AGORA: An Archive-Grounded Benchmark for Agentic Workplace Document Reasoning

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that reason over documents rather than answer from parametric knowledge. We study archive-grounded reasoning: locating sparse evidence across a large, messy collection of workplace files, reconciling inconsistent terminology, units, and time conventions, and computing an answer. Existing benchmarks address only parts of this setting and none jointly stresses archive-groundedness, agentic exploration, and cross-domain coverage. We introduce Agora, a benchmark pairing 362 questions with eight domain collections of 9,664 authentic documents and 372M tokens, far exceeding any model's context window, so agents must explore deliberately rather than scan exhaustively. Agora is built by an agentic pipeline combining cross-document task synthesis, leakage-preventing obfuscation, and difficulty filtering. Evaluating eight models, we find the task far from solved: even the strongest reaches only 59.4% accuracy, with notable variation across domains.

LLMEval-Logic: A Solver-Verified Chinese Benchmark for Logical Reasoning of LLMs with Adversarial Hardening

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on natural-language logical reasoning is essential because rule-governed tasks require conclusions to follow strictly from stated premises. Many existing logical-reasoning benchmarks are generated by templating natural-language items from sampled formulas, provide only coarse or unaudited formal annotations, and are now quickly saturated by frontier reasoning models. We present LLMEval-Logic, a Chinese logical reasoning benchmark built from realistic situational scenarios. Its pipeline forward-authors and expert-audits natural-language items together with their reference formalizations, verifies annotated answers with Z3, constructs expert rubrics for natural-to-formal grading, and hardens selected items through a closed-loop adversarial workflow. The benchmark is released in two paired subsets: a 246-item Base subset shipped with 1,400 expert-developed rubric atoms, and a 190-item Hard subset with 938 multi-step sub-questions over closed model spaces. Evaluating 14 frontier LLMs on LLMEval-Logic reveals substantial gaps in current models: the best model reaches only 37.5% Hard Item Accuracy, and even with reference symbols the highest joint Z3+Rubric formalization score among evaluated models reaches only 60.16%. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval/LLMEval-Logic.

SciAgentGym: Benchmarking Multi-Step Scientific Tool-use in LLM Agents

Scientific reasoning inherently demands integrating sophisticated toolkits to navigate domain-specific knowledge. Yet, current benchmarks largely overlook agents' ability to orchestrate tools for such rigorous workflows. To bridge this gap, we introduce SciAgentGym, a scalable interactive environment featuring 1,780 domain-specific tools across four natural science disciplines, supported by a robust execution infrastructure. Complementing this, we present SciAgentBench, a tiered evaluation suite designed to stress-test agentic capabilities from elementary actions to long-horizon workflows. Our evaluation identifies a critical bottleneck: state-of-the-art models struggle with complex scientific tool-use. Even for a leading model like GPT-5, success rates drop sharply from 60.6% to 30.9% as interaction horizons extend, primarily due to failures in multi-step workflow execution. To address this, we propose SciForge, a data synthesis method that models the tool action space as a dependency graph to generate logic-aware training trajectories. By fine-tuning on these trajectories, our SciAgent-8B outperforms the significantly larger Qwen3-VL-235B-Instruct while exhibiting positive cross-domain transfer of scientific tool-use capabilities. These results underscore the promising potential of next-generation autonomous scientific agents.

LLMEval-3: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study on Robust and Fair Evaluation of Large Language Models

Existing evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on static benchmarks is vulnerable to data contamination and leaderboard overfitting, critical issues that obscure true model capabilities. To address this, we introduce LLMEval-3, a framework for dynamic evaluation of LLMs. LLMEval-3 is built on a proprietary bank of 220k graduate-level questions, from which it dynamically samples unseen test sets for each evaluation run. Its automated pipeline ensures integrity via contamination-resistant data curation, a novel anti-cheating architecture, and a calibrated LLM-as-a-judge process achieving 90% agreement with human experts, complemented by a relative ranking system for fair comparison. An 20-month longitudinal study of nearly 50 leading models reveals a performance ceiling on knowledge memorization and exposes data contamination vulnerabilities undetectable by static benchmarks. The framework demonstrates exceptional robustness in ranking stability and consistency, providing strong empirical validation for the dynamic evaluation paradigm. LLMEval-3 offers a robust and credible methodology for assessing the true capabilities of LLMs beyond leaderboard scores, promoting the development of more trustworthy evaluation standards.