Daily Papers

While machine learning on graphs has demonstrated promise in drug design and molecular property prediction, significant benchmarking challenges hinder its further progress and relevance. Current benchmarking practices often lack focus on transformative, real-world applications, favoring narrow domains like two-dimensional molecular graphs over broader, impactful areas such as combinatorial optimization, relational databases, or chip design. Additionally, many benchmark datasets poorly represent the underlying data, leading to inadequate abstractions and misaligned use cases. Fragmented evaluations and an excessive focus on accuracy further exacerbate these issues, incentivizing overfitting rather than fostering generalizable insights. These limitations have prevented the development of truly useful graph foundation models. This position paper calls for a paradigm shift toward more meaningful benchmarks, rigorous evaluation protocols, and stronger collaboration with domain experts to drive impactful and reliable advances in graph learning research, unlocking the potential of graph learning.

Large language model (LLM) simulations of human behavior have the potential to revolutionize the social and behavioral sciences, if and only if they faithfully reflect real human behaviors. Current evaluations are fragmented, based on bespoke tasks and metrics, creating a patchwork of incomparable results. To address this, we introduce SimBench, the first large-scale, standardized benchmark for a robust, reproducible science of LLM simulation. By unifying 20 diverse datasets covering tasks from moral decision-making to economic choice across a large global participant pool, SimBench provides the necessary foundation to ask fundamental questions about when, how, and why LLM simulations succeed or fail. We show that, while even the best LLMs today have limited simulation ability (score: 40.80/100), performance scales log-linearly with model size. Simulation performance is not improved by increased inference-time compute. We demonstrate an alignment-simulation trade-off: instruction-tuning improves performance on low-entropy (consensus) questions but degrades it on high-entropy (diverse) ones. Models particularly struggle when simulating specific demographic groups. Finally, we demonstrate that simulation ability correlates most strongly with deep, knowledge-intensive reasoning (MMLU-Pro, r=0.939). By making progress measurable, we aim to accelerate the development of more faithful LLM simulators.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models and world models have recently emerged as promising paradigms for general-purpose robotic intelligence, yet their progress is hindered by the lack of reliable evaluation protocols that reflect real-world deployment. Existing benchmarks are largely simulator-centric, which provide controllability but fail to capture the reality gap caused by perception noise, complex contact dynamics, hardware constraints, and system latency. Moreover, fragmented real-world evaluations across different robot platforms prevent fair and reproducible comparison. To address these challenges, we introduce ManipArena, a standardized evaluation framework designed to bridge simulation and real-world execution. ManipArena comprises 20 diverse tasks across 10,812 expert trajectories emphasizing reasoning-oriented manipulation tasks requiring semantic and spatial reasoning, supports multi-level generalization through controlled out-of-distribution settings, and incorporates long-horizon mobile manipulation beyond tabletop scenarios. The framework further provides rich sensory diagnostics, including low-level motor signals, and synchronized real-to-sim environments constructed via high-quality 3D scanning. Together, these features enable fair, realistic, and reproducible evaluation for both VLA and world model approaches, providing a scalable foundation for diagnosing and advancing embodied intelligence systems.

Multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (MM-RAG) is a key approach for applying large language models (LLMs) and agents to real-world knowledge bases, yet current evaluations are fragmented, focusing on either text or images in isolation or on simplified multimodal setups that fail to capture document-centric multimodal use cases. In this paper, we introduce UniDoc-Bench, the first large-scale, realistic benchmark for MM-RAG built from 70k real-world PDF pages across eight domains. Our pipeline extracts and links evidence from text, tables, and figures, then generates 1,600 multimodal QA pairs spanning factual retrieval, comparison, summarization, and logical reasoning queries. To ensure reliability, 20% of QA pairs are validated by multiple annotators and expert adjudication. UniDoc-Bench supports apples-to-apples comparison across four paradigms: (1) text-only, (2) image-only, (3) multimodal text-image fusion, and (4) multimodal joint retrieval -- under a unified protocol with standardized candidate pools, prompts, and evaluation metrics. Our experiments show that multimodal text-image fusion RAG systems consistently outperform both unimodal and jointly multimodal embedding-based retrieval, indicating that neither text nor images alone are sufficient and that current multimodal embeddings remain inadequate. Beyond benchmarking, our analysis reveals when and how visual context complements textual evidence, uncovers systematic failure modes, and offers actionable guidance for developing more robust MM-RAG pipelines.

Recovering editable CAD programs from images or 3D observations is central to AI-assisted design, but progress is difficult to measure because existing evaluations are fragmented across datasets, modalities, and metrics. We introduce CADBench, a unified benchmark for multimodal CAD program generation. CADBench contains 18,000 evaluation samples spanning six benchmark families derived from DeepCAD, Fusion 360, ABC, MCB, and Objaverse; five input modalities including clean meshes, noisy meshes, single-view renders, photorealistic renders, and multi-view renders; and six metrics covering geometric fidelity, executability, and program compactness. STEP-based families are stratified by B-rep face count and all families are diversity-sampled to support controlled analysis across complexity and object variation. We benchmark eleven CAD-specialized and general-purpose vision-language systems, generating more than 1.4 million CAD programs. Under idealized inputs, specialized mesh-to-CAD models substantially outperform code-generating VLMs, which remain far from reliable CAD program reconstruction. CADBench further reveals three recurring failure modes: reconstruction quality degrades with geometric complexity, CAD-specialized models can be brittle under modality shift, and model rankings change across metrics. Together, these results position CADBench as a diagnostic testbed for measuring progress in editable 3D reconstruction and multimodal CAD understanding. The benchmark is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/DeCoDELab/CADBench.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are emerging as a unified substrate for embodied intelligence. This shift raises a new class of safety challenges, stemming from the embodied nature of VLA systems, including irreversible physical consequences, a multimodal attack surface across vision, language, and state, real-time latency constraints on defense, error propagation over long-horizon trajectories, and vulnerabilities in the data supply chain. Yet the literature remains fragmented across robotic learning, adversarial machine learning, AI alignment, and autonomous systems safety. This survey provides a unified and up-to-date overview of safety in Vision-Language-Action models. We organize the field along two parallel timing axes, attack timing (training-time vs. inference-time and defense timing (training-time vs. inference-time, linking each class of threat to the stage at which it can be mitigated. We first define the scope of VLA safety, distinguishing it from text-only LLM safety and classical robotic safety, and review the foundations of VLA models, including architectures, training paradigms, and inference mechanisms. We then examine the literature through four lenses: Attacks, Defenses, Evaluation, and Deployment. We survey training-time threats such as data poisoning and backdoors, as well as inference-time attacks including adversarial patches, cross-modal perturbations, semantic jailbreaks, and freezing attacks. We review training-time and runtime defenses, analyze existing benchmarks and metrics, and discuss safety challenges across six deployment domains. Finally, we highlight key open problems, including certified robustness for embodied trajectories, physically realizable defenses, safety-aware training, unified runtime safety architectures, and standardized evaluation.

With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), general-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements. However, evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks. We observe that current agent benchmarks are heavily confounded by extraneous factors, including system prompts, toolset configurations, and environmental dynamics. Existing evaluations often rely on fragmented, researcher-specific frameworks where the prompt engineering for reasoning and tool usage varies significantly, making it difficult to attribute performance gains to the model itself. Additionally, the lack of standardized environmental data leads to untraceable errors and non-reproducible results. This lack of standardization introduces substantial unfairness and opacity into the field. We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation. To this end, we introduce a proposal aimed at standardizing agent evaluation.

The adeptness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in comprehending and following natural language instructions is critical for their deployment in sophisticated real-world applications. Existing evaluations mainly focus on fragmented constraints or narrow scenarios, but they overlook the comprehensiveness and authenticity of constraints from the user's perspective. To bridge this gap, we propose CFBench, a large-scale Comprehensive Constraints Following Benchmark for LLMs, featuring 1,000 curated samples that cover more than 200 real-life scenarios and over 50 NLP tasks. CFBench meticulously compiles constraints from real-world instructions and constructs an innovative systematic framework for constraint types, which includes 10 primary categories and over 25 subcategories, and ensures each constraint is seamlessly integrated within the instructions. To make certain that the evaluation of LLM outputs aligns with user perceptions, we propose an advanced methodology that integrates multi-dimensional assessment criteria with requirement prioritization, covering various perspectives of constraints, instructions, and requirement fulfillment. Evaluating current leading LLMs on CFBench reveals substantial room for improvement in constraints following, and we further investigate influencing factors and enhancement strategies. The data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/PKU-Baichuan-MLSystemLab/CFBench

Beneath the stunning visual fidelity of modern AIGC models lies a "logical desert", where systems fail tasks that require physical, causal, or complex spatial reasoning. Current evaluations largely rely on superficial metrics or fragmented benchmarks, creating a ``performance mirage'' that overlooks the generative process. To address this, we introduce ViGoR Vision-G}nerative Reasoning-centric Benchmark), a unified framework designed to dismantle this mirage. ViGoR distinguishes itself through four key innovations: 1) holistic cross-modal coverage bridging Image-to-Image and Video tasks; 2) a dual-track mechanism evaluating both intermediate processes and final results; 3) an evidence-grounded automated judge ensuring high human alignment; and 4) granular diagnostic analysis that decomposes performance into fine-grained cognitive dimensions. Experiments on over 20 leading models reveal that even state-of-the-art systems harbor significant reasoning deficits, establishing ViGoR as a critical ``stress test'' for the next generation of intelligent vision models. The demo have been available at https://vincenthancoder.github.io/ViGoR-Bench/

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable capabilities but remain vulnerable to adversarial prompts known as jailbreaks, which can bypass safety alignment and elicit harmful outputs. Despite growing efforts in LLM safety research, existing evaluations are often fragmented, focused on isolated attack or defense techniques, and lack systematic, reproducible analysis. In this work, we introduce PandaGuard, a unified and modular framework that models LLM jailbreak safety as a multi-agent system comprising attackers, defenders, and judges. Our framework implements 19 attack methods and 12 defense mechanisms, along with multiple judgment strategies, all within a flexible plugin architecture supporting diverse LLM interfaces, multiple interaction modes, and configuration-driven experimentation that enhances reproducibility and practical deployment. Built on this framework, we develop PandaBench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates the interactions between these attack/defense methods across 49 LLMs and various judgment approaches, requiring over 3 billion tokens to execute. Our extensive evaluation reveals key insights into model vulnerabilities, defense cost-performance trade-offs, and judge consistency. We find that no single defense is optimal across all dimensions and that judge disagreement introduces nontrivial variance in safety assessments. We release the code, configurations, and evaluation results to support transparent and reproducible research in LLM safety.

As an agent-level reasoning and coordination paradigm, Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) orchestrates multiple agents through structured debate to improve answer quality and support complex reasoning. However, existing research on MAD suffers from two fundamental limitations: evaluations are conducted under fragmented and inconsistent settings, hindering fair comparison, and are largely restricted to single-modality scenarios that rely on textual inputs only. To address these gaps, we introduce M3MAD-Bench, a unified and extensible benchmark for evaluating MAD methods across Multi-domain tasks, Multi-modal inputs, and Multi-dimensional metrics. M3MAD-Bench establishes standardized protocols over five core task domains: Knowledge, Mathematics, Medicine, Natural Sciences, and Complex Reasoning, and systematically covers both pure text and vision-language datasets, enabling controlled cross-modality comparison. We evaluate MAD methods on nine base models spanning different architectures, scales, and modality capabilities. Beyond accuracy, M3MAD-Bench incorporates efficiency-oriented metrics such as token consumption and inference time, providing a holistic view of performance--cost trade-offs. Extensive experiments yield systematic insights into the effectiveness, robustness, and efficiency of MAD across text-only and multimodal scenarios. We believe M3MAD-Bench offers a reliable foundation for future research on standardized MAD evaluation. The code is available at http://github.com/liaolea/M3MAD-Bench.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a cornerstone of knowledge-intensive applications, including enterprise chatbots, healthcare assistants, and agentic memory management. However, recent studies show that knowledge-extraction attacks can recover sensitive knowledge-base content through maliciously crafted queries, raising serious concerns about intellectual property theft and privacy leakage. While prior work has explored individual attack and defense techniques, the research landscape remains fragmented, spanning heterogeneous retrieval embeddings, diverse generation models, and evaluations based on non-standardized metrics and inconsistent datasets. To address this gap, we introduce the first systematic benchmark for knowledge-extraction attacks on RAG systems. Our benchmark covers a broad spectrum of attack and defense strategies, representative retrieval embedding models, and both open- and closed-source generators, all evaluated under a unified experimental framework with standardized protocols across multiple datasets. By consolidating the experimental landscape and enabling reproducible, comparable evaluation, this benchmark provides actionable insights and a practical foundation for developing privacy-preserving RAG systems in the face of emerging knowledge extraction threats. Our code is available here.

