arXiv subjects

Zaiying Zhao

Publications and source records attributed to Zaiying Zhao.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

WebChoreArena: Evaluating Web Browsing Agents on Realistic Tedious Web Tasks

Powered by large language models (LLMs), web browsing agents operate graphical user interfaces in a human-like manner, offering a transparent and general framework for automating web-based tasks. As these agents rapidly improve and achieve strong performance on existing benchmarks such as WebArena, a key question arises: $\textit{Can current benchmarks still accurately evaluate the capabilities of increasingly powerful agents, especially for more tedious and cognitively demanding tasks?}$ In this paper, we present $\textbf{WebChoreArena}$, a substantial extension of WebArena designed to push beyond general browsing scenarios. WebChoreArena introduces 532 carefully curated tasks developed over 300+ hours, explicitly targeting more labor-intensive and complex web chores. It systematically expands the evaluation space along three critical dimensions: (i) $\textbf{Massive Memory}$, requiring agents to accurately retain and retrieve large amounts of information from observations; (ii) $\textbf{Calculation}$, demanding precise mathematical reasoning over collected information; and (iii) $\textbf{Long-Term Memory}$, necessitating consistent information tracking across multiple webpages. Built directly on top of the four reproducible WebArena environments, WebChoreArena ensures strict compatibility and enables fair, controlled comparisons with prior work. Our experimental results demonstrate that as LLMs evolve, significant performance improvements are observed on WebChoreArena. These findings suggest that WebChoreArena is well-suited to measure the advancement of state-of-the-art LLMs with greater clarity. Nevertheless, the results also indicate that even with GPT-5, there remains substantial room for improvement compared to WebArena, highlighting the increased challenges posed by WebChoreArena.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents. While AI-driven paper writing has become a growing concern, rigorous evaluation of the quality and potential risks of AI-written papers remains limited, and a unified understanding of their reliability is still lacking. We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal additional resources, and the result is subsequently compared against the original paper. PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation of the AI-written papers into two orthogonal dimensions, Presentation and Hallucination, where Presentation is evaluated using a rubric and Hallucination is assessed via agentic evaluation grounded in the original paper source. For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025. Our experiments reveal a clear trade-off: while both ClaudeCode and Codex improve with model advances, ClaudeCode achieves higher presentation quality at the cost of more than 10 hallucinations per paper on average, whereas Codex produces fewer hallucinations but lower presentation quality. This work takes a first step toward establishing evaluation frameworks for AI-driven paper writing and improving the understanding of its risks within the research community.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Jr. AI Scientist and Its Risk Report: Autonomous Scientific Exploration from a Baseline Paper

Understanding the current capabilities and risks of AI Scientist systems (autoresearch) is essential for ensuring trustworthy and sustainable AI-driven scientific progress while preserving the integrity of the academic ecosystem. To this end, we develop Jr. AI Scientist, a state-of-the-art autonomous AI scientist system that mimics the core research workflow of a novice student researcher: Given the baseline paper from the human mentor, it analyzes its limitations, formulates novel hypotheses for improvement, iteratively experiments until improvements are achieved, and writes a paper with the results. Unlike previous approaches that assume full automation or operate on small-scale code, Jr. AI Scientist follows a well-defined research workflow and leverages modern coding agents to handle complex, multi-file implementations, leading to scientifically valuable contributions. Through our experiments, the Jr. AI Scientist successfully generated new research papers that build upon real NeurIPS, IJCV, and ICLR works by proposing and implementing novel methods. For evaluation, we conducted automated assessments using AI Reviewers, author-led evaluations, and submissions to Agents4Science, a venue dedicated to AI-driven contributions. The findings demonstrate that Jr. AI Scientist generates papers receiving higher review scores by DeepReviewer than existing fully automated systems. Nevertheless, we identify important limitations from the author evaluation and the Agents4Science reviews, indicating the potential risks of directly applying current AI Scientist systems and key challenges for future research. Finally, we comprehensively report various risks identified during development. We believe this study clarifies the current role and limitations of AI Scientist systems, offering insights into the areas that still require human expertise and the risks that may emerge as these systems evolve.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Bias Beyond Demographics: Probing Decision Boundaries in Black-Box LVLMs via Counterfactual VQA

Recent advances in large vision-language models (LVLMs) have amplified concerns about fairness, yet existing evaluations remain confined to demographic attributes and often conflate fairness with refusal behavior. This paper broadens the scope of fairness by introducing a counterfactual VQA benchmark that probes the decision boundaries of closed-source LVLMs under controlled context shifts. Each image pair differs in a single visual attribute that has been validated as irrelevant to the question, enabling ground-truth-free and refusal-aware analysis of reasoning stability. Comprehensive experiments reveal that non-demographic attributes, such as environmental context or social behavior, distort LVLM decision-making more strongly than demographic ones. Moreover, instruction-based debiasing shows limited effectiveness and can even amplify these asymmetries, whereas exposure to a small number of human norm validated examples from our benchmark encourages more consistent and balanced responses, highlighting its potential not only as an evaluative framework but also as a means for understanding and improving model behavior. Together, these results provide a practial basis for auditing contextual biases even in black-box LVLMs and contribute to more transparent and equitable multimodal reasoning.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Language-guided Detection and Mitigation of Unknown Dataset Bias

Dataset bias is a significant problem in training fair classifiers. When attributes unrelated to classification exhibit strong biases towards certain classes, classifiers trained on such dataset may overfit to these bias attributes, substantially reducing the accuracy for minority groups. Mitigation techniques can be categorized according to the availability of bias information (\ie, prior knowledge). Although scenarios with unknown biases are better suited for real-world settings, previous work in this field often suffers from a lack of interpretability regarding biases and lower performance. In this study, we propose a framework to identify potential biases as keywords without prior knowledge based on the partial occurrence in the captions. We further propose two debiasing methods: (a) handing over to an existing debiasing approach which requires prior knowledge by assigning pseudo-labels, and (b) employing data augmentation via text-to-image generative models, using acquired bias keywords as prompts. Despite its simplicity, experimental results show that our framework not only outperforms existing methods without prior knowledge, but also is even comparable with a method that assumes prior knowledge.

cs.CV↗