Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Expert-authored skills with observable workflow boundaries make LLM judges far more reliable on long-horizon enterprise agent tasks than LLM-written rubrics alone.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 20:07 UTC pith:YATQFDHA

load-bearing objection Useful enterprise agent benchmark with real environments and open data; the headline kappa lift is confounded by rubric redesign, but the package still deserves referee time. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.22744 v2 pith:YATQFDHA submitted 2026-03-24 cs.AI

LH-Bench: Skill-Grounded Evaluation of Long-Horizon Agents on Subjective Enterprise Tasks

Abhishek Chandwani , Ishan Gupta This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords agent skillsagent evaluationrubric-based evaluationlong-horizon agentsprocedural knowledgeenterprise benchmarksLLM-as-judgeFigma-to-code
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Binary pass/fail scores work for math and unit tests, but they collapse for real enterprise work where agents must plan, inspect, edit, verify, and recover over dozens of steps and intermediate artifacts. LH-Bench argues that the missing piece is explicit procedural knowledge: expert-written skill documents that both guide the agent during execution and mark clear, transcript-visible criteria for judging afterward. On the same Figma-to-code runs, switching from LLM-authored rubrics to expert-authored ones lifts mean pairwise judge agreement from kappa 0.46 to 0.60, and independent human pairwise preferences recover the same top-tier harness ranking. Skill-level scores also expose bottlenecks and trade-offs that aggregate artifact scores hide, while structured verifier feedback lets agents recover from most observed errors. The practical claim is that expert-grounded evaluation can scale for subjective long-horizon work without giving up reliability.

Core claim

On identical long-horizon agent runs, expert-authored skills that encode workflow phases as observable rubric boundaries raise LLM-judge agreement from mean pairwise kappa 0.46 (LLM-authored rubrics) to 0.60, and human preference judgments independently recover the same primary ranking boundary between harnesses (p < 0.05). Skills thus serve as dual-use procedural knowledge that makes subjective process quality both executable and scorable.

What carries the argument

SKILL.md artifacts: expert-written workflow documents that, at run time, prescribe phases, failure modes, and constraints, and at evaluation time define binary-observable rubric boundaries (e.g., “token file created before components”) that judges can verify from transcripts and artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The reliability gain is treated as coming from expert procedural knowledge in dual-use skills, even though the better rubrics also had fewer criteria, different weights, and clearer binary anchors than the LLM-written set.

What would settle it

Re-score the same 92 Figma-to-code runs with expert-authored content held fixed but matched on rubric count, weights, and anchor style against LLM-authored content; if kappa no longer rises, the dual-use skill claim is not carrying the result.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Agent leaderboards for design-to-code and source-grounded content can rank systems by process quality, not only final screenshots or renders.
  • Harness design can target skill bottlenecks (e.g., design-token extraction) instead of only end-to-end pass rates.
  • Structured verifier hooks become runtime skills that support recovery from most tool and build errors, not just offline grades.
  • Released SME annotations, chapter plans, citations, and preferences become training and calibration data for skill induction and rubric learning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If dual-use skills are the main reliability lever, automated skill induction from successful and failed trajectories could reduce dependence on scarce SME authors.
  • The same design pattern—observable phase boundaries plus artifact contracts—likely transfers to other multi-tool enterprise workflows such as CRM ops, data pipeline repair, or compliance drafting.
  • Weak run-level human–LLM concordance with strong aggregate ranking agreement suggests process rubrics are better for system comparison than for single-run acceptance gates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. LH-Bench proposes a skill-grounded evaluation design for long-horizon agents on subjective enterprise tasks, pairing expert-authored SKILL.md artifacts (dual-use for execution guidance and observable process rubrics) with curated artifact contracts and human preference validation. The paper instantiates this in Figma-to-code (33 real .fig tasks) and programmatic content (183 chapters across 41 courses), evaluates three commercial harness families end-to-end, and reports that expert-authored rubrics raise multi-judge agreement from κ=0.46 to 0.60 on the same 92 Figma runs, that human preferences recover the same primary ranking boundary (p<0.05), that skill-level decomposition exposes harness trade-offs, and that agents recover from 70.3% of 590 observed errors under structured verifier feedback. Datasets, rubrics, and preference annotations are released.

