Towards Characterizing Scientific Image Utility and Upgradability

Scientific images function as critical evidence in research communication, yet their integrity faces unprecedented threats from AI-generated content that introduces subtle but consequential errors. Existing evaluation paradigms prove inadequate: perceptual quality metrics poorly correlate with scientific validity, while language models lack domain-specific verification capabilities. To address this gap, we propose the \textbf{S}cientific \textbf{I}mage \textbf{U}tility and \textbf{U}pgradability \textbf{A}ssessment (\textbf{SIU$^2$A}) framework, which introduces two complementary dimensions for scientific image evaluation. \textbf{Utility} encompasses \textit{error detection} (identifying scientific inaccuracies) and \textit{correction feasibility} (assessing whether errors can be reliably repaired). \textbf{Upgradability} measures the quality of correction. We categorize scientific image corruption into four fundamental types: Detail Distortion, Incompleteness, False Content, and Entity Confusion. Based on this taxonomy, we construct SIU$^2$A-Benchmark, a dataset with expert annotations for error identification and repair. The framework implements a two-stage evaluation protocol: the \textit{Utility} stage evaluates error detection capability and repair instruction generation, while the \textit{Upgradability} stage assesses whether corrections faithfully restore scientific validity without compromising existing accurate information. Experiments reveal that current multimodal systems exhibit significant limitations in both scientific error assessment and faithful correction, exposing a fundamental gap between visual perception and scientific usability.

STAR : Bridging Statistical and Agentic Reasoning for Large Model Performance Prediction

As comprehensive large model evaluation becomes prohibitively expensive, predicting model performance from limited observations has become essential. However, existing statistical methods struggle with pattern shifts, data sparsity, and lack of explanation, while pure LLM methods remain unreliable. We propose STAR, a framework that bridges data-driven STatistical expectations with knowledge-driven Agentic Reasoning. STAR leverages specialized retrievers to gather external knowledge and embeds semantic features into Constrained Probabilistic Matrix Factorization (CPMF) to generate statistical expectations with uncertainty. A reasoning module guided by Expectation Violation Theory (EVT) then refines predictions through intra-family analysis, cross-model comparison, and credibility-aware aggregation, producing adjustments with traceable explanations. Extensive experiments show that STAR consistently outperforms all baselines on both score-based and rank-based metrics, delivering a 14.46% gain in total score over the strongest statistical method under extreme sparsity, with only 1--2 observed scores per test model.

EvolMem: A Cognitive-Driven Benchmark for Multi-Session Dialogue Memory

Despite recent advances in understanding and leveraging long-range conversational memory, existing benchmarks still lack systematic evaluation of large language models(LLMs) across diverse memory dimensions, particularly in multi-session settings. In this work, we propose EvolMem, a new benchmark for assessing multi-session memory capabilities of LLMs and agent systems. EvolMem is grounded in cognitive psychology and encompasses both declarative and non-declarative memory, further decomposed into multiple fine-grained abilities. To construct the benchmark, we introduce a hybrid data synthesis framework that consists of topic-initiated generation and narrative-inspired transformations. This framework enables scalable generation of multi-session conversations with controllable complexity, accompanied by sample-specific evaluation guidelines. Extensive evaluation reveals that no LLM consistently outperforms others across all memory dimensions. Moreover, agent memory mechanisms do not necessarily enhance LLMs' capabilities and often exhibit notable efficiency limitations. Data and code will be released at https://github.com/shenye7436/EvolMem.

A Multi-To-One Interview Paradigm for Efficient MLLM Evaluation

The rapid progress of Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has spurred the creation of numerous benchmarks. However, conventional full-coverage Question-Answering evaluations suffer from high redundancy and low efficiency. Inspired by human interview processes, we propose a multi-to-one interview paradigm for efficient MLLM evaluation. Our framework consists of (i) a two-stage interview strategy with pre-interview and formal interview phases, (ii) dynamic adjustment of interviewer weights to ensure fairness, and (iii) an adaptive mechanism for question difficulty-level chosen. Experiments on different benchmarks show that the proposed paradigm achieves significantly higher correlation with full-coverage results than random sampling, with improvements of up to 17.6% in PLCC and 16.7% in SRCC, while reducing the number of required questions. These findings demonstrate that the proposed paradigm provides a reliable and efficient alternative for large-scale MLLM benchmarking.

The Ever-Evolving Science Exam

As foundation models grow rapidly in capability and deployment, evaluating their scientific understanding becomes increasingly critical. Existing science benchmarks have made progress towards broad **Range**, wide **Reach**, and high **Rigor**, yet they often face two major challenges: **data leakage risks** that compromise benchmarking validity, and **evaluation inefficiency** due to large-scale testing. To address these issues, we introduce the **Ever-Evolving Science Exam (EESE)**, a dynamic benchmark designed to reliably assess scientific capabilities in foundation models. Our approach consists of two components: 1) a non-public **EESE-Pool** with over 100K expertly constructed science instances (question-answer pairs) across 5 disciplines and 500+ subfields, built through a multi-stage pipeline ensuring **Range**, **Reach**, and **Rigor**, 2) a periodically updated 500-instance subset **EESE**, sampled and validated to enable leakage-resilient, low-overhead evaluations. Experiments on 32 open- and closed-source models demonstrate that EESE effectively differentiates the strengths and weaknesses of models in scientific fields and cognitive dimensions. Overall, EESE provides a robust, scalable, and forward-compatible solution for science benchmark design, offering a realistic measure of how well foundation models handle science questions. The project page is at: https://github.com/aiben-ch/EESE.