Self-supervised learning (SSL) has emerged as a promising paradigm in medical imaging, addressing the chronic challenge of limited labeled data in healthcare settings. While SSL has shown impressive results, existing studies in the medical domain are often limited in scope, focusing on specific datasets or modalities, or evaluating only isolated aspects of model performance. This fragmented evaluation approach poses a significant challenge, as models deployed in critical medical settings must not only achieve high accuracy but also demonstrate robust performance and generalizability across diverse datasets and varying conditions. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive evaluation of SSL methods within the medical domain, with a particular focus on robustness and generalizability. Using the MedMNIST dataset collection as a standardized benchmark, we evaluate 8 major SSL methods across 11 different medical datasets. Our study provides an in-depth analysis of model performance in both in-domain scenarios and the detection of out-of-distribution (OOD) samples, while exploring the effect of various initialization strategies, model architectures, and multi-domain pre-training. We further assess the generalizability of SSL methods through cross-dataset evaluations and the in-domain performance with varying label proportions (1%, 10%, and 100%) to simulate real-world scenarios with limited supervision. We hope this comprehensive benchmark helps practitioners and researchers make more informed decisions when applying SSL methods to medical applications.

The primary way to establish and compare competencies in foundation and generative AI models has shifted from peer-reviewed literature to press releases and company blog posts, where model builders highlight results on selected benchmarks. These artifacts now largely define the state of the art for researchers and the public. Despite their prominence, which benchmarks model builders choose to highlight, and what they communicate through this selection, is underexamined. To investigate, we introduce and open-source Benchmarking-Cultures-25, a dataset of 231 benchmarks highlighted across 139 model releases in 2025 from 11 major AI builders, alongside an interactive tool to explore the data. Our analysis reveals a fragmented evaluation landscape with limited cross-model comparability: 63.2% of highlighted benchmarks are used by a single builder, and 38.5% appear in just one release. Few achieve widespread use (e.g., GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench, AIME 2025). Moreover, benchmarks are attributed different competencies by different builders, depending on their narrative. To disentangle these conflicting presentations, we develop a unified taxonomy mapping diverging terminology to a shared framework of measured signals based on what benchmark authors claim to measure. "General knowledge application" is the second most popular, yet vaguely defined, category. Qualitative analysis shows many such benchmarks deemphasize construct validity, instead framing results as indicators of progress toward AGI. Their authors claim to measure knowledge or reasoning broadly, yet mostly evaluate STEM subjects (especially math). We argue that highlighted benchmarks function less as standardized measurement tools and more as flexible narrative devices prioritizing market positioning over scientific evaluation. Data: https://hf.co/datasets/matybohacek/benchmarking-cultures-25; tool: https://bench-cultures.net.

Recent Omni-multimodal Large Language Models show promise in unified audio, vision, and text modeling. However, streaming audio-video understanding remains challenging, as existing approaches suffer from disjointed capabilities: they typically exhibit incomplete modality support or lack autonomous proactive monitoring. To address this, we present ROMA, a real-time omni-multimodal assistant for unified reactive and proactive interaction. ROMA processes continuous inputs as synchronized multimodal units, aligning dense audio with discrete video frames to handle granularity mismatches. For online decision-making, we introduce a lightweight speak head that decouples response initiation from generation to ensure precise triggering without task conflict. We train ROMA with a curated streaming dataset and a two-stage curriculum that progressively optimizes for streaming format adaptation and proactive responsiveness. To standardize the fragmented evaluation landscape, we reorganize diverse benchmarks into a unified suite covering both proactive (alert, narration) and reactive (QA) settings. Extensive experiments across 12 benchmarks demonstrate ROMA achieves state-of-the-art performance on proactive tasks while competitive in reactive settings, validating its robustness in unified real-time omni-multimodal understanding.

Generative world models (WMs) can now simulate worlds with striking visual realism, which naturally raises the question of whether they can endow embodied agents with predictive perception for decision making. Progress on this question has been limited by fragmented evaluation: most existing benchmarks adopt open-loop protocols that emphasize visual quality in isolation, leaving the core issue of embodied utility unresolved, i.e., do WMs actually help agents succeed at embodied tasks? To address this gap, we introduce World-in-World, the first open platform that benchmarks WMs in a closed-loop world that mirrors real agent-environment interactions. World-in-World provides a unified online planning strategy and a standardized action API, enabling heterogeneous WMs for decision making. We curate four closed-loop environments that rigorously evaluate diverse WMs, prioritize task success as the primary metric, and move beyond the common focus on visual quality; we also present the first data scaling law for world models in embodied settings. Our study uncovers three surprises: (1) visual quality alone does not guarantee task success, controllability matters more; (2) scaling post-training with action-observation data is more effective than upgrading the pretrained video generators; and (3) allocating more inference-time compute allows WMs to substantially improve closed-loop performance.

Data science agents promise to accelerate discovery and insight-generation by turning data into executable analyses and findings. Yet existing data science benchmarks fall short due to fragmented evaluation interfaces that make cross-benchmark comparison difficult, narrow task coverage and a lack of rigorous data grounding. In particular, we show that a substantial portion of tasks in current benchmarks can be solved without using the actual data. To address these limitations, we introduce DSGym, a standardized framework for evaluating and training data science agents in self-contained execution environments. Unlike static benchmarks, DSGym provides a modular architecture that makes it easy to add tasks, agent scaffolds, and tools, positioning it as a live, extensible testbed. We curate DSGym-Tasks, a holistic task suite that standardizes and refines existing benchmarks via quality and shortcut solvability filtering. We further expand coverage with (1) DSBio: expert-derived bioinformatics tasks grounded in literature and (2) DSPredict: challenging prediction tasks spanning domains such as computer vision, molecular prediction, and single-cell perturbation. Beyond evaluation, DSGym enables agent training via execution-verified data synthesis pipeline. As a case study, we build a 2,000-example training set and trained a 4B model in DSGym that outperforms GPT-4o on standardized analysis benchmarks. Overall, DSGym enables rigorous end-to-end measurement of whether agents can plan, implement, and validate data analyses in realistic scientific context.

Large language models (LLMs) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting achieve strong reasoning but often produce unnecessarily long explanations, increasing cost and sometimes reducing accuracy. Fair comparison of efficiency-oriented approaches is hindered by fragmented evaluation practices. We introduce EffiReason-Bench, a unified benchmark for rigorous cross-paradigm evaluation of efficient reasoning methods across three categories: Reasoning Blueprints, Dynamic Execution, and Post-hoc Refinement. To enable step-by-step evaluation, we construct verified CoT annotations for CommonsenseQA and LogiQA via a pipeline that enforces standardized reasoning structures, comprehensive option-wise analysis, and human verification. We evaluate 7 methods across 6 open-source LLMs (1B-70B) on 4 datasets spanning mathematics, commonsense, and logic, and propose the E3-Score, a principled metric inspired by economic trade-off modeling that provides smooth, stable evaluation without discontinuities or heavy reliance on heuristics. Experiments show that no single method universally dominates; optimal strategies depend on backbone scale, task complexity, and architecture.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has produced substantial gains in reasoning, perception, and generative capability across language and vision. However, whether these advances yield commensurate improvements in safety remains unclear, in part due to fragmented evaluation practices limited to single modalities or threat models. In this report, we present an integrated safety evaluation of 7 frontier models: GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, Qwen3-VL, Doubao 1.8, Grok 4.1 Fast, Nano Banana Pro, and Seedream 4.5. We evaluate each model across language, vision-language, and image generation settings using a unified protocol that integrates benchmark evaluation, adversarial evaluation, multilingual evaluation, and compliance evaluation. Aggregating our evaluations into safety leaderboards and model safety profiles across multiple evaluation modes reveals a sharply heterogeneous safety landscape. While GPT-5.2 demonstrates consistently strong and balanced safety performance across evaluations, other models exhibit pronounced trade-offs among benchmark safety, adversarial alignment, multilingual generalization, and regulatory compliance. Both language and vision-language modalities show significant vulnerability under adversarial evaluation, with all models degrading substantially despite strong results on standard benchmarks. Text-to-image models achieve relatively stronger alignment in regulated visual risk categories, yet remain brittle under adversarial or semantically ambiguous prompts. Overall, these results show that safety in frontier models is inherently multidimensional--shaped by modality, language, and evaluation scheme, underscoring the need for standardized safety evaluations to accurately assess real-world risk and guide responsible model development and deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal LLMs have shown promising capabilities for SVG processing, yet existing benchmarks suffer from limited real-world coverage, lack of complexity stratification, and fragmented evaluation paradigms. We introduce SVGenius, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 2,377 queries across three progressive dimensions: understanding, editing, and generation. Built on real-world data from 24 application domains with systematic complexity stratification, SVGenius evaluates models through 8 task categories and 18 metrics. We assess 22 mainstream models spanning different scales, architectures, training paradigms, and accessibility levels. Our analysis reveals that while proprietary models significantly outperform open-source counterparts, all models exhibit systematic performance degradation with increasing complexity, indicating fundamental limitations in current approaches; however, reasoning-enhanced training proves more effective than pure scaling for overcoming these limitations, though style transfer remains the most challenging capability across all model types. SVGenius establishes the first systematic evaluation framework for SVG processing, providing crucial insights for developing more capable vector graphics models and advancing automated graphic design applications. Appendix and supplementary materials (including all data and code) are available at https://zju-real.github.io/SVGenius.

Large language models have achieved strong performance across many NLP tasks, yet Urdu remains comparatively underexplored due to limited resources and fragmented evaluation settings. To address this gap, we introduce DunbaaBERT, a family of Urdu RoBERTa-base models trained from scratch with Byte-BPE vocabularies of 32k, 52k, and 96k tokens on a deduplicated 17GB Urdu corpus. We evaluate DunbaaBERT across intrinsic and downstream Urdu NLP benchmarks covering linguistic acceptability, news classification, offensive language detection, and sentiment analysis while analyzing vocabulary-size effects on performance and efficiency trade-offs. Across benchmarks, the DunbaaBERT variants achieve competitive performance against strong multilingual baselines while consistently maintaining favorable efficiency trade-offs. Interestingly, larger vocabularies do not consistently improve downstream effectiveness, with DunbaaBERT_{32k} repeatedly providing the strongest overall efficiency profile. Overall, our results demonstrate that carefully curated Urdu-specific encoder models can remain highly competitive despite comparatively compact model and training scales. All models are released under the MIT license.

Despite remarkable progress toward general-purpose video models, a critical question remains unanswered: how far are these models from achieving true multimodal reasoning? Existing benchmarks fail to address this question rigorously, as they remain constrained by straightforward task designs and fragmented evaluation metrics that neglect complex multimodal reasoning. To bridge this gap, we introduce CLVG-Bench, an evaluation framework designed to probe video models' zero-shot reasoning capabilities via Context Learning in Video Generation. CLVG-Bench comprises more than 1,000 high-quality, manually annotated metadata across 6 categories and 47 subcategories, covering complex scenarios including physical simulation, logical reasoning, and interactive contexts. To enable rigorous and scalable assessment, we further propose an Adaptive Video Evaluator (AVE) that aligns with human expert perception using minimal annotations, delivering interpretable textual feedback across diverse video context tasks. Extensive experiments reveal a striking answer to our central question: while state-of-the-art (SOTA) video models, such as Seedance 2.0, demonstrate competence on certain understanding and reasoning subtasks, they fall substantially short with logically grounded and interactive generation tasks (achieving success rates <25% and ~0%, respectively), exposing multimodal reasoning and physical grounding as critical bottlenecks. By systematically quantifying these limitations, the proposed method provides actionable feedbacks and a clear roadmap toward truly robust, general-purpose video models. CLVG-Bench and code are released here.