Significance. If the central claims hold under cleaner isolation, this is a useful contribution to agent evaluation: it moves beyond binary/unit-test success for multi-tool enterprise workflows and shows how procedural knowledge can make process quality inspectable. Concrete strengths include multi-judge scoring with bootstrap CIs, convergent validation across VLM output scores, process judges, and human pairwise preferences (135 Figma votes; 275 content comparisons), a structured failure/recovery taxonomy over 590 errors, skill-level decomposition that reveals compensatory harness profiles, and a public release of tasks, rubrics, and SME reasoning artifacts. Even with the present confounds, the environments and open artifacts are likely to be reused.

major comments (4)
  1. Table 9 / §7.6 and Appendix F (Table 15): the headline κ gain (0.46→0.60 on the same 92 runs) confounds expert authorship with rubric redesign. v1.1 uses 8 LLM-authored rubrics with generic anchors and unequal weights; v1.2 uses 4 expert rubrics with binary-observable phase boundaries and different weights. Fewer criteria, clearer anchors, and reduced scoring dimensionality can raise kappa without dual-use SKILL.md content or domain expertise. The central causal claim that expert dual-use skills make judges more reliable is therefore not isolated. Please either (i) add a matched-structure control (same number of criteria and anchor style, expert vs LLM content only; or same content with/without observable boundaries), or (ii) reframe the claim as an effect of the full expert-rubric package and stop attributing the lift primarily to dual-use skills.
  2. Table 8 / §7.5: the SKILL.md ablation (n=7 paired runs, 2–3 per harness) is underpowered and measures execution quality with/without skills, not judge agreement under matched rubrics. It therefore cannot repair the Table 9 confound, and the paper already labels it directional. Either scale the ablation with pre-registered power and report judge-κ under fixed rubric structure, or demote dual-use execution claims that rest on this study and keep only the descriptive harness differences.
  3. §7.6: at the individual-run level, human–LLM concordance is weak (κ=0.08 output, 0.06 skill), while aggregate rankings agree on the primary boundary. This is reported but under-integrated into the main claim. Fine-grained LLM score gaps (e.g., Tables 4–5 separating Codex vs Claude) should not be presented as perceptible quality differences without stronger run-level alignment or explicit caveats in the results narrative and abstract.
  4. §3.3 and Tables 12–13: recovery analysis is valuable (70.3% overall), but preview/verifier hook availability is unequal across harnesses (native post-tool hooks for Claude Code and Gemini CLI; Codex receives raw tool output without automatic post-processing). Recovery and deploy rates are therefore partially confounded with harness infrastructure. Please report recovery stratified by hook availability, or restrict cross-harness recovery comparisons to errors where feedback channels are matched.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract vs §1: the abstract frames three pillars (rubrics, artifacts, preferences); the body centers dual-use SKILL.md as the core object. Align terminology so the dual-use claim and the three-pillar design are not competing headlines.
  2. Table 4 vs Table 5: output and skill rankings differ slightly at the top (Codex leads output; Claude Code leads skill). State explicitly which tier is primary for leaderboard claims to avoid selective reading.
  3. Table 6 κ row: per-rubric agreement ranges 0.34–0.67; component architecture at 0.34 is only fair. Note this when interpreting architecture as a strong shared capability.
  4. Programmatic content (Table 11 / Appendix J): humans rate Codex and Gemini equally while the VLM favors Gemini; the polish-vs-content explanation is plausible but speculative. A short content-accuracy vs production-polish split would strengthen the discussion.
  5. Appendix D: model-family awareness of Agent Skills for Claude is appropriately noted; ensure this caveat appears in the main limitations, not only the appendix.
  6. Typos/consistency: arXiv id and venue footer dates (Agent Skills ’26 / May 2026) should be checked against submission metadata; ensure all HuggingFace links and table n counts match the text (e.g., 92 vs 96 runs in different analyses).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical benchmark comparisons on fixed runs, not a derivation that redefines its target.

full rationale

LH-Bench is an empirical methods/benchmark paper. Its load-bearing claims are measured comparisons, not first-principles derivations: (i) expert-authored vs LLM-authored rubrics raise mean pairwise Cohen's kappa from 0.46 to 0.60 on the same 92 Figma-to-code runs; (ii) human pairwise preferences recover the same primary harness ranking boundary; (iii) skill-level scores expose bottlenecks hidden by aggregate artifact scores; (iv) structured verifier feedback supports recovery from 70.3% of observed errors. None of these reduce by construction to fitted inputs or self-defined targets. Process rubrics intentionally encode skill workflow boundaries (dual-use design), so process scores measure skill compliance by design—that is a stated evaluation contract, not a claimed independent prediction. Output-tier VLM scores, human preferences, and recovery taxonomy use separate inputs and criteria. Related-work citations are positioning, not uniqueness theorems or load-bearing self-citation chains. Confounds in the rubric redesign (8 generic vs 4 observable criteria) are validity/isolation concerns, not circularity. Honest finding: self-contained empirical evaluation; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on methodological design choices and empirical measurement conventions rather than free physical constants. Load-bearing premises include: that transcript-observable workflow events are valid proxies for process quality; that multi-judge LLM/VLM scores plus limited human preferences can validate rankings; and that commercial harness stacks are fair comparison units. Free parameters are scoring design choices (weights, thresholds, kappa weighting). Invented entities are the dual-use skill artifact and the three-pillar LH-Bench design itself.

