Mingyu Yuan

Kaiyuan Chen, Qimin Wu, Taiyu Hou et al.

The capacity of AI agents to effectively handle tasks of increasing duration and complexity continues to grow, demonstrating exceptional performance in coding, deep research, and complex problem-solving evaluations. However, in daily scenarios, the perception of these advanced AI capabilities among general users remains limited. We argue that current evaluations prioritize increasing task difficulty without sufficiently addressing the diversity of agentic tasks necessary to cover the daily work, life, and learning activities of a broad demographic. To address this, we propose AgentIF-OneDay, aimed at determining whether general users can utilize natural language instructions and AI agents to complete a diverse array of daily tasks. These tasks require not only solving problems through dialogue but also understanding various attachment types and delivering tangible file-based results. The benchmark is structured around three user-centric categories: Open Workflow Execution, which assesses adherence to explicit and complex workflows; Latent Instruction, which requires agents to infer implicit instructions from attachments; and Iterative Refinement, which involves modifying or expanding upon ongoing work. We employ instance-level rubrics and a refined evaluation pipeline that aligns LLM-based verification with human judgment, achieving an 80.1% agreement rate using Gemini-3-Pro. AgentIF-OneDay comprises 104 tasks covering 767 scoring points. We benchmarked four leading general AI agents and found that agent products built based on APIs and ChatGPT agents based on agent RL remain in the first tier simultaneously. Leading LLM APIs and open-source models have internalized agentic capabilities, enabling AI application teams to develop cutting-edge Agent products.

Eason Chen, Xinyi Tang, Yvonne Zhao et al.

We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=92) comparing three conditions in a calculus learning environment: no self-explanation (control), menu-based self-explanation, and open-ended self-explanation with LLM-generated feedback. All conditions showed positive learning gains within a fixed 60-minute practice session, with no significant between-condition differences in post-test performance. On transfer questions, the open-ended condition produced significantly higher-quality explanations than control on "Not Enough Information" (NEI) problems ($β$=+11.9 percentage points, $p$=.030), though the corresponding NEI multiple-choice accuracy advantage was not significant ($p$=.183). Moreover, across all post-test open-ended explanations, the open-ended condition showed a marginally significant advantage ($β$=+7.3%, $p$=.057). These findings suggest that LLM-supported open-ended self-explanation can improve explanation quality on NEI transfer problems, with weaker evidence across broader transfer explanation measures. Notably, these effects emerged even though learners in the open-ended condition completed substantially fewer practice problems within the same practice time.