The advent of complex, interconnected long-horizon LLM systems has made it incredibly tricky to identify where and when these systems break down. Evaluation capabilities that currently exist today are limited in that they often focus on simple metrics, end-to-end outcomes, and are dependent on the perspectives of humans. In order to match the increasing complexity of these many component systems, evaluation frameworks must also be able to reason, probe, iterate, and understand the nuanced logic passing through these systems. In this paper, we present RAFFLES, an offline evaluation architecture that incorporates iterative reasoning. Specifically, RAFFLES operates as an iterative, multi-component pipeline, using a central Judge to systematically identify faults and a set of specialized Evaluators to assess the quality of the candidate faults as well as rationales of the Judge. We evaluated RAFFLES with several benchmarks - the Who&When dataset to identify step-level faults in multi-agent systems and the ReasonEval datasets to diagnose step-level mathematical reasoning errors. RAFFLES outperforms strong baselines, achieving an accuracy of over 20% and 50% on the Who&When Hand-Crafted and Algorithmically-Generated datasets, and over 80% on the ReasonEval datasets. These results demonstrate a key step towards introducing automated fault detection for autonomous systems over labor-intensive manual review.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a common technique for grounding language model outputs in domain-specific information. However, RAG is often challenged by reasoning-intensive question-answering (QA), since common retrieval methods like cosine similarity maximize relevance at the cost of introducing redundant content, which can reduce information recall. To address this, we introduce Diversity-Focused Retrieval-Augmented Generation (DF-RAG) that systematically incorporates diversity into the retrieval step to improve performance on complex, reasoning-intensive QA benchmarks. DF-RAG builds upon the Maximal Marginal Relevance framework to select information chunks that are both relevant to the query and maximally dissimilar from each other. A key innovation of DF-RAG is its ability to optimize the level of diversity for each query dynamically at test time without requiring any additional fine-tuning or prior information. We show that DF-RAG improves F1 performance on reasoning-intensive QA benchmarks by 4–10% over vanilla RAG using cosine similarity and also outperforms other established baselines. Furthermore, we estimate an Oracle ceiling of up to 18% absolute F1 gains over vanilla RAG, of which DF-RAG captures up to 91.3%.

Determining the veracity of atomic claims is an imperative component of many recently proposed fact-checking systems. Many approaches tackle this problem by first retrieving evidence by querying a search engine and then performing classification by providing the evidence set and atomic claim to a large language model, but this process deviates from what a human would do in order to perform the task. Recent work attempted to address this issue by proposing iterative evidence retrieval, allowing for evidence to be collected several times and only when necessary. Continuing along this line of research, we propose a novel claim verification system, called EMULATE, which is designed to better emulate human actions through the use of a multi-agent framework where each agent performs a small part of the larger task, such as ranking search results according to predefined criteria or evaluating webpage content. Extensive experiments on several benchmarks show clear improvements over prior work, demonstrating the efficacy of our new multi-agent framework. Our code is available at https://github.com/qqqube/EMULATE.

Various watermarking methods (“watermarkers”) have been proposed to identify LLM-generated texts; yet, due to the lack of unified evaluation platforms, many critical questions remain under-explored: i) What are the strengths/limitations of various watermarkers, especially their attack robustness? ii) How do various design choices impact their robustness? iii) How to optimally operate watermarkers in adversarial environments? To fill this gap, we systematize existing LLM watermarkers and watermark removal attacks, mapping out their design spaces. We then develop WaterPark, a unified platform that integrates 10 state-of-the-art watermarkers and 12 representative attacks. More importantly, by leveraging WaterPark, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of existing watermarkers, unveiling the impact of various design choices on their attack robustness. We further explore the best practices to operate watermarkers in adversarial environments. We believe our study sheds light on current LLM watermarking techniques while WaterPark serves as a valuable testbed to facilitate future research.