free parameters (4)
  • process rubric weights (inspect 0.30, token 0.25, architecture 0.25, build 0.20)
    Hand-chosen weights determine the aggregate skill score used for ranking and diagnosis; not fit from an external gold standard of process quality.
  • output-tier rubric weights (8 visual/layout criteria)
    Component coverage, layout, colors, typography, etc. are weighted by design (Table 16) and drive VLM artifact scores.
  • expert pass/fail threshold (≤3 fail, ≥4 pass)
    Absolute quality bins used for difficulty analysis and pass rates are expert-chosen cutoffs on a 5-point scale.
  • quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa as primary agreement metric
    Agreement conclusions (0.46 vs 0.60) depend on this weighting choice for ordinal scores.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Transcript-observable workflow events (e.g., token file before components; preview before major edits) are valid and sufficient proxies for subjective process quality in enterprise front-end and content workflows.
    Core of the skill-grounded design in §3 and rubric definitions in Appendix E; if unobservable or non-causal, process scores misrank agents.
  • domain assumption Commercial agent harnesses (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI) with identical tool access are comparable evaluation units for long-horizon capability.
    Stated evaluation target in §3.1–3.2 and §7.1; model and orchestration remain entangled by construction.
  • domain assumption Multi-family LLM/VLM judges plus limited human pairwise preferences can validate rankings on subjective multimedia and UI artifacts.
    Underpins convergent-validity claims in §7.6; individual-run concordance is weak, so aggregate agreement is assumed informative.
  • standard math Standard statistical tools for ordinal agreement and preference ranking (Cohen's kappa, bootstrap CIs, Bradley-Terry Elo) apply to these judge scores and votes.
    Used throughout §7 without novel statistical theory.
invented entities (2)
  • SKILL.md dual-use skill artifact independent evidence
    purpose: Encode expert workflow phases that both guide autonomous execution and define observable rubric boundaries for post-hoc judging.
    Central design object of LH-Bench; independent evidence is empirical (kappa lift, ablation directionality), not external physical measurement.
  • LH-Bench three-pillar evaluation design independent evidence
    purpose: Combine expert rubrics, curated artifact contracts, and human preference validation for subjective long-horizon enterprise tasks.
    The paper’s proposed evaluation framework; validated only within the two constructed environments.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26776 in / 3440 out tokens · 36958 ms · 2026-07-13T20:07:07.022307+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models excel on objectively verifiable tasks such as math and programming, where evaluation reduces to unit tests or a single correct answer. In contrast, real-world enterprise work is often subjective and context-dependent: success hinges on organizational goals, user intent, and the quality of intermediate artifacts produced across long, multi-tool workflows. We introduce LH-Bench, a three-pillar evaluation design that moves beyond binary correctness to score autonomous, long-horizon execution on subjective enterprise tasks. The pillars are: (i) expert-grounded rubrics that give LLM judges the domain context needed to score subjective work, (ii) curated ground-truth artifacts that enable stepwise reward signals (e.g., chapter-level annotation for content tasks), and (iii) pairwise human preference evaluation for convergent validation. We show that domain-authored rubrics provide substantially more reliable evaluation signals than LLM-authored rubrics (kappa = 0.60 vs. 0.46), and that human preference judgments confirm the same top-tier separation (p < 0.05), evidence that expert-grounded evaluation can scale without sacrificing reliability. We release public datasets and report results on two environments: Figma-to-code (33 real .fig tasks against the Figma API via MCP) and Programmatic content (41 courses comprising 183 individually-evaluated chapters on a course platform serving 30+ daily users).

