HarnessEval-W: Agentifying the Evaluation of Visual Worlds

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16859v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:43:24 GMT
• Title: HarnessEval-W: Agentifying the Evaluation of Visual Worlds
• Abstract summary: HarnessEval-W is an agentified evaluation pipeline for benchmarking world models.<n>Rather than applying a fixed rubric, HarnessEval-W decomposes the evaluation question into measurable subproblems.<n>We apply HarnessEval-W to 18 representative world models over 330 evaluation cases.
• Score: 149.63310396189317
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: A benchmark should deliver more than a scalar score: what makes an evaluation trustworthy is the reasoning that justifies the score. This is especially critical for world models, where judging a rollout requires understanding whether physics, causality, and world state evolve correctly. Humans spot such violations naturally, yet no existing benchmark automates this capability: metrics are computed brute-force, leaving no reasoning chain that can be examined or verified. We introduce HarnessEval-W, an agentified evaluation pipeline that brings the harness paradigm from the LLM ecosystem to world model benchmarking. Rather than applying a fixed rubric, HarnessEval-W interprets the context of each evaluation case, decomposes the evaluation question into measurable subproblems, and spawns specialized sub-agents, each equipped with tailored context and diagnostic tools to reason over its own subproblem. The parent agent then validates the gathered evidence and summarizes it into the final verdict. This hierarchical workflow turns every evaluation into a transparent evidence tree whose complete reasoning chain justifies the result. We apply HarnessEval-W to 18 representative world models over 330 evaluation cases. Its judgments closely align with human preferences while providing verifiable, fine-grained diagnoses of every generated rollout. We open-source the full pipeline as a live benchmark and invite the broad community to contribute to grow new skills and evaluation cases as world models evolve.

Related papers

• Position: Evaluation Scores Are Perishable Knowledge Claims [0.0]
  We argue that evaluation scores should be treated as claims with three properties: formality, scope, and validity windows.<n>We illustrate the cost of mean aggregation on the public HELM leaderboard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T18:50:39Z)
• Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery [95.44432473367836]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured.<n>We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discnative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence.<n>We introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T08:56:43Z)
• Pixels Don't Lie (But Your Detector Might): Bootstrapping MLLM-as-a-Judge for Trustworthy Deepfake Detection and Reasoning Supervision [25.382800247901827]
  DeepfakeJudge is a framework for scalable reasoning supervision and evaluation.<n>It integrates an out-of-distribution benchmark containing recent generative and editing forgeries, a human-annotated subset with visual reasoning labels, and a suite of evaluation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T11:08:46Z)
• Benchmarking at the Edge of Comprehension [38.43582342860192]
  If benchmarking becomes infeasible, our ability to measure any progress in AI is at stake.<n>We propose Critique-Resilient Benchmarking, an adversarial framework designed to compare models even when full human understanding is infeasible.<n>Unlike standard benchmarking, humans serve as bounded verifiers and focus on localized claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T20:51:29Z)
• DisastQA: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Question Answering in Disaster Management [27.25517951457221]
  We introduce DisastQA, a large-scale benchmark of 3,000 rigorously verified questions (2,000 multiple-choice and 1,000 open-ended) spanning eight disaster types.<n>For open-ended QA, we propose a human-verified keypoint-based evaluation protocol emphasizing factual completeness over verbosity.<n>Experiments with 20 models reveal substantial divergences from general-purpose leaderboards such as MMLU-Pro.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T07:46:42Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• AttributionBench: How Hard is Automatic Attribution Evaluation? [19.872081697282002]
  We present AttributionBench, a comprehensive benchmark compiled from various existing attribution datasets. Our experiments show that even a fine-tuned GPT-3.5 only achieves around 80% macro-F1 under a binary classification formulation. A detailed analysis of more than 300 error cases indicates that a majority of failures stem from the model's inability to process nuanced information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T04:23:33Z)
• OpinSummEval: Revisiting Automated Evaluation for Opinion Summarization [52.720711541731205]
  We present OpinSummEval, a dataset comprising human judgments and outputs from 14 opinion summarization models. Our findings indicate that metrics based on neural networks generally outperform non-neural ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T13:09:54Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• From Adversarial Arms Race to Model-centric Evaluation: Motivating a Unified Automatic Robustness Evaluation Framework [91.94389491920309]
  Textual adversarial attacks can discover models' weaknesses by adding semantic-preserved but misleading perturbations to the inputs. The existing practice of robustness evaluation may exhibit issues of incomprehensive evaluation, impractical evaluation protocol, and invalid adversarial samples. We set up a unified automatic robustness evaluation framework, shifting towards model-centric evaluation to exploit the advantages of adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T14:55:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.