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present , an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

Retrieval models are often evaluated on partially-annotated datasets. Each query is mapped to a few relevant texts and the remaining corpus is assumed to be irrelevant. As a result, models that successfully retrieve false negatives are punished in evaluation. Unfortunately, completely annotating all texts for every query is not resource efficient. In this work, we show that using partially-annotated datasets in evaluation can paint a distorted picture. We curate D-MERIT, a passage retrieval evaluation set from Wikipedia, aspiring to contain all relevant passages for each query. Queries describe a group (e.g., ``journals about linguistics'') and relevant passages are evidence that entities belong to the group (e.g., a passage indicating that Language is a journal about linguistics). We show that evaluating on a dataset containing annotations for only a subset of the relevant passages might result in misleading ranking of the retrieval systems and that as more relevant texts are included in the evaluation set, the rankings converge. We propose our dataset as a resource for evaluation and our study as a recommendation for balance between resource-efficiency and reliable evaluation when annotating evaluation sets for text retrieval.

As large models evolve from conversational assistants into autonomous agents, challenges increasingly arise from long-horizon decision making, tool use, and real environment interaction. Existing agenticinfrastructure remain fragmented across evaluation, data management, and agent evolution, making it difficult to discover risks systematically and improve models in a continuous closed loop. In this report, we present Safactory, a scalable agent factory for trustworthy autonomous intelligence. Safactory integrates three tightly coupled platforms: a Parallel Simulation Platform for trajectory generation, a Trustworthy Data Platform for trajectory storage and experience extraction, and an Autonomous Evolution Platform for asynchronous reinforcement learning and on-policy distillation. As far as we know, Safactory is the first framework to propose a unified evolutionary pipeline for next-generation trustworthy autonomous intelligence.

Evaluation efforts such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR and FIRE, alongside public leaderboard such as MS MARCO, are intended to encourage research and track our progress, addressing big questions in our field. However, the goal is not simply to identify which run is "best", achieving the top score. The goal is to move the field forward by developing new robust techniques, that work in many different settings, and are adopted in research and practice. This paper uses the MS MARCO and TREC Deep Learning Track as our case study, comparing it to the case of TREC ad hoc ranking in the 1990s. We show how the design of the evaluation effort can encourage or discourage certain outcomes, and raising questions about internal and external validity of results. We provide some analysis of certain pitfalls, and a statement of best practices for avoiding such pitfalls. We summarize the progress of the effort so far, and describe our desired end state of "robust usefulness", along with steps that might be required to get us there.

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

ARC Challenge appears more difficult than ARC Easy for modern LLMs primarily due to an evaluation setup that prevents direct comparison of answer choices rather than inherent complexity. Although some researchers have quietly shifted to a more appropriate scheme over the last year, the implications of this change have yet to be widely acknowledged. We highlight this overlooked shift, show how similar evaluation practices falsely imply reasoning deficits in other benchmarks, and demonstrate that fairer methods dramatically reduce performance gaps (e.g. on SIQA) and even yield superhuman results (OpenBookQA). In doing so, we reveal how evaluation shapes perceived difficulty and offer guidelines to ensure that multiple-choice evaluations accurately reflect actual model capabilities.

Academic survey writing, which distills vast literature into a coherent and insightful narrative, remains a labor-intensive and intellectually demanding task. While recent approaches, such as general DeepResearch agents and survey-specialized methods, can generate surveys automatically (a.k.a. LLM4Survey), their outputs often fall short of human standards and there lacks a rigorous, reader-aligned benchmark for thoroughly revealing their deficiencies. To fill the gap, we propose a fine-grained, quiz-driven evaluation framework SurveyBench, featuring (1) typical survey topics source from recent 11,343 arXiv papers and corresponding 4,947 high-quality surveys; (2) a multifaceted metric hierarchy that assesses the outline quality (e.g., coverage breadth, logical coherence), content quality (e.g., synthesis granularity, clarity of insights), and non-textual richness; and (3) a dual-mode evaluation protocol that includes content-based and quiz-based answerability tests, explicitly aligned with readers' informational needs. Results show SurveyBench effectively challenges existing LLM4Survey approaches (e.g., on average 21% lower than human in content-based evaluation).

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

The rapid growth in submissions to machine learning venues has strained the scientific peer-review system and intensified interest in LLM-based automated peer reviewers. However, how good these systems are actually, especially compared to human reviewers at catching scientific gaps, remains poorly understood. In this work, we introduce PRISM (Peer Review Intelligence via Structured Multi-dimensional assessment), a benchmarking framework that evaluates review quality across four dimensions: Depth of Analysis, Novelty Assessment,Flaw Identification & Major Issues Prioritization, and Multi-dimensional Constructiveness. Unlike most existing evaluations based on surface-level metrics like ROUGE and BLEU, or unconstrained LLM-as-a-judge prompting that conflates fluency with rigor, PRISM grounds each dimension in argument mining, retrieval-augmented verification, and consensus-based scoring. We apply PRISM to benchmark five leading automated reviewer systems and human reviewers on a stratified corpus of reviews from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. The results reveal that LLMs can match or beat human reviewers on individual dimensions: comparable depth of analysis, stronger novelty verification, and highly accurate critique prioritization. However, no single system consistently matches the balanced performance of the human baseline across all dimensions at once. Each exhibits a distinct specialization profile with characteristic blind spots -- failure modes that aggregate metrics miss entirely. The implication is that LLM reviewers are best understood as targeted supplements to human review, effective within specific dimensions, but unreliable as standalone replacements. Our demo and key results can be found at https://khanhthanhdev.github.io/prism-page/.

The effectiveness upper bound of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is fundamentally constrained by the semantic integrity and information granularity of text chunks in its knowledge base. To address these challenges, this paper proposes QChunker, which restructures the RAG paradigm from retrieval-augmentation to understanding-retrieval-augmentation. Firstly, QChunker models the text chunking as a composite task of text segmentation and knowledge completion to ensure the logical coherence and integrity of text chunks. Drawing inspiration from Hal Gregersen's "Questions Are the Answer" theory, we design a multi-agent debate framework comprising four specialized components: a question outline generator, text segmenter, integrity reviewer, and knowledge completer. This framework operates on the principle that questions serve as catalysts for profound insights. Through this pipeline, we successfully construct a high-quality dataset of 45K entries and transfer this capability to small language models. Additionally, to handle long evaluation chains and low efficiency in existing chunking evaluation methods, which overly rely on downstream QA tasks, we introduce a novel direct evaluation metric, ChunkScore. Both theoretical and experimental validations demonstrate that ChunkScore can directly and efficiently discriminate the quality of text chunks. Furthermore, during the text segmentation phase, we utilize document outlines for multi-path sampling to generate multiple candidate chunks and select the optimal solution employing ChunkScore. Extensive experimental results across four heterogeneous domains exhibit that QChunker effectively resolves aforementioned issues by providing RAG with more logically coherent and information-rich text chunks.

The acceleration of Large Language Models (LLMs) research has opened up new possibilities for evaluating generated texts. They serve as scalable and economical evaluators, but the question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. Prior research efforts in the meta-evaluation of LLMs as judges limit the prompting of an LLM to a single use to obtain a final evaluation decision. They then compute the agreement between LLMs' outputs and human labels. This lacks interpretability in understanding the evaluation capability of LLMs. In light of this challenge, we propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices. Our experiments illustrate that it not only provides a more interpretable window for how well LLMs evaluate, but also leads to improvements up to 39.6% for different LLMs on a variety of meta-evaluation benchmarks.

Evaluation has traditionally focused on ranking candidates for a specific skill. Modern generalist models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), decidedly outpace this paradigm. Open-ended evaluation systems, where candidate models are compared on user-submitted prompts, have emerged as a popular solution. Despite their many advantages, we show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental, due to their sensitivity to redundancies. To address this issue, we propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy. We show that our method leads to intuitive ratings and provide insights into the competitive landscape of LLM development.

This report evaluates PDF-to-Markdown conversion using recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) on challenging French documents. Document parsing is a critical step for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, where transcription and layout errors propagate to downstream retrieval and grounding. Existing benchmarks often emphasize English or Chinese and can over-penalize benign formatting and linearization choices (e.g., line breaks, list segmentation, alternative table renderings) that are largely irrelevant for downstream use. We introduce a French-focused benchmark of difficult pages selected via model-disagreement sampling from a corpus of 60{,}000 documents, covering handwritten forms, complex layouts, dense tables, and graphics-rich pages. Evaluation is performed with unit-test-style checks that target concrete failure modes (text presence, reading order, and local table constraints) combined with category-specific normalization designed to discount presentation-only variance. Across 15 models, we observe substantially higher robustness for the strongest proprietary models on handwriting and forms, while several open-weights systems remain competitive on standard printed layouts.

The explosive growth in academic literature necessitates automated deep research (DR) agents, yet their evaluation remains a significant challenge. First, existing benchmarks often focus narrowly on retrieval while neglecting high-level planning and reasoning. Second, existing benchmarks favor general domains over the scientific domains that are the core application for DR agents. To address these gaps, we introduce Dr.Mi-Bench, a Modular-integrated benchmark for scientific DR agents. Grounded in academic literature, our benchmark uses a human-annotated dataset of 200 instances across 10 scientific domains, including both research and review papers. Besides, we also propose a Modular-integrated Evaluation Paradigm for DR Agents (Dr.Mi-Eval), a novel modular-integrated evaluation paradigm, which leverages the rich structure of academic papers to assess the core competencies of planning, retrieval, and reasoning through two complementary modes: an end-to-end evaluation for DR agents and an isolated evaluation for foundational LLMs as potential backbones. Experimental results reveal a fragmented performance landscape: agents exhibit specialized strengths but share critical weaknesses, most notably in performing the multi-source retrieval required for review-style tasks and performing consistently across diverse scientific fields. Moreover, improving high-level planning capability is the crucial factor for unlocking the reasoning potential of foundational LLMs as backbones. By exposing these actionable failure modes, Dr.Mi-Bench provides a diagnostic tool to guide the development of more reliable academic research assistants.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) have become more advanced, they have outpaced our abilities to accurately evaluate their quality. Not only is finding data to adequately probe particular model properties difficult, but evaluating the correctness of a model's freeform generation alone is a challenge. To address this, many evaluations now rely on using LLMs themselves as judges to score the quality of outputs from other LLMs. Evaluations most commonly use a single large model like GPT4. While this method has grown in popularity, it is costly, has been shown to introduce intramodel bias, and in this work, we find that very large models are often unnecessary. We propose instead to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL). Across three distinct judge settings and spanning six different datasets, we find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.

AI evaluation is undergoing a structural change. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents, while many evaluation practices still inherit assumptions from response-centered benchmarks (e.g., fixed inputs, isolated outputs, and outcome judgments that can be made from a single response). The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented: benchmarks differ in what interaction artifacts they admit, how trajectories are scored, and what claims their results support. This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm, not merely a new family of agent benchmarks. Simply adopting previous evaluation paradigms does not suffice. We define evaluation as an autonomous mapping from evidence to judgments, and show that interactive evaluation changes both sides of this mapping: the evidence becomes interaction-generated trajectories, while the evaluation procedure must assess process, recoverability, coordination, robustness, and system-level performance. Building on this definition, we propose a two-axis taxonomy, derive design principles and reporting standards, examine representative scenarios, and analyze how longstanding evaluation challenges reappear at the trajectory level.

Evaluation benchmarks are the cornerstone of measuring capabilities of large language models (LLMs), as well as driving progress in said capabilities. Originally designed to make claims about capabilities (or lack thereof) in fully pretrained models, evaluation benchmarks are now also extensively used to decide between various training choices. Despite this widespread usage, we rarely quantify the variance in our evaluation benchmarks, which dictates whether differences in performance are meaningful. Here, we define and measure a range of metrics geared towards measuring variance in evaluation benchmarks, including seed variance across initialisations, and monotonicity during training. By studying a large number of models -- both openly available and pretrained from scratch -- we provide empirical estimates for a variety of variance metrics, with considerations and recommendations for practitioners. We also evaluate the utility and tradeoffs of continuous versus discrete performance measures and explore options for better understanding and reducing this variance. We find that simple changes, such as framing choice tasks (like MMLU) as completion tasks, can often reduce variance for smaller scale (sim7B) models, while more involved methods inspired from human testing literature (such as item analysis and item response theory) struggle to meaningfully reduce variance. Overall, our work provides insights into variance in evaluation benchmarks, suggests LM-specific techniques to reduce variance, and more generally encourages practitioners to carefully factor in variance when comparing models.

