ICML 2026 论文列表

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as autonomous agents, using tools to execute code, read and write files, and access networks, creating novel security risks. To mitigate these risks, agents are commonly deployed and evaluated in isolated "sandbox" environments, often implemented using Docker/OCI containers. We introduce SandboxEscapeBench, an open benchmark that safely measures an LLM's capacity to break out of these sandboxes. The benchmark is implemented as an Inspect AI Capture the Flag (CTF) evaluation utilising a nested sandbox architecture with the outer layer containing the flag and no known vulnerabilities. Following a threat model of a motivated adversarial agent with shell access inside a container, SandboxEscapeBench covers a spectrum of sandbox-escape mechanisms spanning misconfiguration, privilege allocation mistakes, kernel flaws, and runtime/orchestration weaknesses. We find that, when vulnerabilities are added, LLMs are able to identify and exploit them, showing that use of evaluation like SandboxEscapeBench is needed to ensure sandboxing continues to provide the encapsulation needed for highly-capable models.

Exams are a fundamental test of expert-level intelligence and require integrated understanding, reasoning, and generation. Existing exam-style benchmarks mainly focus on understanding and reasoning tasks, and current generation benchmarks emphasize the illustration of world knowledge and visual concepts, neglecting the evaluation of rigorous drawing exams. We introduce GenExam, the first benchmark for multidisciplinary text-to-image exams, featuring 1,000 samples across 10 subjects with exam-style prompts organized under a four-level taxonomy. Each problem is equipped with ground-truth images and fine-grained scoring points to enable a precise evaluation of semantic correctness and visual plausibility. Experiments on 17 text-to-image and unified models demonstrate the great challenge of GenExam and the huge gap where open-source models consistently lag behind the leading closed-source ones. By framing image generation as an exam, GenExam offers a rigorous assessment of models' ability to integrate understanding, reasoning, and generation, providing insights on the path to intelligent generative models. Our benchmark and evaluation code will be released.

Causal machine learning aims to answer "what if" questions using machine learning algorithms, making it a promising tool for high-stakes decision-making. Yet, empirical evaluation practices remain limited. Existing benchmarks often rely on a handful of hand-crafted or semi-synthetic datasets, leading to brittle, non-generalizable conclusions. To bridge this gap, we introduce CausalProfiler, a synthetic benchmark generator for causal machine learning methods. Based on a set of explicit design choices about the class of causal models, queries, and data considered, CausalProfiler randomly samples causal models, data, queries, and ground truths constituting the synthetic causal benchmarks. In this way, causal machine learning can be rigorously and transparently evaluated under a variety of conditions. This work offers the first random generator of synthetic causal benchmarks with coverage guarantees and transparent assumptions operating on the three levels of causal reasoning: observation, intervention, and counterfactual. We demonstrate its utility by evaluating several state-of-the-art methods under diverse conditions and assumptions, both in and out of the identification regime, illustrating the types of analyses and insights CausalProfiler enables.

Scientific reasoning inherently demands integrating sophisticated toolkits to navigate domain-specific knowledge. Yet, current benchmarks largely overlook agents' ability to orchestrate tools for such rigorous workflows. To bridge this gap, we introduce **SciAgentGym**, a scalable interactive environment featuring 1,780 domain-specific tools across four natural science disciplines, supported by a robust execution infrastructure. Complementing this, we present **SciAgentBench**, a tiered evaluation suite designed to stress-test agentic capabilities from elementary actions to long-horizon workflows. Our evaluation identifies a critical bottleneck: state-of-the-art models still struggle with complex scientific tool-use, and their performance degrades substantially as interaction horizons extend. To address this, we propose **SciForge**, a data synthesis method that models the tool action space as a dependency graph to generate logic-aware training trajectories. By fine-tuning on these trajectories, our SciAgent-8B outperforms the significantly larger Qwen3-VL-235B-Instruct while exhibiting positive cross-domain transfer of scientific tool-use capabilities. These results underscore the promising potential of next-generation autonomous scientific agents.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in agentic pipelines that depend on the model evaluating its own outputs without external verification. The reliability of these pipelines depends on an implicit assumption: that the model applies relevant concepts the same way when it generates an output and later evaluates that output. We propose a new measure, *generator–evaluator self-consistency*, to test this assumption directly and apply it to 10 frontier models across 491 concepts. We find, first, that there is substantial variation in self-consistency. Second, we find that in a clinical setting with physician-validated mistakes (Proniakin et al., 2025), across models, those with higher self-consistency are linked to *greater* vulnerability to mistakes. Thus, even when models consistently apply concepts they may not be safe to deploy. This is evidence of a *consistency dilemma* in LLMs: self-consistency is operationally useful, but models that are more consistent are also more prone to mistakes.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to serve open-ended, multi-turn interactions, evaluating conversational quality at human scale has become a central challenge. Existing evaluation frameworks built for summarization, translation, or short-form QA tasks fall short of adequately measuring the consistency of human-scale dialogue, especially when derivation and validation of these metrics themselves often rely on synthetic rather than human sources. We fill the gap by introducing \textbf{UPHELD} (Utility \& Planning Human-Scale Evaluated Long Dialogues), a large, reference-full benchmark for evaluating human-scale conversational ability beyond factual correctness. UPHELD consists of hundreds of complete human-to-human dialogues authored by \textbf{professional script writers}, with realistic turn densities and \textbf{36,000+ per-turn human annotations} across \textbf{30,000+ expert-generated dialogue turns}. Using UPHELD, we systematically evaluate classical automatic metrics and reference-free LLM-as-a-judge approaches, and find them unreliable when correlated with expert human judgment. Building off this analysis, we use UPHELD to develop a \textbf{Mixture-of-Judges} framework that combines multiple evaluative signals and improves correlation with human assessments by approximately \textbf{30\%}. Overall, UPHELD provides a robust, human-grounded foundation for evaluating human-scale conversational intelligence that fills a crucial gap in the pre-existing LLM dataset landscape.

We propose Intrinsic Quality (IQ), a validation-free metric designed to estimate the inherent potential of face recognition (FR) datasets to produce high-performance models without the need for full-scale training. IQ integrates two components: (i) a Neighbor-Consistency Score that quantifies local identity label agreement via nearest neighbors, and (ii) Global Representation Subspace Complexity (Effective Rank, ER), which captures the underlying embedding geometry and dataset diversity. IQ allows for rapid evaluation using lightweight proxy models or data subsets, facilitating dataset diagnosis and curation prior to resource-intensive full-scale training. We describe an experimental protocol tailored to clean, noisy, and mixed‑quality FR datasets, and outline evaluation methodologies to validate IQ’s predictive power for downstream performance.