Language-model agents increasingly tackle long-horizon tasks in interactive environments, yet their evaluation commonly relies on task-level success rates by reducing an entire execution trajectory to whether the task passes an official verifier. This binary score hides partial progress and is particularly limited for procedural agent skill evaluations, since a skill can alter execution without changing the final outcome. While checklists provide finer-grained evaluation by scoring individual task requirements, costly manual authoring and unreliable automatic generation make trustworthy evaluation difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we introduce Grounded Checklist Partial Credit (GCPC), a human-governed and LLM-instantiated partial-credit evaluation of agent trajectories. Humans define reusable rules once, from which an LLM instantiates a task-specific checklist grounded in the task instruction and official verifier. To keep judgment tied to evidence, a judge scores each item from execution log evidence alone and abstains when evidence is missing. A separate scripted step then applies the official verifier outcome to the score. Across a 4,455-trajectory, deduplicated SkillsBench evaluation population, GCPC better discriminates official PASS and FAIL outcomes than holistic judging on the shared subset (AUC 0.689 vs. 0.619). Human evaluation on 96 trajectories from 12 tasks shows that GCPC aligns more closely with human assessments of progress. Applied to 1,946 matched with/without-skill pairs, GCPC exposes the effects hidden by pass@1: among 879 pairs whose binary outcome does not change, 20.9% improve by more than 0.10 while 18.7% regress by the same margin. The GCPC pipeline also transfers to Terminal-Bench and SWE-bench, demonstrating applicability beyond skill-conditioned evaluation.
Agent skills are increasingly used to equip large language model (LLM) agents with reusable procedural knowledge. Although recent work has substantially improved skill retrieval due to the increasing skill libraries, retrieving a plausible skill bundle does not guarantee that executing it is worthwhile. Since every skill-conditioned rollout is computationally expensive, deciding whether a retrieved bundle should be executed has become an increasingly important challenge. To this end, we introduce the Reward-Aware Dynamic Execution Gate (RADEG), a lightweight, retriever-agnostic decision layer between skill retrieval and agent execution. RADEG learns a low-cost surrogate model that predicts the execution utility of a query--bundle pair before the expensive rollout is launched. To obtain informative supervision while controlling for task difficulty, we locally perturb each retrieved bundle by deleting, adding, or replacing one skill, producing matched same-query rollouts that isolate the effect of bundle composition on verifier reward. During deployment, RADEG updates only a warm-started logistic head as new verifier feedback becomes available, enabling inexpensive adaptation of the execute/skip boundary without retraining either the retriever or the agent. Under a query-level held-out evaluation on 288 collected rollouts, RADEG substantially reduces unnecessary agent executions while preserving a large fraction of the downstream verifier reward. It consistently outperforms relevance-based and random gating across different execution budgets, demonstrating that execution-aware surrogate modeling provides a practical and cost-effective complement to skill retrieval.
CRIP, a personalized OSFL framework that operates in the representation space via channel-level feature alignment, consistently outperforms local models and state-of-the-art baselines, validating the effectiveness of representation-space personalization under extreme domain heterogeneity.
Zijian Jiang, Chaoli Sun, Handing Wang et al.· 0 citations
Visual token compression for vision--language models (VLMs) has largely relied on criteria such as attention, redundancy, and uncertainty to maximize average accuracy under a fixed compute budget, implicitly assuming that all errors carry equal cost. However, the consequence of an incorrect prediction on downstream tasks is rarely symmetric: misreading an invoice amount can be far more costly than misclassifying a background color. Motivated by this, we introduce consequence-sensitive visual token compression, which allocates visual computation across requests according to their potential error costs. Our method follows a calibrate-then-allocate procedure, estimating consequence-specific error-budget curves offline and applying the calibrated token budgets online using consequence signals available from question or task information. On a controlled within-task benchmark, high- and low-consequence questions are drawn from the same document images, so content alone cannot reveal which questions are costly to get wrong. In this setting, our method reduces high-stakes errors from 0.300 to 0.133 under the same total token budget, whereas a content-driven allocator performs no better than uniform allocation. Measuring how error rates change with token budget across different cost ratios, we derive an allocation frontier: uniform allocation is optimal when errors are equally costly, and token transfer toward high-consequence questions becomes increasingly beneficial as the cost gap grows. This allocation principle generalizes well across three dense vision-language benchmarks, two budget realization mechanisms (token deletion and resolution reallocation), two VLM architectures, and multiple token selection strategies. On a realistic mixed workload, consequence-sensitive allocation reduces cost-weighted error by 38% while achieving approximately 21% lower latency than full-resolution inference.
Jing Wen, Liang He, Mingyu Cao et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
