FieldWorkArena: Agentic AI Benchmark for Real Field Work Tasks

This paper proposes FieldWorkArena, a benchmark for agentic AI targeting real-world field work. With the recent increase in demand for agentic AI, they are required to monitor and report safety and health incidents, as well as manufacturing-related incidents, that may occur in real-world work environments. Existing agentic AI benchmarks have been limited to evaluating web tasks and are insufficient for evaluating agents in real-world work environments, where complexity increases significantly. In this paper, we define a new action space that agentic AI should possess for real world work environment benchmarks and improve the evaluation function from previous methods to assess the performance of agentic AI in diverse real-world tasks. The dataset consists of videos captured on-site and documents actually used in factories and warehouses, and tasks were created based on interviews with on-site workers and managers. Evaluation results confirmed that performance evaluation considering the characteristics of Multimodal LLM (MLLM) such as GPT-4o is feasible. Additionally, the effectiveness and limitations of the proposed new evaluation method were identified. The complete dataset (HuggingFace) and evaluation program (GitHub) can be downloaded from the following website: https://en-documents.research.global.fujitsu.com/fieldworkarena/.

The CoT Encyclopedia: Analyzing, Predicting, and Controlling how a Reasoning Model will Think

Long chain-of-thought (CoT) is an essential ingredient in effective usage of modern large language models, but our understanding of the reasoning strategies underlying these capabilities remains limited. While some prior works have attempted to categorize CoTs using predefined strategy types, such approaches are constrained by human intuition and fail to capture the full diversity of model behaviors. In this work, we introduce the CoT Encyclopedia, a bottom-up framework for analyzing and steering model reasoning. Our method automatically extracts diverse reasoning criteria from model-generated CoTs, embeds them into a semantic space, clusters them into representative categories, and derives contrastive rubrics to interpret reasoning behavior. Human evaluations show that this framework produces more interpretable and comprehensive analyses than existing methods. Moreover, we demonstrate that this understanding enables performance gains: we can predict which strategy a model is likely to use and guide it toward more effective alternatives. Finally, we provide practical insights, such as that training data format (e.g., free-form vs. multiple-choice) has a far greater impact on reasoning behavior than data domain, underscoring the importance of format-aware model design.

VisualPuzzles: Decoupling Multimodal Reasoning Evaluation from Domain Knowledge

Current multimodal benchmarks often conflate reasoning with domain-specific knowledge, making it difficult to isolate and evaluate general reasoning abilities in non-expert settings. To address this, we introduce VisualPuzzles, a benchmark that targets visual reasoning while deliberately minimizing reliance on specialized knowledge. VisualPuzzles consists of diverse questions spanning five categories: algorithmic, analogical, deductive, inductive, and spatial reasoning. One major source of our questions is manually translated logical reasoning questions from the Chinese Civil Service Examination. Experiments show that VisualPuzzles requires significantly less intensive domain-specific knowledge and more complex reasoning compared to benchmarks like MMMU, enabling us to better evaluate genuine multimodal reasoning. Evaluations show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models consistently lag behind human performance on VisualPuzzles, and that strong performance on knowledge-intensive benchmarks does not necessarily translate to success on reasoning-focused, knowledge-light tasks. Additionally, reasoning enhancements such as scaling up inference compute (with "thinking" modes) yield inconsistent gains across models and task types, and we observe no clear correlation between model size and performance. We also found that models exhibit different reasoning and answering patterns on VisualPuzzles compared to benchmarks with heavier emphasis on knowledge. VisualPuzzles offers a clearer lens through which to evaluate reasoning capabilities beyond factual recall and domain knowledge.

Do LLMs Understand Your Translations? Evaluating Paragraph-level MT with Question Answering

Despite the steady progress in machine translation evaluation, existing automatic metrics struggle to capture how well meaning is preserved beyond sentence boundaries. We posit that reliance on a single intrinsic quality score, trained to mimic human judgments, might be insufficient for evaluating translations of long, complex passages, and a more ``pragmatic'' approach that assesses how accurately key information is conveyed by a translation in context is needed. We introduce TREQA (Translation Evaluation via Question-Answering), a framework that extrinsically evaluates translation quality by assessing how accurately candidate translations answer reading comprehension questions that target key information in the original source or reference texts. In challenging domains that require long-range understanding, such as literary texts, we show that TREQA is competitive with and, in some cases, outperforms state-of-the-art neural and LLM-based metrics in ranking alternative paragraph-level translations, despite never being explicitly optimized to correlate with human judgments. Furthermore, the generated questions and answers offer interpretability: empirical analysis shows that they effectively target translation errors identified by experts in evaluated datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/deep-spin/treqa

Inducing Programmatic Skills for Agentic Tasks

To succeed in common digital tasks such as web navigation, agents must carry out a variety of specialized tasks such as searching for products or planning a travel route. To tackle these tasks, agents can bootstrap themselves by learning task-specific skills online through interaction with the web environment. In this work, we demonstrate that programs are an effective representation for skills. We propose agent skill induction (ASI), which allows agents to adapt themselves by inducing, verifying, and utilizing program-based skills on the fly. We start with an evaluation on the WebArena agent benchmark and show that ASI outperforms the static baseline agent and its text-skill counterpart by 23.5% and 11.3% in success rate, mainly thanks to the programmatic verification guarantee during the induction phase. ASI also improves efficiency by reducing 10.7-15.3% of the steps over baselines, by composing primitive actions (e.g., click) into higher-level skills (e.g., search product). We then highlight the efficacy of ASI in remaining efficient and accurate under scaled-up web activities. Finally, we examine the generalizability of induced skills when transferring between websites, and find that ASI can effectively reuse common skills, while also updating incompatible skills to versatile website changes.

