Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution

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.

Litmus: Zero-Label, Code-Driven Metric Specification for Evaluating AI Systems

As agentic LLM systems move from prototypes to deployment across increasingly diverse domains, evaluating them has become both more important and more difficult. The challenge is not only that individual metrics may be unreliable, but that evaluation goals are often left implicit. Without a clear account of what a system is expected to do, how it can fail, and which failures matter, metric choices become difficult to justify, interpret, or validate. We present Litmus, a zero-label system that designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines by eliciting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation. Instead of assuming that the evaluation target is already known, Litmus first identifies what must be measured and why, then converts those answers into constraints for constructing a justified, per-stage metric portfolio. We evaluate Litmus on three real, code-defined AI pipelines - financial account grouping, scientific QA, and inherent risk assessment - against AutoMetrics and three DynamicRubric baselines. Litmus achieves the broadest or tied-broadest concern coverage, spans more pipeline stages, produces a near-zero-redundancy portfolio, and ranks first in validity against per-row quality labels on all three pipelines - decisively on scientific QA (Spearman $ρ=0.72$ vs. less than $0.47$ for every baseline), and within overlapping confidence intervals in relation to two components of the audit framework despite using no labels during metric design. Our results support a shift from automatic metric implementation to automatic metric specification: before asking which metric to compute, evaluation systems should ask what must be measured and why.

Recursive Agent Harnesses

Recursive language models (RLMs) showed that recursion over model calls is an effective strategy for long-context reasoning, and production coding agents have begun to write code that spawns subagents at scale, most recently in Anthropic's dynamic workflows. We name and study the pattern between these two lines of work, where the recursive unit is a full agent harness with filesystem tools, code execution, and planning rather than a model call with no tools. We call this the Recursive Agent Harness (RAH) and frame it as harness recursion, the code-first extension to the model recursion of RLMs. A parent agent generates and runs an executable script that spawns subagent harnesses in parallel for fine-grained workloads and uses structured function calls for small subtasks. We provide a controlled evaluation on long-context reasoning. With the backbone held fixed at GPT-5 to match the published Codex and RLM baselines, RAH improves the Codex coding-agent baseline from 71.75% to 81.36% on Oolong-Synthetic (199 samples, 13 context-length buckets up to 4M tokens), a gain attributable to the harness rather than the model. With a stronger backbone, Claude Sonnet 4.5, the same design reaches 89.77%.

From Rows to Reasoning: A Retrieval-Augmented Multimodal Framework for Spreadsheet Understanding

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to reason over large-scale enterprise spreadsheets containing thousands of numeric rows, multiple linked sheets, and embedded visual content such as charts and receipts. Prior state-of-the-art spreadsheet reasoning approaches typically rely on single-sheet compression or full-context encoding, which limits scalability and fails to reflect how real users interact with complex, multimodal workbooks. We introduce FRTR-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark for multimodal spreadsheet reasoning, comprising 30 enterprise-grade Excel workbooks spanning nearly four million cells and more than 50 embedded images. To address these challenges, we present From Rows to Reasoning (FRTR), an advanced, multimodal retrieval-augmented generation framework that decomposes Excel workbooks into granular row, column, and block embeddings, employs hybrid lexical-dense retrieval with Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF), and integrates multimodal embeddings to reason over both numerical and visual information. We tested FRTR on six LLMs, achieving 74% answer accuracy on FRTR-Bench with Claude Sonnet 4.5, a substantial improvement over prior state-of-the-art approaches that reached only 24%. On the SpreadsheetLLM benchmark, FRTR achieved 87% accuracy with GPT-5 while reducing token usage by roughly 50% compared to context-compression methods.