ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agents

Deep Research (DR) is an emerging agent application that leverages large language models (LLMs) to address open-ended queries. It requires the integration of several capabilities, including multi-step reasoning, cross-document synthesis, and the generation of evidence-backed, long-form answers. Evaluating DR remains challenging because responses are lengthy and diverse, admit many valid solutions, and often depend on dynamic information sources. We introduce ResearchRubrics, a standardized benchmark for DR built with over 2,800+ hours of human labor that pairs realistic, domain-diverse prompts with 2,500+ expert-written, fine-grained rubrics to assess factual grounding, reasoning soundness, and clarity. We also propose a new complexity framework for categorizing DR tasks along three axes: conceptual breadth, logical nesting, and exploration. In addition, we develop human and model-based evaluation protocols that measure rubric adherence for DR agents. We evaluate several state-of-the-art DR systems and find that even leading agents like Gemini's DR and OpenAI's DR achieve under 68% average compliance with our rubrics, primarily due to missed implicit context and inadequate reasoning about retrieved information. Our results highlight the need for robust, scalable assessment of deep research capabilities, to which end we release ResearchRubrics(including all prompts, rubrics, and evaluation code) to facilitate progress toward well-justified research assistants.

Remote Labor Index: Measuring AI Automation of Remote Work

AIs have made rapid progress on research-oriented benchmarks of knowledge and reasoning, but it remains unclear how these gains translate into economic value and automation. To measure this, we introduce the Remote Labor Index (RLI), a broadly multi-sector benchmark comprising real-world, economically valuable projects designed to evaluate end-to-end agent performance in practical settings. AI agents perform near the floor on RLI, with the highest-performing agent achieving an automation rate of 2.5%. These results help ground discussions of AI automation in empirical evidence, setting a common basis for tracking AI impacts and enabling stakeholders to proactively navigate AI-driven labor automation.

Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agents

We stress test monitoring systems for detecting covert misbehavior in autonomous LLM agents (e.g., secretly sharing private information). To this end, we systematize a monitor red teaming (MRT) workflow that incorporates: (1) varying levels of agent and monitor situational awareness; (2) distinct adversarial strategies to evade the monitor, such as prompt injection; and (3) two datasets and environments -- SHADE-Arena for tool-calling agents and our new CUA-SHADE-Arena, which extends TheAgentCompany, for computer-use agents. We run MRT on existing LLM monitor scaffoldings, which orchestrate LLMs and parse agent trajectories, alongside a new hybrid hierarchical-sequential scaffolding proposed in this work. Our empirical results yield three key findings. First, agent awareness dominates monitor awareness: an agent's knowledge that it is being monitored substantially degrades the monitor's reliability. On the contrary, providing the monitor with more information about the agent is less helpful than expected. Second, monitor scaffolding matters more than monitor awareness: the hybrid scaffolding consistently outperforms baseline monitor scaffolding, and can enable weaker models to reliably monitor stronger agents -- a weak-to-strong scaling effect. Third, in a human-in-the-loop setting where humans discuss with the LLM monitor to get an updated judgment for the agent's behavior, targeted human oversight is most effective; escalating only pre-flagged cases to human reviewers improved the TPR by approximately 15% at FPR = 0.01. Our work establishes a standard workflow for MRT, highlighting the lack of adversarial robustness for LLMs and humans when monitoring and detecting agent misbehavior. We release code, data, and logs to spur further research.

The Illusion of Empathy: How AI Chatbots Shape Conversation Perception

As AI chatbots become more human-like by incorporating empathy, understanding user-centered perceptions of chatbot empathy and its impact on conversation quality remains essential yet under-explored. This study examines how chatbot identity and perceived empathy influence users' overall conversation experience. Analyzing 155 conversations from two datasets, we found that while GPT-based chatbots were rated significantly higher in conversational quality, they were consistently perceived as less empathetic than human conversational partners. Empathy ratings from GPT-4o annotations aligned with users' ratings, reinforcing the perception of lower empathy in chatbots. In contrast, 3 out of 5 empathy models trained on human-human conversations detected no significant differences in empathy language between chatbots and humans. Our findings underscore the critical role of perceived empathy in shaping conversation quality, revealing that achieving high-quality human-AI interactions requires more than simply embedding empathetic language; it necessitates addressing the nuanced ways users interpret and experience empathy in conversations with chatbots.

