The paper introduces a disclosure‑gated user simulator for companion‑agent evaluation, where information release is conditioned on the agent’s behavior through a five‑level gate system. The authors train the simulator on synthetic and real data, audit its performance, and demonstrate that it preserves ranking order and score stability across 12 tested systems. Their released simulator achieves a 0.993 correlation with the original benchmark’s simulator and outperforms prompting a frontier model, which only shifts scores upward without affecting rankings.
Using a large language model to play the user is now standard in scalable evaluation. It has a repeatedly diagnosed failure: the simulated user is excessively cooperative, so a system under test can s...
arXiv:2606. 25760v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Computer-use agents turn vision-language model (VLM) predictions into executable GUI clicks, so reliable uncertainty estimates are essential for rejection, calibration, miss-severity ranking, and spatial safety regions.
arXiv:2606. 14199v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as human simulators for interactive evaluation and social simulation.
arXiv:2607. 28074v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Computer-use agents learn from what their actions change, so training one needs applications it can act on, break and reset.
arXiv:2607. 02255v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Memory for a long-horizon LLM agent is a contract about what each future decision is allowed to see.
arXiv:2607. 20436v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety evaluations often assume that behavior observed during testing reflects behavior in ordinary use, but fine-tuning can break this assumption.
arXiv:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
The paper reports a preregistered audit of language‑model judges used as measurement instruments, revealing that the assumption that a model’s responses remain stable over time is invalid. Across nearly 53,000 audited requests, repeat rankings and byte‑identical replays fell far below required reliability thresholds, with three identified mechanisms—label‑to‑meaning bias, candidate gaps below the noise floor, and input permutation noise—explaining the discrepancy. The study proposes a three‑level snapshot‑identity framework, eight design rules, and a reporting checklist to prevent such reliability failures in future evaluations.
Language-model judges now gate training data, score generations, and drive leaderboards. The judge is then a measurement instrument, resting on one rarely stated assumption: the same request, sent to...
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
arXiv:2606. 29495v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Social influence dialogue changes user behavior by altering internal cognitive states.