Vamse Kumar Subbiah

Ethan Leung, Elias Lumer, Corey Feld et al.

Reinforcement learning increasingly relies on an LLM judge to score each rubric criterion, and that judge acts as the reward model during training. Before such a signal can be trusted, we need to know how capable the judge must be and how biased it is. We study this calibration question for citation quality in deep-research systems, where a search-grounded LLM must support each claim it writes with a cited source. Citation quality is a structured rubric task in which each attribution-citation pair is judged along two dimensions that require an LLM, source relevance and factual support. On an adversarial long-form benchmark, we score 8 off-the-shelf LLM judges from 3 model families against gold labels over 1,248 rubric decisions, all of which were human-reviewed and 378 of which were hard cases adjudicated from judge disagreements. Cheaper judges remain competitive across both dimensions, with GPT-5-mini attaining the strongest source-relevance pass-class F1 at 0.908 ($κ$=0.636), while on factual support the judges are statistically indistinguishable (overlapping confidence intervals), so no single model dominates. At comparable F1, the judges still differ substantially in pass-rate drift, false positive rate, and false negative rate. Scalar F1 obscures this directional bias, yet it is exactly what a downstream reinforcement learning loop would reinforce. Calibrating the judge is therefore a prerequisite for using citation rubrics as reward signals, and our results show that this calibration does not require the most expensive available model.

Anmol Gulati, Hariom Gupta, Elias Lumer et al.

Long-horizon AI agents execute complex workflows spanning hundreds of sequential actions, yet a single wrong assumption early on can cascade into irreversible errors. When instructions are incomplete, the agent must decide not only whether to ask for clarification but when, and no prior work measures how clarification value changes over the course of execution. We introduce a forced-injection framework that provides ground-truth clarifications at controlled points in the agent's trajectory across four information dimensions (goal, input, constraint, context), three agent benchmarks, and four frontier models (three per benchmark; one on a single benchmark only; 84 task variants; 6,000+ runs). Counter to the common intuition that "earlier is always better," we find that the value of clarification depends sharply on what information is missing: goal clarification loses nearly all value after 10% of execution (pass@3 drops from 0.78 to baseline), while input clarification retains value through roughly 50%. Deferring any clarification type past mid-trajectory degrades performance below never asking at all. Cross-model Kendall tau correlations (0.78-0.87 among models sharing identical task coverage; 0.34-0.67 across the full 4-model panel) confirm these timing profiles are substantially task-intrinsic. A complementary study of 300 unscripted sessions reveals that no current frontier model asks within the empirically optimal window, with strategies ranging from over-asking (52% of sessions) to never asking at all. These empirical demand curves provide the quantitative foundation that existing theoretical frameworks require but have lacked, and establish concrete design targets for timing-aware clarification policies. Code and data will be publicly released.