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. EnergyAgentBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Live Energy Infrastructure Data

    econ.EM 2026-05 accept novelty 8.0

    EnergyAgentBench is a new benchmark with 70 task variants that evaluates LLM agents on live energy data for datacenter siting, long-horizon optimization, and causal grid diagnosis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Victor Barres, Honghua Dong, Soham Ray, Xujie Si, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2025. 𝜏 2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07982(2025). LH-Bench: Skill-Grounded Evaluation of Long-Horizon Agents on Subjective Enterprise Tasks Agent Skills ’26, May 26, 2026, San Jose, CA

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. Rank analysis of incom- plete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons.Biometrika 39, 3/4 (1952), 324–345

    1952

  3. [3]

    Jiaju Chen, Yuxuan Lu, Xiaojie Wang, Huimin Zeng, Jing Huang, Jiri Gesi, Ying Xu, Bingsheng Yao, and Dakuo Wang. 2025. Multi-Agent-as- Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi- Dimensional Human Evaluation. InNeurIPS Workshop on Multi-Turn Interactions

    2025

  4. [4]

    Jacob Cohen. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement20, 1 (1960), 37–46

    1960

  5. [5]

    Xiang Deng, Jeff Da, Edwin Pan, et al . 2025. SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16941(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Laradji, Manuel Del Verme, Tom Marty, Léo Boisvert, Megh Thakkar, Quentin Cappart, David Vazquez, Nicolas Chapados, and Alexandre Lacoste

    Alexandre Drouin, Maxime Gasse, Massimo Caccia, Issam H. Laradji, Manuel Del Verme, Tom Marty, Léo Boisvert, Megh Thakkar, Quentin Cappart, David Vazquez, Nicolas Chapados, and Alexandre Lacoste

  7. [7]

    InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Com- mon Knowledge Work Tasks?. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

  8. [8]

    Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao Shi, Hexiang Tan, Xuehao Zhai, Chengjin Xu, Wei Li, Yinghan Shen, Shengjie Ma, Honghao Liu, Saizhuo Wang, Kun Zhang, Yuanzhuo Wang, Wen Gao, Lionel Ni, and Jian Guo. 2024. A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15594(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Jing Yu Koh, Robert Lo, Lawrence Jang, Vikram Duvvur, Ming Lim, Po-Yu Huang, Graham Neubig, Shuyan Zhou, Russ Salakhutdinov, and Daniel Fried. 2024. VisualWebArena: Evaluating Multimodal Agents on Realistic Visual Web Tasks. InAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, et al. 2025. Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Tasks.https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring- ai-ability-to-complete-long-tasks/

    2025

  12. [12]

    Richard Landis and Gary G

    J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Ob- server Agreement for Categorical Data.Biometrics33, 1 (1977), 159– 174

    1977

  13. [13]

    Ruizhe Li, Mingxuan Du, Benfeng Xu, Chiwei Zhu, Xiaorui Wang, and Zhendong Mao. 2026. DeepResearch Bench II: Diagnosing Deep Research Agents via Rubrics from Expert Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08536(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Xiangyi Li et al. 2026. SkillsBench: Benchmarking How Well Agent Skills Work Across Diverse Tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12670 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al . 2024. AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Fung, Chun Yuan, and Li Shen

    Haotian Luo, Huaisong Zhang, Xuelin Zhang, Haoyu Wang, Zeyu Qin, Wenjie Lu, Guozheng Ma, Haiying He, Yingsha Xie, Qiyang Zhou, Zixuan Hu, Hongze Mi, Yibo Wang, Naiqiang Tan, Hong Chen, Yi R. Fung, Chun Yuan, and Li Shen. 2025. UltraHorizon: Benchmarking Agent Capabilities in Ultra Long-Horizon Scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21766(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Craig Swift, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. 2024. GAIA: A Benchmark for General AI Assistants. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, et al. 2024. ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Hendryx, Brad Kenstler, and Bing Liu

    Manasi Sharma, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Chaithanya Bandi, Clinton Wang, Ankit Aich, Huy Nghiem, Tahseen Rabbani, Ye Htet, Brian Jang, Sumana Basu, Aishwarya Balwani, Denis Peskoff, Marcos Ayestaran, Sean M. Hendryx, Brad Kenstler, and Bing Liu. 2025. ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Chenglei Si, Yanzhe Zhang, Ryan Li, Zhengyuan Yang, Ruibo Liu, and Diyi Yang. 2025. Design2Code: Benchmarking Multimodal Code Gen- eration for Automated Front-End Engineering. InAnnual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Yi Su, Dian Yu, Linfeng Song, Juntao Li, Haitao Mi, Zhaopeng Tu, Min Zhang, and Dong Yu. 2025. Crossing the Reward Bridge: Expanding RL with Verifiable Rewards Across Diverse Domains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23829(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Haoyu Sun, Huichen Will Wang, Jiawei Gu, Linjie Li, and Yu Cheng

  23. [23]

