Morteza Ziyadi

Gaurav Srivastava, Aafiya Hussain, Zhenyu Bi et al.

Evaluating language models fairly is becoming harder as static benchmarks available on the internet risk contamination by training data. This makes it unclear whether models are truly reasoning or just recalling answers. In this paper, we introduce BeyondBench, an evaluation framework that avoids this problem by using algorithmic problem generation. Unlike traditional benchmarks that risk contamination from internet-scale training data, BeyondBench creates mathematically grounded problems on the fly, ensuring each test remains fresh and uncontaminated. Our framework covers 44 algorithmic tasks with a total of 117 variations, grouped into three difficulty levels: the Easy Suite (29 tasks) for basic arithmetic and statistics, the Medium Suite (5 tasks, 49 variations) for sequence patterns and reasoning, and the Hard Suite (10 tasks, 68 variations) tackling NP-complete and constraint satisfaction problems. Each task generates problems from a combinatorial space larger than 10^15 unique instances, with solutions verified deterministically by mathematical proofs. We evaluated 101 language models, including 85 open-source and 16 closed-source models, spanning sizes from 0.5B to 141B parameters and multiple quantization schemes. Our results show consistent reasoning deficiencies across model families, with performance degrading sharply as problem complexity increases from polynomial to exponential. In our Hard Suite evaluations, models such as Gemini-2.5-pro, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen2.5-72B achieved average accuracies of 56.38%, 26.91%, and 33.60%, respectively. Moreover, we observe that performance drops drastically without tool usage, with GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5-nano showing a decline of 16.81%, 28.05%, and 47.59% accuracy on the hard suite. Our leaderboard is publicly available at https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/BeyondBench/

Prahaladh Chandrahasan, Jiahe Jin, Zhihan Zhang et al.

Effectively evaluating deep research agents that autonomously search the web, analyze information, and generate reports remains a major challenge, particularly when it comes to assessing long reports and giving detailed feedback on their intermediate steps. To address these gaps, we introduce Deep Research Comparator, a platform that offers a holistic framework for deep research agent hosting, side-by-side comparison, fine-grained human feedback collection, and ranking calculation. Given a user query, our platform displays the final reports from two different agents along with their intermediate steps during generation. Annotators can evaluate the overall quality of final reports based on side-by-side comparison, and also provide detailed feedback separately by assessing intermediate steps or specific text spans within the final report. Furthermore, we develop Simple Deepresearch, an end-to-end agent scaffold. This scaffold serves as a baseline that facilitates the easy integration of various large language models to transform them into deep research agents for evaluation. To demonstrate the platform's utility for deep research agent development, we have collected real user preference data from 17 annotators on three deep research agents. A demo video of our platform can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4d2dnbdseg.

Zhenyu Bi, Meng Lu, Yang Li et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities in mathematical and scientific tasks. To enhance complex reasoning, multi-agent systems have been proposed to harness the collective intelligence of LLM agents. However, existing collaboration structures are either predefined or rely on majority voting or round-table debates, which can suppress correct but less dominant agent contributions. Recent approaches model multi-agent systems as graph networks but optimize purely for agent performance, neglecting the quality of interactions. We hypothesize that effective agent communication is crucial for multi-agent reasoning and that debating quality plays a significant role. To address this, we propose $\ours$, a multi-agent verbal reinforcement learning algorithm that dynamically constructs and refines multi-agent collaboration structures. Our method defines action spaces and a feedback mechanism that evaluates communication robustness and coherence throughout the debate. The final decision is achieved through a majority vote over all the agents. We assess $\ours$ on various reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning, creative writing, scientific reasoning, and numerical sorting. Results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms single-agent prompting methods and state-of-the-art multi-agent frameworks on diverse tasks.

Liuyue Xie, George Z. Wei, Avik Kuthiala et al. · cmu

Frontier models have either been language-only or have primarily focused on vision and language modalities. Although recent advancements in models with vision and audio understanding capabilities have shown substantial progress, the field lacks a standardized evaluation framework for thoroughly assessing their cross-modality perception performance. We introduce MAVERIX~(Multimodal Audio-Visual Evaluation Reasoning IndeX), a novel benchmark with 700 videos and 2,556 questions explicitly designed to evaluate multimodal models through tasks that necessitate close integration of video and audio information. MAVERIX uniquely provides models with audiovisual tasks, closely mimicking the multimodal perceptual experiences available to humans during inference and decision-making processes. To our knowledge, MAVERIX is the first benchmark aimed explicitly at assessing comprehensive audiovisual integration. Experiments with state-of-the-art models, including Gemini 1.5 Pro and o1, show performance approaching human levels (around 70% accuracy), while human experts reach near-ceiling performance (95.1%). With standardized evaluation protocols, a rigorously annotated pipeline, and a public toolkit, MAVERIX establishes a challenging testbed for advancing audiovisual multimodal intelligence.

Tiantian Feng, Anil Ramakrishna, Jimit Majmudar et al. · amazon-science

Federated Learning (FL) is a popular algorithm to train machine learning models on user data constrained to edge devices (for example, mobile phones) due to privacy concerns. Typically, FL is trained with the assumption that no part of the user data can be egressed from the edge. However, in many production settings, specific data-modalities/meta-data are limited to be on device while others are not. For example, in commercial SLU systems, it is typically desired to prevent transmission of biometric signals (such as audio recordings of the input prompt) to the cloud, but egress of locally (i.e. on the edge device) transcribed text to the cloud may be possible. In this work, we propose a new algorithm called Partial Federated Learning (PartialFL), where a machine learning model is trained using data where a subset of data modalities or their intermediate representations can be made available to the server. We further restrict our model training by preventing the egress of data labels to the cloud for better privacy, and instead use a contrastive learning based model objective. We evaluate our approach on two different multi-modal datasets and show promising results with our proposed approach.

Zhenyu Bi, Gaurav Srivastava, Yang Li et al.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.

Xinyu Pi, Qian Liu, Bei Chen et al.

Reasoning over natural language is a long-standing goal for the research community. However, studies have shown that existing language models are inadequate in reasoning. To address the issue, we present POET, a novel reasoning pre-training paradigm. Through pre-training language models with programs and their execution results, POET empowers language models to harvest the reasoning knowledge possessed by program executors via a data-driven approach. POET is conceptually simple and can be instantiated by different kinds of program executors. In this paper, we showcase two simple instances POET-Math and POET-Logic, in addition to a complex instance, POET-SQL. Experimental results on six benchmarks demonstrate that POET can significantly boost model performance in natural language reasoning, such as numerical reasoning, logical reasoning, and multi-hop reasoning. POET opens a new gate on reasoning-enhancement pre-training, and we hope our analysis would shed light on the future research of reasoning like program executors.