Using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate text quality has recently gained popularity. Some prior works explore the idea of using LLMs for evaluation, while they differ in some details of the evaluation process. In this paper, we analyze LLM evaluation (Chiang and Lee, 2023) and G-Eval (Liu et al., 2023), and we discuss how those details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal. Last, we reveal that asking the LLM to explain its own ratings consistently improves the correlation between the ChatGPT and human ratings and pushes state-of-the-art (SoTA) correlations on two meta-evaluation datasets.

Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess final reports using fixed rubrics, failing to evaluate the underlying research process. Most also offer limited multimodal coverage, rely on synthetic tasks that do not reflect real-world query complexity, and cannot be refreshed as knowledge evolves. To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks (70 text-only, 30 multimodal), all grounded in real user needs and constructed via a dual-path pipeline that supports periodic updates, enabling a live and evolving setting. The proposed evaluation suite assesses deep research systems along three complementary dimensions: adaptive synthesis quality evaluation with task-specific rubrics, agentic factuality verification via active retrieval and reasoning over both web sources and multimodal attachments, and process-centric evaluation audits how the system searches, reasons, and refines throughout its investigation. Evaluation across 13 systems yields three principal findings: the three evaluation dimensions capture complementary aspects of system capability, with each revealing distinct strengths and weaknesses across systems; process quality serves as a reliable predictor of overall outcome while revealing weaknesses invisible to output-level metrics; and multimodal tasks pose substantially greater challenges, with most systems declining by 3 to 10 points. The MiroThinker series achieves the most balanced performance, with MiroThinker-H1 ranking the highest overall in both settings. Human verification and robustness results confirm the reliability of the benchmark and evaluation framework. MiroEval provides a holistic diagnostic tool for the next generation of deep research agents.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has developed evaluation frameworks to assess reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address LLM internal inconsistency. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-Judge methods, leading to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge on alignment tasks by defining more theoretically interpretable evaluation metrics and explicitly mitigating LLM internal inconsistency from reliability metrics. We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges, which facilitates practitioners to choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. In the experiments, we examine effects of diverse prompt templates on LLM-judge reliability and also demonstrate our developed framework by comparing various LLM judges on two common alignment datasets (i.e., TL;DR Summarization and HH-RLHF-Helpfulness). Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Reliable evaluation is essential for developing and deploying large language models, yet in practice it often requires substantial manual effort: practitioners must identify appropriate benchmarks, reproduce heterogeneous evaluation codebases, configure dataset schema mappings, and interpret aggregated metrics. To address these challenges, we present One-Eval, an agentic evaluation system that converts natural-language evaluation requests into executable, traceable, and customizable evaluation workflows. One-Eval integrates (i) NL2Bench for intent structuring and personalized benchmark planning, (ii) BenchResolve for benchmark resolution, automatic dataset acquisition, and schema normalization to ensure executability, and (iii) Metrics \& Reporting for task-aware metric selection and decision-oriented reporting beyond scalar scores. The system further incorporates human-in-the-loop checkpoints for review, editing, and rollback, while preserving sample evidence trails for debugging and auditability. Experiments show that One-Eval can execute end-to-end evaluations from diverse natural-language requests with minimal user effort, supporting more efficient and reproducible evaluation in industrial settings. Our framework is publicly available at https://github.com/OpenDCAI/One-Eval.

Text-to-Audio-Video (T2AV) generation aims to synthesize temporally coherent video and semantically synchronized audio from natural language, yet its evaluation remains fragmented, often relying on unimodal metrics or narrowly scoped benchmarks that fail to capture cross-modal alignment, instruction following, and perceptual realism under complex prompts. To address this limitation, we present T2AV-Compass, a unified benchmark for comprehensive evaluation of T2AV systems, consisting of 500 diverse and complex prompts constructed via a taxonomy-driven pipeline to ensure semantic richness and physical plausibility. Besides, T2AV-Compass introduces a dual-level evaluation framework that integrates objective signal-level metrics for video quality, audio quality, and cross-modal alignment with a subjective MLLM-as-a-Judge protocol for instruction following and realism assessment. Extensive evaluation of 11 representative T2AVsystems reveals that even the strongest models fall substantially short of human-level realism and cross-modal consistency, with persistent failures in audio realism, fine-grained synchronization, instruction following, etc. These results indicate significant improvement room for future models and highlight the value of T2AV-Compass as a challenging and diagnostic testbed for advancing text-to-audio-video generation.

Turn-taking modeling is fundamental to spoken dialogue systems, yet its evaluation remains fragmented and often limited to binary boundary detection under narrow interaction settings. Such protocols hinder systematic comparison and obscure model weaknesses across conversational conditions. We present CoDeTT, a context-aware decision benchmark for turn-taking evaluation. CoDeTT formulates turn-taking as a structured decision problem and constructs a multi-scenario dataset with fine-grained decision categories and controlled context variations. Under a unified evaluation protocol, we assess representative existing models and observe substantial performance disparities across decision types and interaction scenarios. CoDeTT provides a standardized benchmark for systematic and context-aware evaluation of turn-taking systems. The benchmark dataset and evaluation toolkit are available at https://github.com/YingaoWang-casia/CoDeTT.github.io.

Offline evaluation of search systems depends on test collections. These benchmarks provide the researchers with a corpus of documents, topics and relevance judgements indicating which documents are relevant for each topic. While test collections are an integral part of Information Retrieval (IR) research, their creation involves significant efforts in manual annotation. Large language models (LLMs) are gaining much attention as tools for automatic relevance assessment. Recent research has shown that LLM-based assessments yield high systems ranking correlation with human-made judgements. These correlations are helpful in large-scale experiments but less informative if we want to focus on top-performing systems. Moreover, these correlations ignore whether and how LLM-based judgements impact the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to human assessments. In this work, we look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve ranking differences among top-performing systems and also how they preserve pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements. Our results show that LLM-based judgements are unfair at ranking top-performing systems. Moreover, we observe an exceedingly high rate of false positives regarding statistical differences. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of the reliability of using LLMs-based judgements for IR evaluation. We hope this will serve as a basis for other researchers to develop more reliable models for automatic relevance assessment.

Medical systematic reviews typically require assessing all the documents retrieved by a search. The reason is two-fold: the task aims for ``total recall''; and documents retrieved using Boolean search are an unordered set, and thus it is unclear how an assessor could examine only a subset. Screening prioritisation is the process of ranking the (unordered) set of retrieved documents, allowing assessors to begin the downstream processes of the systematic review creation earlier, leading to earlier completion of the review, or even avoiding screening documents ranked least relevant. Screening prioritisation requires highly effective ranking methods. Pre-trained language models are state-of-the-art on many IR tasks but have yet to be applied to systematic review screening prioritisation. In this paper, we apply several pre-trained language models to the systematic review document ranking task, both directly and fine-tuned. An empirical analysis compares how effective neural methods compare to traditional methods for this task. We also investigate different types of document representations for neural methods and their impact on ranking performance. Our results show that BERT-based rankers outperform the current state-of-the-art screening prioritisation methods. However, BERT rankers and existing methods can actually be complementary, and thus, further improvements may be achieved if used in conjunction.

With ChatGPT-like large language models (LLM) prevailing in the community, how to evaluate the ability of LLMs is an open question. Existing evaluation methods suffer from following shortcomings: (1) constrained evaluation abilities, (2) vulnerable benchmarks, (3) unobjective metrics. We suggest that task-based evaluation, where LLM agents complete tasks in a simulated environment, is a one-for-all solution to solve above problems. We present AgentSims, an easy-to-use infrastructure for researchers from all disciplines to test the specific capacities they are interested in. Researchers can build their evaluation tasks by adding agents and buildings on an interactive GUI or deploy and test new support mechanisms, i.e. memory, planning and tool-use systems, by a few lines of codes. Our demo is available at https://agentsims.com .

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) aims to enhance large language models (LLMs) to generate more accurate and reliable answers with the help of the retrieved context from external knowledge sources, thereby reducing the incidence of hallucinations. Despite the advancements, evaluating these systems remains a crucial research area due to the following issues: (1) Limited data diversity: The insufficient diversity of knowledge sources and query types constrains the applicability of RAG systems; (2) Obscure problems location: Existing evaluation methods have difficulty in locating the stage of the RAG pipeline where problems occur; (3) Unstable retrieval evaluation: These methods often fail to effectively assess retrieval performance, particularly when the chunking strategy changes. To tackle these challenges, we propose a Comprehensive Full-chain Evaluation (CoFE-RAG) framework to facilitate thorough evaluation across the entire RAG pipeline, including chunking, retrieval, reranking, and generation. To effectively evaluate the first three phases, we introduce multi-granularity keywords, including coarse-grained and fine-grained keywords, to assess the retrieved context instead of relying on the annotation of golden chunks. Moreover, we release a holistic benchmark dataset tailored for diverse data scenarios covering a wide range of document formats and query types. We demonstrate the utility of the CoFE-RAG framework by conducting experiments to evaluate each stage of RAG systems. Our evaluation method provides unique insights into the effectiveness of RAG systems in handling diverse data scenarios, offering a more nuanced understanding of their capabilities and limitations.

Evaluations are critical for understanding the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Fundamentally, evaluations are experiments; but the literature on evaluations has largely ignored the literature from other sciences on experiment analysis and planning. This article shows researchers with some training in statistics how to think about and analyze data from language model evaluations. Conceptualizing evaluation questions as having been drawn from an unseen super-population, we present formulas for analyzing evaluation data, measuring differences between two models, and planning an evaluation experiment. We make a number of specific recommendations for running language model evaluations and reporting experiment results in a way that minimizes statistical noise and maximizes informativeness.

LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference. We instead ask: how far are current LLM-generated ideas from human researchers? To characterize this gap, we build a large-scale evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers. For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea. LLMs are then prompted to generate a new idea from the set of paper titles and summaries. We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm, and use it to quantify the divergence between human and LLM ideas. Across idea sets generated by different LLMs, we observe a consistent distributional gap: LLM ideas are disproportionately concentrated around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods, whereas the human paper reference distribution spreads more broadly across ways of framing gaps and constructing contributions. This result suggests that strong LLMs can produce a range of reasonable ideas, but that range remains narrower than, and systematically shifted relative to, human research taste.

Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

Peer review is a cornerstone of quality control in scientific publishing. With the increasing workload, the unintended use of `quick' heuristics, referred to as lazy thinking, has emerged as a recurring issue compromising review quality. Automated methods to detect such heuristics can help improve the peer-reviewing process. However, there is limited NLP research on this issue, and no real-world dataset exists to support the development of detection tools. This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories. Our analysis reveals that Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting. However, instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points, highlighting the importance of high-quality training data. Furthermore, a controlled experiment demonstrates that reviews revised with lazy thinking feedback are more comprehensive and actionable than those written without such feedback. We will release our dataset and the enhanced guidelines that can be used to train junior reviewers in the community. (Code available here: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2025-lazy-review)

As the use of text-to-image generative models increases, so does the adoption of automatic benchmarking methods used in their evaluation. However, while metrics and datasets abound, there are few unified benchmarking libraries that provide a framework for performing evaluations across many datasets and metrics. Furthermore, the rapid introduction of increasingly robust benchmarking methods requires that evaluation libraries remain flexible to new datasets and metrics. Finally, there remains a gap in synthesizing evaluations in order to deliver actionable takeaways about model performance. To enable unified, flexible, and actionable evaluations, we introduce EvalGIM (pronounced ''EvalGym''), a library for evaluating generative image models. EvalGIM contains broad support for datasets and metrics used to measure quality, diversity, and consistency of text-to-image generative models. In addition, EvalGIM is designed with flexibility for user customization as a top priority and contains a structure that allows plug-and-play additions of new datasets and metrics. To enable actionable evaluation insights, we introduce ''Evaluation Exercises'' that highlight takeaways for specific evaluation questions. The Evaluation Exercises contain easy-to-use and reproducible implementations of two state-of-the-art evaluation methods of text-to-image generative models: consistency-diversity-realism Pareto Fronts and disaggregated measurements of performance disparities across groups. EvalGIM also contains Evaluation Exercises that introduce two new analysis methods for text-to-image generative models: robustness analyses of model rankings and balanced evaluations across different prompt styles. We encourage text-to-image model exploration with EvalGIM and invite contributions at https://github.com/facebookresearch/EvalGIM/.