    FullFront: Benchmarking MLLMs Across the Full Front-End Engineering Workflow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17399(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Aman Singh Thakur, Kartik Choudhary, Venkat Srinik Ramayapally, Sankaran Vaidyanathan, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2024. Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12624(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Xingyao Wang, Zihan Wang, Jiateng Liu, Yangyi Chen, Lifan Yuan, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. 2024. MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback. InInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Quan Wei, Siliang Zeng, Chenliang Li, William Brown, Oana Frunza, Wei Deng, Anderson Schneider, Yuriy Nevmyvaka, Yang Katie Zhao, Alfredo Garcia, and Mingyi Hong. 2025. Reinforcing Multi-Turn Rea- soning in LLM Agents via Turn-Level Reward Design and Credit As- signment. InNeurIPS Workshop on Multi-Turn Interactions

    2025

  27. [27]

    Xueqing Wu, Zihan Xue, Da Yin, Shuyan Zhou, Kai-Wei Chang, Nanyun Peng, and Yeming Wen. 2026. FronTalk: Benchmarking Front- End Development as Conversational Code Generation with Multi- Modal Feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04203(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, Xiaochuan Li, Siheng Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Toh Jing Hua, Zhoujun Cheng, Dongchan Shin, Fangyu Lei, et al. 2024. OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik Narasimhan

  30. [30]

    𝜏-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real- World Domains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12045(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhang- hao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig. 2024. WebArena: A Realistic Web Environ- ment for Building Autonomous Agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2024

  33. [33]

    highlight-to-cite

    Hongda Zhu, Yiwen Zhang, Bing Zhao, Jingzhe Ding, Siyao Liu, Tong Liu, Dandan Wang, Yanan Liu, and Zhaojian Li. 2025. FrontendBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Front-End Development via Automatic Evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13832(2025). Agent Skills ’26, May 26, 2026, San Jose, CA Ishan Gupta and Abhishek Chandwani Appendix A Pipeline Dia...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Score Description 1 Content is largely irrelevant or incoherent; fails to address the chapter instruction

    Content Relevance and Clarity.Evaluates whether the video content accurately addresses the chapter instruction and presents information in a clear, logically structured manner. Score Description 1 Content is largely irrelevant or incoherent; fails to address the chapter instruction. 2 Addresses the topic but with major gaps, inaccuracies, or disorganized ...

  35. [35]

    Score Description 1 Visuals are broken, missing, or unreadable; severe rendering artifacts

    Visual Design and Production Quality.Evaluates the aesthetic quality, consistency, and professionalism of visual elements including typography, color, layout, and animations. Score Description 1 Visuals are broken, missing, or unreadable; severe rendering artifacts. 2 Functional but amateurish; inconsistent styling, poor contrast, or cluttered layouts. 3 ...

  36. [36]

    Score Description 1 No discernible teaching structure; concepts presented without context or progression

    Pedagogical Effectiveness.Evaluates how well the video teaches the intended concept, including pacing, scaffolding, and use of examples. Score Description 1 No discernible teaching structure; concepts presented without context or progression. 2 Attempts to explain but lacks scaffolding; jumps between concepts without bridging. 3 Reasonable pedagogical flo...

  37. [37]

    Score Description 1 Severe desynchronization; narration and visuals are unrelated or offset by multiple seconds

    Audio–Visual Synchronization.Evaluates alignment between narration and on-screen visuals, including timing of transitions, text highlights, and animation triggers. Score Description 1 Severe desynchronization; narration and visuals are unrelated or offset by multiple seconds. 2 Noticeable timing mismatches; visuals often appear before or after the relevan...

  38. [38]

    GRPO vs. PPO gradient flow

    Technical Accuracy of Visualizations.Evaluates the correctness of diagrams, equations, code snippets, and data representations shown in the video. Agent Skills ’26, May 26, 2026, San Jose, CA Ishan Gupta and Abhishek Chandwani Score Description 1 Visualizations contain fundamental errors (wrong equations, incorrect diagrams, fabricated data). 2 Partially ...

    2026

  39. [39]

    Note specific evidence (timestamps, visual elements, narration) relevant to that rubric

  40. [40]

    Match observations against each scale level

  41. [41]

    Do NOT interpolate

    Assign the integer score. Do NOT interpolate

  42. [42]

    rubric_scores

    Cite specific evidence in thinking_process. Return JSON only: {"rubric_scores": [ {"rubric_name": "...", "score": "<integer>", "matched_level": "<scale description>", "thinking_process": "Specific evidence: ..."} Agent Skills ’26, May 26, 2026, San Jose, CA Ishan Gupta and Abhishek Chandwani ]} The chapter-specific rubrics (rubrics 6–7 in this example) ar...

    2026