SkillWeaver: Web Agents can Self-Improve by Discovering and Honing Skills

To survive and thrive in complex environments, humans have evolved sophisticated self-improvement mechanisms through environment exploration, hierarchical abstraction of experiences into reuseable skills, and collaborative construction of an ever-growing skill repertoire. Despite recent advancements, autonomous web agents still lack crucial self-improvement capabilities, struggling with procedural knowledge abstraction, refining skills, and skill composition. In this work, we introduce SkillWeaver, a skill-centric framework enabling agents to self-improve by autonomously synthesizing reusable skills as APIs. Given a new website, the agent autonomously discovers skills, executes them for practice, and distills practice experiences into robust APIs. Iterative exploration continually expands a library of lightweight, plug-and-play APIs, significantly enhancing the agent's capabilities. Experiments on WebArena and real-world websites demonstrate the efficacy of SkillWeaver, achieving relative success rate improvements of 31.8% and 39.8%, respectively. Additionally, APIs synthesized by strong agents substantially enhance weaker agents through transferable skills, yielding improvements of up to 54.3% on WebArena. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of honing diverse website interactions into APIs, which can be seamlessly shared among various web agents.

M-Prometheus: A Suite of Open Multilingual LLM Judges

The use of language models for automatically evaluating long-form text (LLM-as-a-judge) is becoming increasingly common, yet most LLM judges are optimized exclusively for English, with strategies for enhancing their multilingual evaluation capabilities remaining largely unexplored in the current literature. This has created a disparity in the quality of automatic evaluation methods for non-English languages, ultimately hindering the development of models with better multilingual capabilities. To bridge this gap, we introduce M-Prometheus, a suite of open-weight LLM judges ranging from 3B to 14B parameters that can provide both direct assessment and pairwise comparison feedback on multilingual outputs. M-Prometheus models outperform state-of-the-art open LLM judges on multilingual reward benchmarks spanning more than 20 languages, as well as on literary machine translation (MT) evaluation covering 4 language pairs. Furthermore, M-Prometheus models can be leveraged at decoding time to significantly improve generated outputs across all 3 tested languages, showcasing their utility for the development of better multilingual models. Lastly, through extensive ablations, we identify the key factors for obtaining an effective multilingual judge, including backbone model selection and training on natively multilingual feedback data instead of translated data. We release our models, training dataset, and code.

Scaling Evaluation-time Compute with Reasoning Models as Process Evaluators

As language model (LM) outputs get more and more natural, it is becoming more difficult than ever to evaluate their quality. Simultaneously, increasing LMs' "thinking" time through scaling test-time compute has proven an effective technique to solve challenging problems in domains such as math and code. This raises a natural question: can an LM's evaluation capability also be improved by spending more test-time compute? To answer this, we investigate employing reasoning models-LMs that natively generate long chain-of-thought reasoning-as evaluators. Specifically, we examine methods to leverage more test-time compute by (1) using reasoning models, and (2) prompting these models to evaluate not only the response as a whole (i.e., outcome evaluation) but also assess each step in the response separately (i.e., process evaluation). In experiments, we observe that the evaluator's performance improves monotonically when generating more reasoning tokens, similar to the trends observed in LM-based generation. Furthermore, we use these more accurate evaluators to rerank multiple generations, and demonstrate that spending more compute at evaluation time can be as effective as using more compute at generation time in improving an LM's problem-solving capability.

Overtrained Language Models Are Harder to Fine-Tune

Large language models are pre-trained on ever-growing token budgets under the assumption that better pre-training performance translates to improved downstream models. In this work, we challenge this assumption and show that extended pre-training can make models harder to fine-tune, leading to degraded final performance. We term this phenomenon catastrophic overtraining. For example, the instruction-tuned OLMo-1B model pre-trained on 3T tokens leads to over 2% worse performance on multiple standard LLM benchmarks than its 2.3T token counterpart. Through controlled experiments and theoretical analysis, we show that catastrophic overtraining arises from a systematic increase in the broad sensitivity of pre-trained parameters to modifications, including but not limited to fine-tuning. Our findings call for a critical reassessment of pre-training design that considers the downstream adaptability of the model.

Benchmarking Failures in Tool-Augmented Language Models

The integration of tools has extended the capabilities of language models (LMs) beyond vanilla text generation to versatile scenarios. However, tool-augmented language models (TaLMs) often assume 'perfect' information access and tool availability, which may not hold in the real world. To systematically study TaLMs' imperfections, we introduce the FAIL-TALMS benchmark, featuring two major failures: under-specified user queries and non-available tools. FAIL-TALMS contains 1,749 examples using 906 tools across 21 categories, including single- and multi-tool usage. We evaluate top-performing proprietary and open-source models, and find all current models except for Claude struggle to recognize missing tools or information. Further, to study possible mitigation of the failures, we enable real-time human interaction, named the Ask-and-Help (AAH) method, to provide missing information or replace non-functional tools. While AAH can help models solve tasks more correctly when queries are under-specified, it brings minimal benefit when complex tools are broken.