arXiv:2604.04399v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating GUI agents presents a distinct challenge: trajectories are long, visually grounded, and open-ended, yet evaluation must be both accurate and interpretable. Existing approaches typically apply a single holistic judgment over the entire action-observation sequence-a strategy that proves unreliable on long-horizon tasks and yields binary verdicts offering no insight into where or why an agent fails. This opacity limits the utility of evaluation as a diagnostic tool for agent development. We introduce GUIDE (GUI Understanding and Interpretable Diagnostic Evaluation), a framework that decomposes trajectory assessment into three sequential stages mirroring the compositional structure of GUI tasks. Trajectory Segmentation partitions the full trace into semantically coherent subtask units. Subtask Diagnosis evaluates each unit in context, assigning a completion verdict and generating a structured error analysis with corrective recommendations. Overall Summary aggregates per-subtask diagnoses into a task-level judgment. By operating on bounded subtask segments rather than full trajectories, GUIDE mitigates the context overload that degrades existing evaluators as task complexity grows. We validate GUIDE on three benchmarks: an industrial e-commerce dataset of 932 trajectories, AGENTREWARDBENCH spanning five web agent tasks with 1302 trajectories, and AndroidBench for mobile device control. Across all settings, GUIDE substantially outperforms existing evaluators-achieving up to 5.35 percentage points higher accuracy than the strongest baseline-while producing structured diagnostic reports that directly inform agent improvement.

arXiv:2604.03925v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models struggle to accumulate evidence across multiple rounds of user interaction, failing to update their beliefs in a manner consistent with Bayesian inference. Existing solutions require fine-tuning on sensitive user interaction data, limiting their applicability in privacy-conscious settings. We propose AdaptFuse, a training-free framework that externalizes probabilistic computation entirely from the LLM: a symbolic module maintains a Bayesian posterior over a discrete hypothesis set, while a frozen LLM contributes semantic reasoning via multi-sample Dirichlet aggregation. The two signals are combined through entropy-adaptive fusion, which automatically weights each source by its predictive confidence, shifting reliance from the LLM to the symbolic posterior as evidence accumulates. We evaluate across three domains: flight recommendation, hotel recommendation, and web shopping; on Gemma 2 9B, Llama 3 8B, and Qwen 2.5 7B. AdaptFuse consistently outperforms both prompting baselines and fine-tuned Bayesian Teaching models on all tasks, with accuracy improving monotonically over interaction rounds. These results demonstrate that principled inference-time algorithms can substitute for fine-tuning in personalized recommendation, without storing or training on sensitive user data. All the code and materials will be open-sourced.

arXiv:2604.02368v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.