetry, Mechanistic Interpretability and Transferability for In-Context QA

LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation. We test this in a controlled in-context QA setting where a context passage is the sole information source and each model judges the answer it generated, removing the parametric-knowledge confound of open-domain comparisons. Across four benchmarks (SQuAD 2.0, DROP, HotpotQA, MuSiQue) and two models, evaluation is not uniformly easier: generation accuracy exceeds self-evaluation on three of four, with multi-hop MuSiQue the exception. Attention analysis reveals why: evaluation attends to context 3--5x less than generation does and barely reads the candidate answer. LoRA fine-tuning confirms the asymmetry is not a training artifact: generation fine-tuning induces over-acceptance and evaluation fine-tuning degrades generation. These findings challenge core assumptions in self-evaluation pipelines.

EARS: Explanatory Abstention for Reliable Sub-Agent Modeling in Large-scale Multi-Agent Systems

In large-scale enterprise settings, centralized multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly adopted, in which a coordinator delegates user requests to lightweight, domain-specialized sub-agents. While this architecture improves modularity, scalability, and cost efficiency, its reliability depends not only on accurate routing but also on sub-agents' ability to calibrate their responses to capability constraints. In particular, sub-agents built on smaller fine-tuned models often struggle with such calibration, leading them to over-answer ambiguous, underspecified, misrouted, or unsupported requests and produce hallucinated outputs instead of actionable feedback. To address this challenge, we present EARS (Explanatory Abstention for Reliable Sub-Agent Modeling), a production-oriented framework that reframes sub-agent abstention as an inter-agent communication protocol: a sub-agent does not merely abstain, but exposes an actionable failure state to the coordinator. EARS curates human-agent interaction data using an ensemble of calibrated LLM-as-a-Judge models, producing structured abstention labels and rationales under a taxonomy of sub-agent failure modes. These data are used to fine-tune sub-agents to detect failure conditions and return rationales for coordinator-level clarification, rerouting, or fallback. We evaluate EARS in a large-scale production e-commerce assistant supporting enterprise business intelligence workflows. EARS improves the overall response pass rate from 68.5% to 78.9%, demonstrating that sub-agent-side explanatory abstention improves MAS reliability.

LLM-Based Visual Explanation Evaluation Framework for Assessing the Explainability of Facial Skin Disease Classification Models

This study proposes a domain-specific LLM-based Visual Explanation Evaluation Framework for assessing Grad-CAM explanations in facial skin disease diagnosis models. While previous studies have primarily focused on improving classification performance through data augmentation techniques, relatively few studies have systematically examined whether model explanations are grounded in clinically relevant lesion regions. In this study, geometric augmentation, color-based augmentation, and mixed augmentation strategies were applied to facial skin disease classification models based on EfficientNet-B0, MobileNetV3, and ResNet18. Grad-CAM was employed to generate visual explanations representing the models' decision-making processes. Furthermore, an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework was designed using GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 to assess Grad-CAM explanations from the perspectives of lesion localization and explanation trustworthiness. To improve evaluation consistency and clinical grounding, a progressive prompt engineering strategy was introduced, incorporating evaluation rubrics, clinical knowledge, penalty rules, and structured output formats.

TimeVista: Exploring and Exploiting Vision-Language Models as Judges for Time Series Forecasting

High-quality time series forecasting is pivotal for real-world decision-making. However, traditional point-wise metrics often fail to reveal complex temporal patterns and align poorly with human intuitive preferences. While the ''LLM-as-a-Judge'' paradigm has revolutionized text evaluation by providing flexible, human-aligned judgment, its application to time series remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we leverage Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as judges for time series forecasting, harnessing their ability to comprehend time series plots grounded in textual information. Specifically, we propose a novel framework integrating micro- and macro-level judgments informed by contextual information to evaluate time series forecasting. To this end, we introduce TimeVista, a comprehensive VLM-as-a-Judge benchmark comprising 5563 time series samples paired with detailed evaluation rubrics. Extensive meta-evaluations demonstrate that VLMs are highly reliable judges, achieving significantly higher consistency with human preferences than conventional metrics. Building upon our benchmark, we comprehensively assess recent Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) under the VLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. Our results demonstrate that VLMs serve as robust and interpretable judges, providing a comprehensive, human-aligned standard for evaluating time series models.

Combining Retrieval-Augmented Text Generation with LLMs for Reading Content Recommendations

This work presents the design, implementation, and evaluation of a system for generating personalized reading content using Large Language Models (LLMs) combined with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). The proposed architecture consists of four modules: Input, RAG, Generation, and Judging and enables users to specify both a question and a target reading content complexity. RAG is employed to retrieve relevant information from the Internet, enriching and grounding the content produced by three modern LLMs: Meta LLaMA 4 Scout, LLaMA 3.1 8B Instant, and Google Gemma2 9B. Reading materials are generated using three prompting strategies (Chain-of-Thought, zero-shot, and few-shot), and the LLM-as-a-Judge module automatically evaluates answer quality and alignment with the desired readability level. Experimental results show that RAG consistently improves system performance across all models and prompting techniques, increasing relevance and particularly groundedness by up to 26-35 percentage points. Overall, the findings demonstrate that the RAG-augmented architecture effectively produces reading content tailored to user queries and desired textual complexity.