DiverseDialogue: A Methodology for Designing Chatbots with Human-Like Diversity

Large Language Models (LLMs), which simulate human users, are frequently employed to evaluate chatbots in applications such as tutoring and customer service. Effective evaluation necessitates a high degree of human-like diversity within these simulations. In this paper, we demonstrate that conversations generated by GPT-4o mini, when used as simulated human participants, systematically differ from those between actual humans across multiple linguistic features. These features include topic variation, lexical attributes, and both the average behavior and diversity (variance) of the language used. To address these discrepancies, we propose an approach that automatically generates prompts for user simulations by incorporating features derived from real human interactions, such as age, gender, emotional tone, and the topics discussed. We assess our approach using differential language analysis combined with deep linguistic inquiry. Our method of prompt optimization, tailored to target specific linguistic features, shows significant improvements. Specifically, it enhances the human-likeness of LLM chatbot conversations, increasing their linguistic diversity. On average, we observe a 54 percent reduction in the error of average features between human and LLM-generated conversations. This method of constructing chatbot sets with human-like diversity holds great potential for enhancing the evaluation process of user-facing bots.

Explicit and Implicit Large Language Model Personas Generate Opinions but Fail to Replicate Deeper Perceptions and Biases

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in human-centered social scientific tasks, such as data annotation, synthetic data creation, and engaging in dialog. However, these tasks are highly subjective and dependent on human factors, such as one's environment, attitudes, beliefs, and lived experiences. Thus, employing LLMs (which do not have such human factors) in these tasks may result in a lack of variation in data, failing to reflect the diversity of human experiences. In this paper, we examine the role of prompting LLMs with human-like personas and asking the models to answer as if they were a specific human. This is done explicitly, with exact demographics, political beliefs, and lived experiences, or implicitly via names prevalent in specific populations. The LLM personas are then evaluated via (1) subjective annotation task (e.g., detecting toxicity) and (2) a belief generation task, where both tasks are known to vary across human factors. We examine the impact of explicit vs. implicit personas and investigate which human factors LLMs recognize and respond to. Results show that LLM personas show mixed results when reproducing known human biases, but generate generally fail to demonstrate implicit biases. We conclude that LLMs lack the intrinsic cognitive mechanisms of human thought, while capturing the statistical patterns of how people speak, which may restrict their effectiveness in complex social science applications.

Vernacular? I Barely Know Her: Challenges with Style Control and Stereotyping

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in educational and learning applications. Research has demonstrated that controlling for style, to fit the needs of the learner, fosters increased understanding, promotes inclusion, and helps with knowledge distillation. To understand the capabilities and limitations of contemporary LLMs in style control, we evaluated five state-of-the-art models: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, GPT-4o, Llama-3, and Mistral-instruct- 7B across two style control tasks. We observed significant inconsistencies in the first task, with model performances averaging between 5th and 8th grade reading levels for tasks intended for first-graders, and standard deviations up to 27.6. For our second task, we observed a statistically significant improvement in performance from 0.02 to 0.26. However, we find that even without stereotypes in reference texts, LLMs often generated culturally insensitive content during their tasks. We provide a thorough analysis and discussion of the results.

Using LLMs to Aid Annotation and Collection of Clinically-Enriched Data in Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia

NLP in mental health has been primarily social media focused. Real world practitioners also have high case loads and often domain specific variables, of which modern LLMs lack context. We take a dataset made by recruiting 644 participants, including individuals diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder (BD), Schizophrenia (SZ), and Healthy Controls (HC). Participants undertook tasks derived from a standardized mental health instrument, and the resulting data were transcribed and annotated by experts across five clinical variables. This paper demonstrates the application of contemporary language models in sequence-to-sequence tasks to enhance mental health research. Specifically, we illustrate how these models can facilitate the deployment of mental health instruments, data collection, and data annotation with high accuracy and scalability. We show that small models are capable of annotation for domain-specific clinical variables, data collection for mental-health instruments, and perform better then commercial large models.