NLP models have progressed drastically in recent years, according to numerous datasets proposed to evaluate performance. Questions remain, however, about how particular dataset design choices may impact the conclusions we draw about model capabilities. In this work, we investigate this question in the domain of compositional generalization. We examine the performance of six modeling approaches across 4 datasets, split according to 8 compositional splitting strategies, ranking models by 18 compositional generalization splits in total. Our results show that: i) the datasets, although all designed to evaluate compositional generalization, rank modeling approaches differently; ii) datasets generated by humans align better with each other than they with synthetic datasets, or than synthetic datasets among themselves; iii) generally, whether datasets are sampled from the same source is more predictive of the resulting model ranking than whether they maintain the same interpretation of compositionality; and iv) which lexical items are used in the data can strongly impact conclusions. Overall, our results demonstrate that much work remains to be done when it comes to assessing whether popular evaluation datasets measure what they intend to measure, and suggest that elucidating more rigorous standards for establishing the validity of evaluation sets could benefit the field.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of various evaluation benchmarks. These benchmarks typically rely on a single instruction template for evaluating all LLMs on a specific task. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances, involving 20 different LLMs and 39 tasks from 3 benchmarks. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead. We discuss tailored evaluation metrics for specific use cases (e.g., LLM developers vs. developers interested in a specific downstream task), ensuring a more reliable and meaningful assessment of LLM capabilities. We then implement these criteria and conduct evaluations of multiple models, providing insights into the true strengths and limitations of current LLMs.

Pairwise re-ranking models predict which of two documents is more relevant to a query and then aggregate a final ranking from such preferences. This is often more effective than pointwise re-ranking models that directly predict a relevance value for each document. However, the high inference overhead of pairwise models limits their practical application: usually, for a set of k documents to be re-ranked, preferences for all k^2-k comparison pairs excluding self-comparisons are aggregated. We investigate whether the efficiency of pairwise re-ranking can be improved by sampling from all pairs. In an exploratory study, we evaluate three sampling methods and five preference aggregation methods. The best combination allows for an order of magnitude fewer comparisons at an acceptable loss of retrieval effectiveness, while competitive effectiveness is already achieved with about one third of the comparisons.

Scientific surveys require not only summarizing large bodies of literature, but also organizing them into clear and coherent conceptual structures. Existing automatic survey generation methods typically focus on linear text generation and struggle to explicitly model hierarchical relations among research topics and structured methodological comparisons, resulting in gaps in structural organization compared to expert-written surveys. We propose MVSS, a multi-view structured survey generation framework that jointly generates and aligns citation-grounded hierarchical trees, structured comparison tables, and survey text. MVSS follows a structure-first paradigm: it first constructs a conceptual tree of the research domain, then generates comparison tables constrained by the tree, and finally uses both as structural constraints for text generation. This enables complementary multi-view representations across structure, comparison, and narrative. We introduce an evaluation framework assessing structural quality, comparative completeness, and citation fidelity. Experiments on 76 computer science topics show MVSS outperforms existing methods in organization and evidence grounding, achieving performance comparable to expert surveys.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in diverse and challenging scenarios is essential to align them with human preferences. To mitigate the prohibitive costs associated with human evaluations, utilizing a powerful LLM as a judge has emerged as a favored approach. Nevertheless, this methodology encounters several challenges, including substantial expenses, concerns regarding privacy and security, and reproducibility. In this paper, we propose a straightforward, replicable, and accurate automated evaluation method by leveraging a lightweight LLM as the judge, named RocketEval. Initially, we identify that the performance disparity between lightweight and powerful LLMs in evaluation tasks primarily stems from their ability to conduct comprehensive analyses, which is not easily enhanced through techniques such as chain-of-thought reasoning. By reframing the evaluation task as a multi-faceted Q&A using an instance-specific checklist, we demonstrate that the limited judgment accuracy of lightweight LLMs is largely attributes to high uncertainty and positional bias. To address these challenges, we introduce an automated evaluation process grounded in checklist grading, which is designed to accommodate a variety of scenarios and questions. This process encompasses the creation of checklists, the grading of these checklists by lightweight LLMs, and the reweighting of checklist items to align with the supervised annotations. Our experiments carried out on the automated evaluation benchmarks, MT-Bench and WildBench datasets, reveal that RocketEval, when using Gemma-2-2B as the judge, achieves a high correlation (0.965) with human preferences, which is comparable to GPT-4o. Moreover, RocketEval provides a cost reduction exceeding 50-fold for large-scale evaluation and comparison scenarios. Our code is available at https://github.com/Joinn99/RocketEval-ICLR .

Creating test collections for offline retrieval evaluation requires human effort to judge documents' relevance. This expensive activity motivated much work in developing methods for constructing benchmarks with fewer assessment costs. In this respect, adjudication methods actively decide both which documents and the order in which experts review them, in order to better exploit the assessment budget or to lower it. Researchers evaluate the quality of those methods by measuring the correlation between the known gold ranking of systems under the full collection and the observed ranking of systems under the lower-cost one. This traditional analysis ignores whether and how the low-cost judgements impact on the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to the full collection. We fill this void by proposing a novel methodology to evaluate how the low-cost adjudication methods preserve the pairwise significant differences between systems as the full collection. In other terms, while traditional approaches look for stability in answering the question "is system A better than system B?", our proposed approach looks for stability in answering the question "is system A significantly better than system B?", which is the ultimate questions researchers need to answer to guarantee the generalisability of their results. Among other results, we found that the best methods in terms of ranking of systems correlation do not always match those preserving statistical significance.

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

Authors seeking to communicate with broader audiences often share their ideas in various document formats, such as slide decks, newsletters, reports, and posters. Prior work on document generation has generally tackled the creation of each separate format to be a different task, leading to fragmented learning processes, redundancy in models and methods, and disjointed evaluation. We consider each of these documents as templatic views of the same underlying knowledge/content, and we aim to unify the generation and evaluation of these templatic views. We begin by showing that current LLMs are capable of generating various document formats with little to no supervision. Further, a simple augmentation involving a structured intermediate representation can improve performance, especially for smaller models. We then introduce a novel unified evaluation framework that can be adapted to measuring the quality of document generators for heterogeneous downstream applications. This evaluation is adaptable to a range of user defined criteria and application scenarios, obviating the need for task specific evaluation metrics. Finally, we conduct a human evaluation, which shows that people prefer 82% of the documents generated with our method, while correlating more highly with our unified evaluation framework than prior metrics in the literature.

Since a user usually has to issue a sequence of queries and examine multiple documents to resolve a complex information need in a search session, researchers have paid much attention to evaluating search systems at the session level rather than the single-query level. Most existing session-level metrics evaluate each query separately and then aggregate the query-level scores using a session-level weighting function. The assumptions behind these metrics are that all queries in the session should be involved, and their orders are fixed. However, if a search system could make the user satisfied with her first few queries, she may not need any subsequent queries. Besides, in most real-world search scenarios, due to a lack of explicit feedback from real users, we can only leverage some implicit feedback, such as users' clicks, as relevance labels for offline evaluation. Such implicit feedback might be different from the real relevance in a search session as some documents may be omitted in the previous query but identified in the later reformulations. To address the above issues, we make two assumptions about session-based evaluation, which explicitly describe an ideal session-search system and how to enhance click-through data in computing session-level evaluation metrics. Based on our assumptions, we design a session-level metric called Normalized U-Measure (NUM). NUM evaluates a session as a whole and utilizes an ideal session to normalize the result of the actual session. Besides, it infers session-level relevance labels based on implicit feedback. Experiments on two public datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of NUM by comparing it with existing session-based metrics in terms of correlation with user satisfaction and intuitiveness. We also conduct ablation studies to explore whether these assumptions hold.

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has advanced significantly in recent years. The complexity of RAG systems, which involve multiple components-such as indexing, retrieval, and generation-along with numerous other parameters, poses substantial challenges for systematic evaluation and quality enhancement. Previous research highlights that evaluating RAG systems is essential for documenting advancements, comparing configurations, and identifying effective approaches for domain-specific applications. This study systematically reviews 63 academic articles to provide a comprehensive overview of state-of-the-art RAG evaluation methodologies, focusing on four key areas: datasets, retrievers, indexing and databases, and the generator component. We observe the feasibility of an automated evaluation approach for each component of a RAG system, leveraging an LLM capable of both generating evaluation datasets and conducting evaluations. In addition, we found that further practical research is essential to provide companies with clear guidance on the do's and don'ts of implementing and evaluating RAG systems. By synthesizing evaluation approaches for key RAG components and emphasizing the creation and adaptation of domain-specific datasets for benchmarking, we contribute to the advancement of systematic evaluation methods and the improvement of evaluation rigor for RAG systems. Furthermore, by examining the interplay between automated approaches leveraging LLMs and human judgment, we contribute to the ongoing discourse on balancing automation and human input, clarifying their respective contributions, limitations, and challenges in achieving robust and reliable evaluations.

We introduce CheckEval, a novel evaluation framework using Large Language Models, addressing the challenges of ambiguity and inconsistency in current evaluation methods. CheckEval addresses these challenges by dividing evaluation criteria into detailed sub-aspects and constructing a checklist of Boolean questions for each, simplifying the evaluation. This approach not only renders the process more interpretable but also significantly enhances the robustness and reliability of results by focusing on specific evaluation dimensions. Validated through a focused case study using the SummEval benchmark, CheckEval indicates a strong correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, it demonstrates a highly consistent Inter-Annotator Agreement. These findings highlight the effectiveness of CheckEval for objective, flexible, and precise evaluations. By offering a customizable and interactive framework, CheckEval sets a new standard for the use of LLMs in evaluation, responding to the evolving needs of the field and establishing a clear method for future LLM-based evaluation.

Evaluating the quality and variability of text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) poses a significant, yet unresolved research challenge. Traditional evaluation methods, such as ROUGE and BERTScore, which measure token similarity, often fail to capture the holistic semantic equivalence. This results in a low correlation with human judgments and intuition, which is especially problematic in high-stakes applications like healthcare and finance where reliability, safety, and robust decision-making are highly critical. This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of LLM-generated texts using a divide-conquer-reasoning approach. Unlike existing LLM-based evaluators that operate at the paragraph level, our method employs a divide-and-conquer evaluator (DCE) that breaks down the paragraph-to-paragraph comparison between two generated responses into individual sentence-to-paragraph comparisons, each evaluated based on predefined criteria. To facilitate this approach, we introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Beyond the consistency evaluation, we further present a reason-assisted improver (RAI) that leverages the analytical reasons with explanations identified by DCE to generate new responses aimed at reducing these inconsistencies. Through comprehensive and systematic empirical analysis, we show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin (e.g., +19.3% and +24.3% on the SummEval dataset) in evaluating the consistency of LLM generation across multiple benchmarks in semantic, factual, and summarization consistency tasks. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

The ``LLM-as-a-judge'' paradigm has become a standard method for evaluating open-ended generation. To address the quadratic scalability costs of pairwise comparisons, popular benchmarks like Arena-Hard and AlpacaEval compare all models against a single anchor. However, despite its widespread use, the impact of anchor selection on the reliability of the results remains largely unexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate the effect of anchor selection by evaluating 22 different anchors on the Arena-Hard-v2.0 dataset. We find that the choice of anchor is critical: a poor anchor can dramatically reduce correlation with human rankings. We identify that common anchor choices (best-performing and worst-performing models) make poor anchors. Because these extreme anchors are consistently better or worse than all other models, they are seldom indicative of the relative ranking of the models. We further quantify the effect size of anchor selection, showing it is comparable to the selection of a judge model. We conclude with actionable recommendations. First, we conduct a power analysis, and compute sufficient benchmark sizes for anchor-based evaluation, finding that standard benchmark sizes are insufficient for pairwise evaluation and fail to distinguish between competitive models reliably. Second, we provide guidelines for selecting informative anchors to ensure reliable and efficient evaluation practices.