Reproducing, Analyzing, and Detecting Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning

Rubric-based reinforcement learning (RL) uses an LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) to score model outputs according to rubrics as rewards. However, policy models may exploit latent biases in the judge, leading to reward hacking and ineffective or unsafe training outcomes. In real-world rubric-based RL, such hacking behaviors are often subtle and entangled with multiple judge biases, making them difficult to analyze, detect, and mitigate. In this paper, we introduce CHERRL, a controllable hacking environment for rubric-based RL. By injecting known biases into LaaJ, CHERRL enables stable reproduction of reward hacking, explicit observation of reward divergence, and precise identification of hacking onset. This provides a clean experimental testbed for studying the mechanisms and mitigations of reward hacking in rubric-based RL. To demonstrate its utility, we analyze different judge biases from the perspectives of discoverability and exploitability, and explore an agent-based system for automatically detecting reward hacking onset from training logs. The code and environment are publicly available at https://github.com/THUAIS-Lab/CHERRL.

Mitigating Perceptual Judgment Bias in Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge via Perceptual Perturbation and Reward Modeling

Recent multimodal large language models have demonstrated strong reasoning ability, yet their reliability as automated evaluators remains limited by a critical weakness: when visual evidence conflicts with textual cues, MLLM judges tend to reward plausible narratives over perceptually correct answers. We identify and systematically analyze this phenomenon, which we term Perceptual Judgment Bias. Through controlled visual perturbations, existing multimodal judges frequently anchor on the response text instead of their own visual perception, leading to inconsistent and non-verifiable evaluations. To address this issue, we introduce the Perceptually Perturbed Judgment Dataset, which constructs minimally edited counterfactual responses that isolate perceptual errors and enable verifiable supervision. Building on this dataset, we develop a unified training framework that combines a structured GRPO-based reward with a batch-ranking objective, achieving coherent global ordering without explicit pairwise labels. Experiments across diverse MLLM-as-a-Judge benchmarks show that our approach substantially improves perceptual fidelity, ranking coherence, and alignment with human evaluation. Our results establish a scalable and generalizable pathway for training multimodal judges that are perceptually grounded, interpretable, and robust to visual-reasoning conflicts.

Beyond Semantic Similarity: A Two-Phase Non-Parametric Retrieval Workflow for Corporate Credit Underwriting

Corporate credit underwriting requires analysts to extract actionable evidence from long, heterogeneous financial documents spanning hundreds of pages and multiple languages. Standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines optimize for semantic similarity, which frequently surfaces passages that are topically related but lack decision utility, a problem we term the similarity-utility gap. We propose a two-phase non-parametric retrieval architecture that separates high-recall candidate retrieval from high-precision utility ranking. The first phase combines lexical and dense multilingual retrieval to construct a broad candidate pool. The second phase applies an adaptive retrieval controller that filters candidates using query intent and document structure signals, followed by an LLM-as-a-Judge utility scoring mechanism that ranks passages by analytical usefulness rather than semantic proximity. A context-aware extraction module preserves structural fidelity across narrative text and complex financial tables. The system is deployed entirely on-premise to satisfy enterprise data governance requirements. Evaluated on a multilingual corpus of proprietary financial documents with analyst-curated relevance labels, the system significantly outperforms naive retrieval baselines. In production deployment across more than 800 credit analysts, document review time was reduced from several hours to approximately three minutes, demonstrating the practical value of utility-aware RAG architectures for document-intensive decision-support workflows.

DiffCap-Bench: A Comprehensive, Challenging, Robust Benchmark for Image Difference Captioning

Image Difference Captioning (IDC) generates natural language descriptions that precisely identify differences between two images, serving as a key benchmark for fine-grained change perception, cross-modal reasoning, and image editing data construction. However, existing benchmarks lack diversity and compositional complexity, and standard lexical-overlap metrics (e.g., BLEU, METEOR) fail to capture semantic consistency or penalize hallucinations, which together prevent a comprehensive and robust evaluation of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on IDC. To address these gaps, we introduce DiffCap-Bench, a comprehensive IDC benchmark covering ten distinct difference categories to ensure diversity and compositional complexity. Furthermore, we propose an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation protocol grounded in human-validated Difference Lists, enabling a robust assessment of models' ability to both capture and describe visual changes. Through extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs, we reveal significant performance gaps between proprietary and open-source models, highlight the critical importance of reasoning capability, and identify clear limitations in model scaling. Our framework also demonstrates strong alignment with human expert judgments and strong correlation with downstream image editing data construction quality. These findings establish DiffCap-Bench as both a reliable IDC evaluation framework and a practical predictor of downstream utility. The benchmark and code will be made publicly available to support further research.

Understanding the Limits of Automated Evaluation for Code Review Bots in Practice

Automated code review (ACR) bots are increasingly used in industrial software development to assist developers during pull request (PR) review. As adoption grows, a key challenge is how to evaluate the usefulness of bot-generated comments reliably and at scale. In practice, such evaluation often relies on developer actions and annotations that are shaped by contextual and organizational factors, complicating their use as objective ground truth. We examine the feasibility and limitations of automating the evaluation of LLM-powered ACR bots in an industrial setting. We analyze an industrial dataset from Beko comprising 2,604 bot-generated PR comments, each labeled by software engineers as fixed/wontFix. Two automated evaluation approaches, G-Eval and an LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline, are applied using both binary decisions and a 0-4 Likert-scale formulation, enabling a controlled comparison against developer-provided labels. Across Gemini-2.5-pro, GPT-4.1-mini, and GPT-5.2, both evaluation strategies achieve only moderate alignment with human labels. Agreement ratios range from approximately 0.44 to 0.62, with noticeable variation across models and between binary and Likert-scale formulations, indicating sensitivity to both model choice and evaluation design. Our findings highlight practical limitations in fully automating the evaluation of ACR bot comments in industrial contexts. Developer actions such as resolving or ignoring comments reflect not only comment quality, but also contextual constraints, prioritization decisions, and workflow dynamics that are difficult to capture through static artifacts. Insights from a follow-up interview with a software engineering director further corroborate that developer labeling behavior is strongly influenced by workflow pressures and organizational constraints, reinforcing the challenges of treating such signals as objective ground truth.