AI agents may assist with emails and documents, but can they reliably complete everyday online workflows on real websites? Everyday online tasks offer a realistic yet unsolved testbed for evaluating next-generation AI agents. To this end, we introduce ClawBench, an evaluation framework comprising 153 everyday online tasks common in daily life and work, spanning 144 platforms across 15 categories, from completing purchases and booking appointments to submitting job applications. These tasks require capabilities beyond existing benchmarks, such as obtaining relevant information from user-provided documents, navigating multi-step workflows across diverse platforms, and write-heavy operations like filling in many detailed forms correctly. Unlike existing benchmarks that evaluate agents in offline sandboxes with static pages, ClawBench operates on production websites, preserving the full complexity, dynamic nature, and interaction challenges of real-world web environments. An interception layer captures and blocks the final submission request, ensuring safe evaluation without real-world side effects. Our evaluations of 8 frontier models show that both proprietary and open-source models complete only a small portion of these tasks. For example, Claude Sonnet 4.6 achieves only 33.3%, which exposes gaps in current AI agents. Progress on ClawBench brings us closer to AI agents that can function as general-purpose assistants.

Agentic repository-level code understanding is essential for automating complex software engineering tasks, yet the field lacks reliable benchmarks. Existing evaluations often overlook the long tail topics and rely on popular repositories where Large Language Models (LLMs) can cheat via memorized knowledge. To address this, we introduce SWE-QA-Pro, a benchmark constructed from diverse, long-tail repositories with executable environments. We enforce topical balance via issue-driven clustering to cover under-represented task types and apply a rigorous difficulty calibration process: questions solvable by direct-answer baselines are filtered out. This results in a dataset where agentic workflows significantly outperform direct answering (e.g., a ~13-point gap for Claude Sonnet 4.5), confirming the necessity of agentic codebase exploration. Furthermore, to tackle the scarcity of training data for such complex behaviors, we propose a scalable synthetic data pipeline that powers a two-stage training recipe: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) followed by Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF). This approach allows small open models to learn efficient tool usage and reasoning. Empirically, a Qwen3-8B model trained with our recipe surpasses GPT-4o by 2.3 points on SWE-QA-Pro and substantially narrows the gap to state-of-the-art proprietary models, demonstrating both the validity of our evaluation and the effectiveness of our agentic training workflow.

Recent studies suggest that video generative models can exhibit certain forms of zero-shot visual reasoning through generated frames. Yet reliable evaluation remains challenging: benchmarks should adopt inputs aligned with the visual priors of current video models, require valid evolving processes rather than only plausible final states, and calibrate task difficulty to remain challenging yet partly feasible. To this end, we introduce VGI-Bench, containing 27 tasks and 810 instances, organized by a two-level taxonomy of domains and skill tags for evaluating the visual reasoning capabilities of video generative models. Our evaluations show that current generative systems can solve a subset of visually grounded reasoning tasks, but remain far from reliable, with even the strongest model, Seedance 2.0, achieving only 51.0% under our evaluation criteria. Our findings further reveal the input sensitivity, skill-bounded transfer from synthetic fine-tuning, and limited denoising-time self-correction, where later steps mainly refine early hypotheses rather than correct reasoning errors. We hope VGI-Bench will help stimulate the development of next-generation video generative models. Data and code are available at [our project page](https://hexuan21.github.io/VGI-Bench/).

In the era of data-driven decision-making, Long-Form Table Question Answering (LFTQA) is essential for integrating structured data with complex reasoning. Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) for LFTQA, evaluating their effectiveness remains a significant challenge. We introduce LFTQA-Eval, a meta-evaluation dataset comprising 2,988 human-annotated examples, to rigorously assess the efficacy of current automated metrics in assessing LLM-based LFTQA systems, with a focus on faithfulness and comprehensiveness. Our findings reveal that existing automatic metrics poorly correlate with human judgments and fail to consistently differentiate between factually accurate responses and those that are coherent but factually incorrect. Additionally, our in-depth examination of the limitations associated with automated evaluation methods provides essential insights for the improvement of LFTQA automated evaluation.