The evaluation of recommender system fairness has become increasingly important, especially with recent legislation that emphasises the development of fair and responsible artificial intelligence. This has led to the emergence of various fairness evaluation measures, which quantify fairness based on different definitions. However, many of such measures are simply proposed and used without further analysis on their robustness. As a result, there is insufficient understanding and awareness of the measures' limitations. Among other issues, it is not known what kind of model outputs produce the (un)fairest score, how the measure scores are empirically distributed, and whether there are cases where the measures cannot be computed (e.g., due to division by zero). These issues cause difficulty in interpreting the measure scores and confusion on which measure(s) should be used for a specific case. This thesis presents a series of papers that assess and overcome various theoretical, empirical, and conceptual limitations of existing recommender system fairness evaluation measures. We investigate a wide range of offline evaluation measures for different fairness notions, divided based on the evaluation subjects (users and items) and for different evaluation granularities (groups of subjects and individual subjects). Firstly, we perform theoretical and empirical analysis on the measures, exposing flaws that limit their interpretability, expressiveness, or applicability. Secondly, we contribute novel evaluation approaches and measures that overcome these limitations. Finally, considering the measures' limitations, we recommend guidelines for the appropriate measure usage, thereby allowing for more precise selection of fairness evaluation measures in practical scenarios. Overall, this thesis contributes to advancing the state-of-the-art offline evaluation of fairness in recommender systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are advancing at an amazing speed and have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications. To keep pace with the status quo, this survey probes the core challenges that the rise of LLMs poses for evaluation. We identify and analyze two pivotal transitions: (i) from task-specific to capability-based evaluation, which reorganizes benchmarks around core competencies such as knowledge, reasoning, instruction following, multi-modal understanding, and safety; and (ii) from manual to automated evaluation, encompassing dynamic dataset curation and "LLM-as-a-judge" scoring. Yet, even with these transitions, a crucial obstacle persists: the evaluation generalization issue. Bounded test sets cannot scale alongside models whose abilities grow seemingly without limit. We will dissect this issue, along with the core challenges of the above two transitions, from the perspectives of methods, datasets, evaluators, and metrics. Due to the fast evolving of this field, we will maintain a living GitHub repository (links are in each section) to crowd-source updates and corrections, and warmly invite contributors and collaborators.

This paper introduces LegalRikai: Open Benchmark, a new benchmark comprising four complex tasks that emulate Japanese corporate legal practices. The benchmark was created by legal professionals under the supervision of an attorney. This benchmark has 100 samples that require long-form, structured outputs, and we evaluated them against multiple practical criteria. We conducted both human and automated evaluations using leading LLMs, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.1. Our human evaluation revealed that abstract instructions prompted unnecessary modifications, highlighting model weaknesses in document-level editing that were missed by conventional short-text tasks. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that automated evaluation aligns well with human judgment on criteria with clear linguistic grounding, and assessing structural consistency remains a challenge. The result demonstrates the utility of automated evaluation as a screening tool when expert availability is limited. We propose a dataset evaluation framework to promote more practice-oriented research in the legal domain.

Multiple choice benchmarks have long been the workhorse of language model evaluation because grading multiple choice is objective and easy to automate. However, we show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question. These shortcuts arise from a fundamental limitation of discriminative evaluation not shared by evaluations of the model's free-form, generative answers. Until recently, there appeared to be no viable, scalable alternative to multiple choice--but, we show that this has changed. We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching: Give the candidate model the question without the options, have it generate a free-form response, then use a modern language model with the reference answer to determine if the response matches the reference. To compare the validity of different evaluation strategies, we annotate MMLU-Pro and GPQA-Diamond to obtain human grading data, and measure the agreement of each evaluation approach. We find answer matching using recent models--even small ones--achieves near-perfect agreement, in the range of inter-annotator agreement. In contrast, both multiple choice evaluation and using LLM-as-a-judge without reference answers aligns poorly with human grading. Improving evaluations via answer matching is not merely a conceptual concern: the rankings of several models change significantly when evaluating their free-form responses with answer matching. In light of these findings, we discuss how to move the evaluation ecosystem from multiple choice to answer matching.

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in tasks (e.g., reward modeling, LLM-as-a-judge), where they act as proxies for human preferences or judgments. This leads to the need for meta-evaluation: evaluating the credibility of LLMs as evaluators. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on English, offering limited insight into LLMs' effectiveness as evaluators in non-English contexts. To address this, we introduce MM-Eval, a multilingual meta-evaluation benchmark that covers 18 languages across six categories. MM-Eval evaluates various dimensions, including language-specific challenges like linguistics and language hallucinations. Evaluation results show that both proprietary and open-source language models have considerable room for improvement. Further analysis reveals a tendency for these models to assign middle-ground scores to low-resource languages. We publicly release our benchmark and code.

Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as pre-review agents, if not as fully autonomous peer-review agents. While incredibly beneficial, automating academic peer-review, as a concept, raises concerns surrounding safety, research integrity, and the validity of the academic peer-review process. The majority of the studies performing a systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs generating reviews across science disciplines miss the mark on addressing the alignment/misalignment of reviews along with the utility of LLM generated reviews when compared against publication outcomes such as Citations, Hit-papers, Novelty, and Disruption. This paper presents an experimental study in which we gathered ground-truth reviewer ratings from OpenReview and used various frontier open-weight LLMs to generate reviews of papers to gauge the safety and reliability of incorporating LLMs into the scientific review pipeline. Our findings demonstrate the utility of frontier open-weight LLMs as pre-review screening agents despite highlighting fundamental misalignment risks when deployed as autonomous reviewers. Our results show that all models exhibit weak correlation with human peer reviewers (0.15), with systematic overestimation bias of 3-5 points and uniformly high confidence scores (8.0-9.0/10) despite prediction errors. However, we also observed that LLM reviews correlate more strongly with post-publication metrics than with human scores, suggesting potential utility as pre-review screening tools. Our findings highlight the potential and address the pitfalls of automating peer reviews with language models. We open-sourced our dataset D_{LMRSD} to help the research community expand the safety framework of automating scientific reviews.

We introduce PerceptionRubrics, a rubric-based evaluation framework that addresses the gap between saturated benchmark scores and real-world brittleness. Shifting evaluation from holistic semantic matching to rigorous atomic auditing, PerceptionRubrics pairs 1,038 information-dense images with over 12,000 instance-specific rubrics. These criteria are derived from golden captions constructed via a novel Circular Peer-Review consensus pipeline and then distilled into a dual-stream system of Must-Right (essential facts) and Easy-Wrong (fine-grained details) rubrics. Crucially, PerceptionRubrics implements a Gated Scoring mechanism: unlike linear averages, failure on mandatory visual facts triggers sharp binary penalties. Extensive evaluation yields critical insights: (1) The Reliability Gap: models often verify fragmented elements correctly yet fail strict conjunctive constraints, exposing brittleness in dense domains; (2) Open-Closed Stratification: contrary to reasoning trends, we reveal a persistent 8% perception deficit between open-source and proprietary frontiers; and (3) Human-Aligned Rigor: our gated metrics substantially out-align conventional benchmarks, validating that strict perceptual fidelity is the prerequisite for reliable generation.

Entity resolution (record linkage, microclustering) systems are notoriously difficult to evaluate. Looking for a needle in a haystack, traditional evaluation methods use sophisticated, application-specific sampling schemes to find matching pairs of records among an immense number of non-matches. We propose an alternative that facilitates the creation of representative, reusable benchmark data sets without necessitating complex sampling schemes. These benchmark data sets can then be used for model training and a variety of evaluation tasks. Specifically, we propose an entity-centric data labeling methodology that integrates with a unified framework for monitoring summary statistics, estimating key performance metrics such as cluster and pairwise precision and recall, and analyzing root causes for errors. We validate the framework in an application to inventor name disambiguation and through simulation studies. Software: https://github.com/OlivierBinette/er-evaluation/

We propose MM-Vet, an evaluation benchmark that examines large multimodal models (LMMs) on complicated multimodal tasks. Recent LMMs have shown various intriguing abilities, such as solving math problems written on the blackboard, reasoning about events and celebrities in news images, and explaining visual jokes. Rapid model advancements pose challenges to evaluation benchmark development. Problems include: (1) How to systematically structure and evaluate the complicated multimodal tasks; (2) How to design evaluation metrics that work well across question and answer types; and (3) How to give model insights beyond a simple performance ranking. To this end, we present MM-Vet, designed based on the insight that the intriguing ability to solve complicated tasks is often achieved by a generalist model being able to integrate different core vision-language (VL) capabilities. MM-Vet defines 6 core VL capabilities and examines the 16 integrations of interest derived from the capability combination. For evaluation metrics, we propose an LLM-based evaluator for open-ended outputs. The evaluator enables the evaluation across different question types and answer styles, resulting in a unified scoring metric. We evaluate representative LMMs on MM-Vet, providing insights into the capabilities of different LMM system paradigms and models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/yuweihao/MM-Vet.

When evaluating large language models (LLMs) with multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), it is common to end the prompt with the string "Answer:" to facilitate automated answer extraction via next-token probabilities. However, there is no consensus on how to tokenize the space following the colon, often overlooked as a trivial choice. In this paper, we uncover accuracy differences of up to 11% due to this (seemingly irrelevant) tokenization variation as well as reshuffled model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM comparisons in prior work. Surprisingly, we are able to recommend one specific strategy -- tokenizing the space together with the answer letter -- as we observe consistent and statistically significant performance improvements. Additionally, it improves model calibration, enhancing the reliability of the model's confidence estimates. Our findings underscore the importance of careful evaluation design and highlight the need for standardized, transparent evaluation protocols to ensure reliable and comparable results.

Evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in following instructions has heavily relied on a powerful LLM as the judge, introducing unresolved biases that deviate the judgments from human judges. In this work, we reevaluate various choices for automatic evaluation on a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We experiment with methods that leverage human-written responses and observe that they enhance the reliability of automatic evaluations across a wide range of tasks, resulting in up to a 3.2% improvement in agreement with human judges. We also discovered that human-written responses offer an orthogonal perspective to model-generated responses in following instructions and should be used as an additional context when comparing model responses. Based on these observations, we develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF), comprising 4,258 samples across 11 task categories with a composite evaluation setup, employing a composite evaluation setup that selects the most reliable method for each category. In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. Finally, we study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template. We host a live leaderboard that evaluates LLMs on the private evaluation set of HREF.

Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as judges to achieve precise and consistent evaluations has gradually become an emerging paradigm across various domains. Evaluating the capability and reliability of MLLM-as-a-judge systems is therefore essential for ensuring trustworthy assessment. Existing judge benchmarks categorize samples by task types but fail to capture the fundamental judgment capabilities required for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce M-JudgeBench, a ten-dimensional capability-oriented benchmark designed to comprehensively assess the judgment abilities of MLLMs. Our benchmark decomposes evaluation into pairwise Chain-of-Thought (CoT) comparison, length bias avoidance, and process error detection tasks, jointly covering ten fine-grained subtasks. This design enables diagnosis of model reliability across reasoning styles, response lengths, and cross-model variations. Systematic evaluation uncovers the systematic weaknesses in existing MLLM-as-a-judge systems. To address this issue, we further propose Judge-MCTS, a data construction framework generating pairwise reasoning trajectories with various correctness and length. Using Judge-MCTS, we construct an MCTS-augmented dataset and train M-Judger, a series of strong judge models. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of M-Judger on existing judge benchmarks as well as M-JudgeBench. Overall, our work establishes a more principled foundation for evaluating MLLM-as-a-judge through M-JudgeBench and Judge-MCTS framework, paving the way for future research on judge model evaluation and capability-driven judge training.

Empirical evaluation serves as the primary compass guiding research progress in foundation models. Despite a large body of work focused on training frontier vision-language models (VLMs), approaches to their evaluation remain nascent. To guide their maturation, we propose three desiderata that evaluations should satisfy: (1) faithfulness to the modality and application, (2) discriminability between models of varying quality, and (3) efficiency in compute. Through this lens, we identify critical failure modes that violate faithfulness and discriminability, misrepresenting model capabilities: (i) multiple-choice formats reward guessing, poorly reflect downstream use cases, and saturate early as models improve; (ii) blindly solvable questions, which can be answered without images, constitute up to 70% of some evaluations; and (iii) mislabeled or ambiguous samples compromise up to 42% of examples in certain datasets. Regarding efficiency, the computational burden of evaluating frontier models has become prohibitive: by some accounts, nearly 20% of development compute is devoted to evaluation alone. Rather than discarding existing benchmarks, we curate them via transformation and filtering to maximize fidelity and discriminability. We find that converting multiple-choice questions to generative tasks reveals sharp capability drops of up to 35%. In addition, filtering blindly solvable and mislabeled samples improves discriminative power while simultaneously reducing computational cost. We release DatBench-Full, a cleaned evaluation suite of 33 datasets spanning nine VLM capabilities, and DatBench, a discriminative subset that achieves 13x average speedup (up to 50x) while closely matching the discriminative power of the original datasets. Our work outlines a path toward evaluation practices that are both rigorous and sustainable as VLMs continue to scale.

Step-by-step reasoning is widely used to enhance the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) in complex problems. Evaluating the quality of reasoning traces is crucial for understanding and improving LLM reasoning. However, the evaluation criteria remain highly unstandardized, leading to fragmented efforts in developing metrics and meta-evaluation benchmarks. To address this gap, this survey provides a comprehensive overview of step-by-step reasoning evaluation, proposing a taxonomy of evaluation criteria with four top-level categories (groundedness, validity, coherence, and utility). We then categorize metrics based on their implementations, survey which metrics are used for assessing each criterion, and explore whether evaluator models can transfer across different criteria. Finally, we identify key directions for future research.

Large language model (LLM) contexts are typically constructed using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), which involves ranking and selecting the top-k passages. The approach causes fragmentation in information graphs in document structures, over-retrieval, and duplication of content alongside insufficient query context, including 2nd and 3rd order facets. In this paper, a structure-informed and diversity-constrained context bubble construction framework is proposed that assembles coherent, citable bundles of spans under a strict token budget. The method preserves and exploits inherent document structure by organising multi-granular spans (e.g., sections and rows) and using task-conditioned structural priors to guide retrieval. Starting from high-relevance anchor spans, a context bubble is constructed through constrained selection that balances query relevance, marginal coverage, and redundancy penalties. It will explicitly constrain diversity and budget, producing compact and informative context sets, unlike top-k retrieval. Moreover, a full retrieval is emitted that traces the scoring and selection choices of the records, thus providing auditability and deterministic tuning. Experiments on enterprise documents demonstrate the efficiency of context bubble as it significantly reduces redundant context, is better able to cover secondary facets and has a better answer quality and citation faithfulness within a limited context window. Ablation studies demonstrate that both structural priors as well as diversity constraint selection are necessary; removing either component results in a decline in coverage and an increase in redundant or incomplete context.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) generate citation-rich reports via multi-step search and synthesis, yet existing benchmarks mainly target text-only settings or short-form multimodal QA, missing end-to-end multimodal evidence use. We introduce MMDeepResearch-Bench (MMDR-Bench), a benchmark of 140 expert-crafted tasks across 21 domains, where each task provides an image-text bundle to evaluate multimodal understanding and citation-grounded report generation. Compared to prior setups, MMDR-Bench emphasizes report-style synthesis with explicit evidence use, where models must connect visual artifacts to sourced claims and maintain consistency across narrative, citations, and visual references. We further propose a unified, interpretable evaluation pipeline: Formula-LLM Adaptive Evaluation (FLAE) for report quality, Trustworthy Retrieval-Aligned Citation Evaluation (TRACE) for citation-grounded evidence alignment, and Multimodal Support-Aligned Integrity Check (MOSAIC) for text-visual integrity, each producing fine-grained signals that support error diagnosis beyond a single overall score. Experiments across 25 state-of-the-art models reveal systematic trade-offs between generation quality, citation discipline, and multimodal grounding, highlighting that strong prose alone does not guarantee faithful evidence use and that multimodal integrity remains a key bottleneck for deep research agents.

The versatility of large language models (LLMs) led to the creation of diverse benchmarks that thoroughly test a variety of language models' abilities. These benchmarks consist of tens of thousands of examples making evaluation of LLMs very expensive. In this paper, we investigate strategies to reduce the number of evaluations needed to assess the performance of an LLM on several key benchmarks. For example, we show that to accurately estimate the performance of an LLM on MMLU, a popular multiple-choice QA benchmark consisting of 14K examples, it is sufficient to evaluate this LLM on 100 curated examples. We release evaluation tools and tiny versions of popular benchmarks: Open LLM Leaderboard, MMLU, HELM, and AlpacaEval 2.0. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that these tools and tiny benchmarks are sufficient to reliably and efficiently reproduce the original evaluation results.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

This paper introduces MISS-QA, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the ability of models to interpret schematic diagrams within scientific literature. MISS-QA comprises 1,500 expert-annotated examples over 465 scientific papers. In this benchmark, models are tasked with interpreting schematic diagrams that illustrate research overviews and answering corresponding information-seeking questions based on the broader context of the paper. We assess the performance of 18 frontier multimodal foundation models, including o4-mini, Gemini-2.5-Flash, and Qwen2.5-VL. We reveal a significant performance gap between these models and human experts on MISS-QA. Our analysis of model performance on unanswerable questions and our detailed error analysis further highlight the strengths and limitations of current models, offering key insights to enhance models in comprehending multimodal scientific literature.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly relies on other LLMs acting as judges. However, current evaluation paradigms typically yield a single score or ranking, answering which model is better but not why. While essential for benchmarking, these top-level scores obscure the specific, actionable reasons behind a model's performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce CLEAR, an interactive, open-source package for LLM-based error analysis. CLEAR first generates per-instance textual feedback, then it creates a set of system-level error issues, and quantifies the prevalence of each identified issue. Our package also provides users with an interactive dashboard that allows for a comprehensive error analysis through aggregate visualizations, applies interactive filters to isolate specific issues or score ranges, and drills down to the individual instances that exemplify a particular behavioral pattern. We demonstrate CLEAR analysis for RAG and Math benchmarks, and showcase its utility through a user case study.

Human evaluation is the gold-standard for evaluating text generation models. It is also expensive, and to fit budgetary constraints, a random subset of the test data is often chosen in practice. The randomly selected data may not accurately represent test performance, making this approach economically inefficient for model comparison. Thus, in this work, we develop a suite of selectors to get the most informative datapoints for human evaluation while taking the evaluation costs into account. We show that selectors based on variance in automated metric scores, diversity in model outputs, or Item Response Theory outperform random selection. We further develop an approach to distill these selectors to the scenario where the model outputs are not yet available. In particular, we introduce source-based estimators, which predict item usefulness for human evaluation just based on the source texts. We demonstrate the efficacy of our selectors in two common NLG tasks, machine translation and summarization, and show that up to only ~50% of the test data is needed to produce the same evaluation result as the entire data. Our implementations are published in the subset2evaluate package.

One of the most challenging problems facing NLP today is evaluation. Some of the most pressing issues pertain to benchmark saturation, data contamination, and diversity in the quality of test examples. To address these concerns, we propose Selection Methodology for Accurate, Reduced, and Targeted (SMART) filtering, a novel approach to select a high-quality subset of examples from existing benchmark datasets by systematically removing less informative and less challenging examples. Our approach applies three filtering criteria, removing (i) easy examples, (ii) data-contaminated examples, and (iii) examples that are similar to each other based on distance in an embedding space. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SMART on three multiple choice QA datasets, where our methodology increases efficiency by reducing dataset size by 48\% on average, while increasing Pearson correlation with rankings from ChatBot Arena, a more open-ended human evaluation setting. Our method enables us to be more efficient, whether using SMART to make new benchmarks more challenging or to revitalize older datasets, while still preserving the relative model rankings.

We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by 0.81%, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by 38.7%, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by 4.59%, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.

Automatic evaluation metrics are a crucial component of dialog systems research. Standard language evaluation metrics are known to be ineffective for evaluating dialog. As such, recent research has proposed a number of novel, dialog-specific metrics that correlate better with human judgements. Due to the fast pace of research, many of these metrics have been assessed on different datasets and there has as yet been no time for a systematic comparison between them. To this end, this paper provides a comprehensive assessment of recently proposed dialog evaluation metrics on a number of datasets. In this paper, 23 different automatic evaluation metrics are evaluated on 10 different datasets. Furthermore, the metrics are assessed in different settings, to better qualify their respective strengths and weaknesses. Metrics are assessed (1) on both the turn level and the dialog level, (2) for different dialog lengths, (3) for different dialog qualities (e.g., coherence, engaging), (4) for different types of response generation models (i.e., generative, retrieval, simple models and state-of-the-art models), (5) taking into account the similarity of different metrics and (6) exploring combinations of different metrics. This comprehensive assessment offers several takeaways pertaining to dialog evaluation metrics in general. It also suggests how to best assess evaluation metrics and indicates promising directions for future work.

The effectiveness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is highly dependent on how documents are chunked, that is, segmented into smaller units for indexing and retrieval. Yet, commonly used "one-size-fits-all" approaches often fail to capture the nuanced structure and semantics of diverse texts. Despite its central role, chunking lacks a dedicated evaluation framework, making it difficult to assess and compare strategies independently of downstream performance. We challenge this paradigm by introducing Adaptive Chunking, a framework that selects the most suitable chunking strategy for each document based on a set of five novel intrinsic, document-based metrics: References Completeness (RC), Intrachunk Cohesion (ICC), Document Contextual Coherence (DCC), Block Integrity (BI), and Size Compliance (SC), which directly assess chunking quality across key dimensions. To support this framework, we also introduce two new chunkers, an LLM-regex splitter and a split-then-merge recursive splitter, alongside targeted post-processing techniques. On a diverse corpus spanning legal, technical, and social science domains, our metric-guided adaptive method significantly improves downstream RAG performance. Without changing models or prompts, our framework increases RAG outcomes, raising answers correctness to 72% (from 62-64%) and increasing the number of successfully answered questions by over 30% (65 vs. 49). These results demonstrate that adaptive, document-aware chunking, guided by a complementary suite of intrinsic metrics, offers a practical and effective path to more robust RAG systems. Code available at https://github.com/ekimetrics/adaptive-chunking.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained significant attention due to their remarkable capabilities in performing diverse tasks across various domains. However, a thorough evaluation of these models is crucial before deploying them in real-world applications to ensure they produce reliable performance. Despite the well-established importance of evaluating LLMs in the community, the complexity of the evaluation process has led to varied evaluation setups, causing inconsistencies in findings and interpretations. To address this, we systematically review the primary challenges and limitations causing these inconsistencies and unreliable evaluations in various steps of LLM evaluation. Based on our critical review, we present our perspectives and recommendations to ensure LLM evaluations are reproducible, reliable, and robust.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators for natural language generation, applying human-defined rubrics to assess system outputs. However, human rubrics are often static and misaligned with how models internally represent language quality. We introduce GER-Eval (Generating Evaluation Rubrics for Evaluation) to investigate whether LLMs can design and apply their own evaluation rubrics. We evaluate the semantic coherence and scoring reliability of LLM-defined criteria and their alignment with human criteria. LLMs reliably generate interpretable and task-aware evaluation dimensions and apply them consistently within models, but their scoring reliability degrades in factual and knowledge-intensive settings. Closed-source models such as GPT-4o achieve higher agreement and cross-model generalization than open-weight models such as Llama. Our findings position evaluation as a learned linguistic capability of LLMs, consistent within models but fragmented across them, and call for new methods that jointly model human and LLM evaluative language to improve reliability and interpretability.

The emergent phenomena of large foundation models have revolutionized natural language processing. However, evaluating these models presents significant challenges due to their size, capabilities, and deployment across diverse applications. Existing literature often focuses on individual aspects, such as benchmark performance or specific tasks, but fails to provide a cohesive process that integrates the nuances of diverse use cases with broader ethical and operational considerations. This work focuses on three key aspects: (1) Formalizing the Evaluation Process by providing a structured framework tailored to specific use-case contexts, (2) Offering Actionable Tools and Frameworks such as checklists and templates to ensure thorough, reproducible, and practical evaluations, and (3) Surveying Recent Work with a targeted review of advancements in LLM evaluation, emphasizing real-world applications.

Recently, the evaluation of Large Language Models has emerged as a popular area of research. The three crucial questions for LLM evaluation are ``what, where, and how to evaluate''. However, the existing research mainly focuses on the first two questions, which are basically what tasks to give the LLM during testing and what kind of knowledge it should deal with. As for the third question, which is about what standards to use, the types of evaluators, how to score, and how to rank, there hasn't been much discussion. In this paper, we analyze evaluation methods by comparing various criteria with both manual and automatic evaluation, utilizing onsite, crowd-sourcing, public annotators and GPT-4, with different scoring methods and ranking systems. We propose a new dataset, LLMEval and conduct evaluations on 20 LLMs. A total of 2,186 individuals participated, leading to the generation of 243,337 manual annotations and 57,511 automatic evaluation results. We perform comparisons and analyses of different settings and conduct 10 conclusions that can provide some insights for evaluating LLM in the future. The dataset and the results are publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval .

Automated metrics for machine translation attempt to replicate human judgment. Unlike humans, who often assess a translation in the context of multiple alternatives, these metrics typically consider only the source sentence and a single translation. This discrepancy in the evaluation setup may negatively impact the performance of automated metrics. We propose two automated metrics that incorporate additional information beyond the single translation. COMET-polycand uses alternative translations of the same source sentence to compare and contrast with the translation at hand, thereby providing a more informed assessment of its quality. COMET-polyic, inspired by retrieval-based in-context learning, takes in translations of similar source texts along with their human-labeled quality scores to guide the evaluation. We find that including a single additional translation in COMET-polycand improves the segment-level metric performance (0.079 to 0.118 Kendall's tau-b correlation), with further gains when more translations are added. Incorporating retrieved examples in COMET-polyic yields similar improvements (0.079 to 0.116 Kendall's tau-b correlation). We release our models publicly.

Modern retrieval pipelines increasingly serve downstream consumers like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and autonomous agents that need more than a scalar relevance score. A reranker that only tells the caller "how relevant" forces the agent to dump entire documents into the language-model context, wasting tokens on tangential passages and boilerplate. We introduce Prism-Reranker, a family of reranker models built on Qwen3.5 at four sizes (0.8B, 2B, 4B, 9B) that goes beyond scalar scoring. In addition to the standard yes/no relevance judgement, whenever the verdict is yes the model emits (i) a contribution statement summarizing how the document helps the query, and (ii) an evidence passage: a self-contained rewrite that preserves every query-relevant signal while discarding noise. Prism-Reranker is trained with a hybrid objective combining point-wise distillation from a strong commercial reranker API with supervised fine-tuning on contribution and evidence targets. We curate training data from KaLM-Embedding's open-source aggregation, augmented with real web documents retrieved via commercial search APIs for open-domain queries and LLM-synthesized variants, and rewrite a portion of queries into keyword-style reformulations to adapt the model to agent-issued traffic. To reconcile inconsistent labels across open corpora and obtain crisp binary supervision, we relabel data with an LLM-as-Judge ensemble aggregating votes from five frontier LLMs. On a QA subset of BEIR and on an LLM-judged evaluation of contribution and evidence quality, Prism-Reranker attains solid results across all four sizes. We further show that the same recipe extends existing LLM-based rerankers, augmenting Qwen3-Reranker-4B with contribution and evidence capabilities while improving its average BEIR-QA NDCG@10 by +1.54 over the base model. Model weights, training recipe, and evaluation suite are released.

Despite Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has shown promising capability in leveraging external knowledge, a comprehensive evaluation of RAG systems is still challenging due to the modular nature of RAG, evaluation of long-form responses and reliability of measurements. In this paper, we propose a fine-grained evaluation framework, RAGChecker, that incorporates a suite of diagnostic metrics for both the retrieval and generation modules. Meta evaluation verifies that RAGChecker has significantly better correlations with human judgments than other evaluation metrics. Using RAGChecker, we evaluate 8 RAG systems and conduct an in-depth analysis of their performance, revealing insightful patterns and trade-offs in the design choices of RAG architectures. The metrics of RAGChecker can guide researchers and practitioners in developing more effective RAG systems.

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, leading to the emergence of "LLM-as-a-Judge," where LLMs are employed as evaluators for complex tasks. With their ability to process diverse data types and provide scalable, cost-effective, and consistent assessments, LLMs present a compelling alternative to traditional expert-driven evaluations. However, ensuring the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems remains a significant challenge that requires careful design and standardization. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-as-a-Judge, addressing the core question: How can reliable LLM-as-a-Judge systems be built? We explore strategies to enhance reliability, including improving consistency, mitigating biases, and adapting to diverse assessment scenarios. Additionally, we propose methodologies for evaluating the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, supported by a novel benchmark designed for this purpose. To advance the development and real-world deployment of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, we also discussed practical applications, challenges, and future directions. This survey serves as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in this rapidly evolving field.

The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) towards autonomous agents has catalyzed progress in Deep Research. While retrieval capabilities are well-benchmarked, the post-retrieval synthesis stage--where agents must digest massive amounts of context and consolidate fragmented evidence into coherent, long-form reports--remains under-evaluated due to the subjectivity of open-ended writing. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepSynth-Eval, a benchmark designed to objectively evaluate information consolidation capabilities. We leverage high-quality survey papers as gold standards, reverse-engineering research requests and constructing "Oracle Contexts" from their bibliographies to isolate synthesis from retrieval noise. We propose a fine-grained evaluation protocol using General Checklists (for factual coverage) and Constraint Checklists (for structural organization), transforming subjective judgment into verifiable metrics. Experiments across 96 tasks reveal that synthesizing information from hundreds of references remains a significant challenge. Our results demonstrate that agentic plan-and-write workflows significantly outperform single-turn generation, effectively reducing hallucinations and improving adherence to complex structural constraints.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

Citations are the bedrock of scientific authority, yet their integrity is compromised by widespread miscitations: ranging from nuanced distortions to fabricated references. Systematic citation verification is currently unfeasible; manual review cannot scale to modern publishing volumes, while existing automated tools are restricted by abstract-only analysis or small-scale, domain-specific datasets in part due to the "paywall barrier" of full-text access. We introduce BibAgent, a scalable, end-to-end agentic framework for automated citation verification. BibAgent integrates retrieval, reasoning, and adaptive evidence aggregation, applying distinct strategies for accessible and paywalled sources. For paywalled references, it leverages a novel Evidence Committee mechanism that infers citation validity via downstream citation consensus. To support systematic evaluation, we contribute a 5-category Miscitation Taxonomy and MisciteBench, a massive cross-disciplinary benchmark comprising 6,350 miscitation samples spanning 254 fields. Our results demonstrate that BibAgent outperforms state-of-the-art Large Language Model (LLM) baselines in citation verification accuracy and interpretability, providing scalable, transparent detection of citation misalignments across the scientific literature.

Distinct-n scoreLi2016 is a widely used automatic metric for evaluating diversity in language generation tasks. However, we observed that the original approach for calculating distinct scores has evident biases that tend to assign higher penalties to longer sequences. We refine the calculation of distinct scores by scaling the number of distinct tokens based on their expectations. We provide both empirical and theoretical evidence to show that our method effectively removes the biases existing in the original distinct score. Our experiments show that our proposed metric, Expectation-Adjusted Distinct (EAD), correlates better with human judgment in evaluating response diversity. To foster future research, we provide an example implementation at https://github.com/lsy641/Expectation-Adjusted-Distinct.

Recent research in the field of reflexive metrics have studied the emergence and consequences of evaluation gaps in science. The concept of evaluation gaps captures potential discrepancies between what researchers value about their research, in particular research quality, and what metrics measure. As a result, scientists may experience anomie and adopt innovative ways to cope. These often value quantity over quality and may even compromise research integrity. A consequence of such gaps may therefore be research misconduct and a decrease in research quality. In the language of rational choice theory, an evaluation gap persists if motivational factors arising out of the internal component of an actors situation are incongruent with those arising out of the external components. The aim of this research is therefore to study and compare autonomous and controlled motivations to become an astronomer, to do research in astronomy and to publish scientific papers. Moreover, we study how these different motivational factors affect publication pressure, the experience of organisational justice and the observation of research misconduct. In summary, we find evidence for an evaluation gap and that controlled motivational factors arising from evaluation procedures based on publication record drives up publication pressure, which, in turn, was found to increase the likelihood of perceived frequency of misbehaviour.

In this work, we present a modular and interpretable framework that uses Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate candidate assessment in recruitment. The system integrates diverse sources, including job descriptions, CVs, interview transcripts, and HR feedback; to generate structured evaluation reports that mirror expert judgment. Unlike traditional ATS tools that rely on keyword matching or shallow scoring, our approach employs role-specific, LLM-generated rubrics and a multi-agent architecture to perform fine-grained, criteria-driven evaluations. The framework outputs detailed assessment reports, candidate comparisons, and ranked recommendations that are transparent, auditable, and suitable for real-world hiring workflows. Beyond rubric-based analysis, we introduce an LLM-Driven Active Listwise Tournament mechanism for candidate ranking. Instead of noisy pairwise comparisons or inconsistent independent scoring, the LLM ranks small candidate subsets (mini-tournaments), and these listwise permutations are aggregated using a Plackett-Luce model. An active-learning loop selects the most informative subsets, producing globally coherent and sample-efficient rankings. This adaptation of listwise LLM preference modeling (previously explored in financial asset ranking) provides a principled and highly interpretable methodology for large-scale candidate ranking in talent acquisition.

Large language models (LLMs) are now used for academic expert recommendation. Existing audits typically evaluate such recommendations in isolation, ignoring end-user inference-time interventions. Thus, it remains unclear whether failures (e.g., refusals, hallucinations, uneven coverage) stem from model choice or deployment decisions. We introduce LLMScholarBench, a benchmark for auditing LLM-based scholar recommendation that jointly evaluates model infrastructure and end-user interventions across multiple tasks. LLMScholarBench measures technical quality and social representation using nine metrics. We instantiate the benchmark in physics expert recommendation and audit 22 LLMs under temperature variation, representation-constrained prompting, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) via web search. Our results show that each intervention entails distinct tradeoffs. Higher temperature degrades validity, consistency, and factuality. Representation-constrained prompting improves diversity at the expense of factuality, while RAG primarily improves technical quality while reducing diversity and parity. Overall, end-user interventions reshape trade-offs rather than providing uniform gains. LLMScholarBench makes all these dynamics auditable across models and interventions in LLM-based scholar recommendations.

Language model users often issue queries that lack specification, where the context under which a query was issued -- such as the user's identity, the query's intent, and the criteria for a response to be useful -- is not explicit. For instance, a good response to a subjective query like "What book should I read next?" would depend on the user's preferences, and a good response to an open-ended query like "How do antibiotics work against bacteria?" would depend on the user's expertise. This makes evaluation of responses to such queries an ill-posed task, as evaluators may make arbitrary judgments about the response quality. To remedy this, we present contextualized evaluations, a protocol that synthetically constructs context surrounding an underspecified query and provides it during evaluation. We find that the presence of context can 1) alter conclusions drawn from evaluation, even flipping win rates between model pairs, 2) nudge evaluators to make fewer judgments based on surface-level criteria, like style, and 3) provide new insights about model behavior across diverse contexts. Specifically, our procedure uncovers an implicit bias towards WEIRD contexts in models' "default" responses and we find that models are not equally sensitive to following different contexts, even when they are provided in prompts.

Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable. To address this, we investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction. We parse all papers of OpenReview and augment each submission with its citation count, reference, and research hypothesis. Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper. Furthermore, we show that a simple prediction model based solely on title and abstract outperforms LLM-based reviewers, though it still falls short of human-level consistency.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design Comparison-Native framework for Paper Evaluation (CNPE), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8\% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview{Code}.

We introduce MiRAGE, an evaluation framework for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) from multimodal sources. As audiovisual media becomes a prevalent source of information online, it is essential for RAG systems to integrate information from these sources into generation. However, existing evaluations for RAG are text-centric, limiting their applicability to multimodal settings. MiRAGE is a claim-centric approach to multimodal RAG evaluation, consisting of InfoF1, which assesses factuality and information coverage, and CiteF1, which assesses citation support and completeness. We show that, when applied by humans, MiRAGE strongly aligns with extrinsic judgments of output quality. We additionally introduce an automatic implementation of MiRAGE as well as multimodal variants of three prominent text-based RAG metrics -- ALCE, ARGUE, and RAGAS -- demonstrating the limitations of text-centric work and laying the groundwork for automatic evaluation. We release open-source implementations and outline evaluation methods for multimodal RAG.