Daily Papers

Lectures are a learning experience for both students and teachers. Students learn from teachers about the subject material, while teachers learn from students about how to refine their instruction. However, online student feedback is unstructured and abundant, making it challenging for teachers to learn and improve. We take a step towards tackling this challenge. First, we contribute a dataset for studying this problem: SIGHT is a large dataset of 288 math lecture transcripts and 15,784 comments collected from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) YouTube channel. Second, we develop a rubric for categorizing feedback types using qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis methods are powerful in uncovering domain-specific insights, however they are costly to apply to large data sources. To overcome this challenge, we propose a set of best practices for using large language models (LLMs) to cheaply classify the comments at scale. We observe a striking correlation between the model's and humans' annotation: Categories with consistent human annotations (>0.9 inter-rater reliability, IRR) also display higher human-model agreement (>0.7), while categories with less consistent human annotations (0.7-0.8 IRR) correspondingly demonstrate lower human-model agreement (0.3-0.5). These techniques uncover useful student feedback from thousands of comments, costing around 0.002$ per comment. We conclude by discussing exciting future directions on using online student feedback and improving automated annotation techniques for qualitative research.

Despite 230 million speakers, Urdu remains critically under-resourced in speech technology. We introduce UrduSpeech: a large high-fidelity Urdu corpus comprising 156 hours of audio with 12-dimension paralinguistic metadata, encompassing US-Std, US-CS, US-EngPk. To address Right-to-Left script constraints and frequent code-switching, we developed UrduSpeech, a LLM-driven pipeline to curate data across 12 diverse categories, including news, drama, and rare literary forms like Bait-Bazi. We also release a 9-hour US-Benchmark set, manually corrected by native annotators to serve as a standard. Human quality assessment of the primary 156-hour corpus yielded a Mean Opinion Score (MOS) of 4.6 (std = 0.7) with inter-rater reliability confirmed by a 0.68 Cohen's Kappa, validating our curation pipeline's 97.6% confidence score. The corpus maintains a 60-40 gender balance across 71,792 utterances. Our work represents a significant leap toward linguistic inclusivity in global AI. The corpus and code are open-sourced, and a demo page is available.

Qualitative research faces a critical reliability challenge: traditional inter-rater agreement methods require multiple human coders, are time-intensive, and often yield moderate consistency. We present a multi-perspective validation framework for LLM-based thematic analysis that combines ensemble validation with dual reliability metrics: Cohen's Kappa (κ) for inter-rater agreement and cosine similarity for semantic consistency. Our framework enables configurable analysis parameters (1-6 seeds, temperature 0.0-2.0), supports custom prompt structures with variable substitution, and provides consensus theme extraction across any JSON format. As proof-of-concept, we evaluate three leading LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) on a psychedelic art therapy interview transcript, conducting six independent runs per model. Results demonstrate Gemini achieves highest reliability (κ= 0.907, cosine=95.3%), followed by GPT-4o (κ= 0.853, cosine=92.6%) and Claude (κ= 0.842, cosine=92.1%). All three models achieve a high agreement (κ> 0.80), validating the multi-run ensemble approach. The framework successfully extracts consensus themes across runs, with Gemini identifying 6 consensus themes (50-83% consistency), GPT-4o identifying 5 themes, and Claude 4 themes. Our open-source implementation provides researchers with transparent reliability metrics, flexible configuration, and structure-agnostic consensus extraction, establishing methodological foundations for reliable AI-assisted qualitative research.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (ho=0.88 for zero-shot; ho=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (appa=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.

This study investigates the consistency of feedback ratings generated by OpenAI's GPT-4, a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence language model, across multiple iterations, time spans and stylistic variations. The model rated responses to tasks within the Higher Education (HE) subject domain of macroeconomics in terms of their content and style. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to learn more about the interrater reliability, consistency of the ratings across iterations and the correlation between ratings in terms of content and style. The results revealed a high interrater reliability with ICC scores ranging between 0.94 and 0.99 for different timespans, suggesting that GPT-4 is capable of generating consistent ratings across repetitions with a clear prompt. Style and content ratings show a high correlation of 0.87. When applying a non-adequate style the average content ratings remained constant, while style ratings decreased, which indicates that the large language model (LLM) effectively distinguishes between these two criteria during evaluation. The prompt used in this study is furthermore presented and explained. Further research is necessary to assess the robustness and reliability of AI models in various use cases.

This study investigates the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) as tools for grading master-level student essays. Utilizing a sample of 60 essays in political science, the study compares the accuracy of grades suggested by the GPT-4 model with those awarded by university teachers. Results indicate that while GPT-4 aligns with human grading standards on mean scores, it exhibits a risk-averse grading pattern and its interrater reliability with human raters is low. Furthermore, modifications in the grading instructions (prompt engineering) do not significantly alter AI performance, suggesting that GPT-4 primarily assesses generic essay characteristics such as language quality rather than adapting to nuanced grading criteria. These findings contribute to the understanding of AI's potential and limitations in higher education, highlighting the need for further development to enhance its adaptability and sensitivity to specific educational assessment requirements.

Determining the stage of decomposition (SOD) is crucial for estimating the postmortem interval and identifying human remains. Currently, labor-intensive manual scoring methods are used for this purpose, but they are subjective and do not scale for the emerging large-scale archival collections of human decomposition photos. This study explores the feasibility of automating two common human decomposition scoring methods proposed by Megyesi and Gelderman using artificial intelligence (AI). We evaluated two popular deep learning models, Inception V3 and Xception, by training them on a large dataset of human decomposition images to classify the SOD for different anatomical regions, including the head, torso, and limbs. Additionally, an interrater study was conducted to assess the reliability of the AI models compared to human forensic examiners for SOD identification. The Xception model achieved the best classification performance, with macro-averaged F1 scores of .878, .881, and .702 for the head, torso, and limbs when predicting Megyesi's SODs, and .872, .875, and .76 for the head, torso, and limbs when predicting Gelderman's SODs. The interrater study results supported AI's ability to determine the SOD at a reliability level comparable to a human expert. This work demonstrates the potential of AI models trained on a large dataset of human decomposition images to automate SOD identification.

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

In the age of open and free information, a concerning trend of reliance on AI is emerging. However, existing AI tools struggle to evaluate the credibility of information and to justify their assessments. Hence, there is a growing need for systems that can help users evaluate the trustworthiness of online information. Although major search engines incorporate AI features, they often lack clear reliability indicators. We present TrueGL, a model that makes trustworthy search results more accessible. The model is a fine-tuned version of IBM's Granite-1B, trained on the custom dataset and integrated into a search engine with a reliability scoring system. We evaluate the system using prompt engineering and assigning each statement a continuous reliability score from 0.1 to 1, then instructing the model to return a textual explanation alongside the score. Each model's predicted scores are measured against real scores using standard evaluation metrics. TrueGL consistently outperforms other small-scale LLMs and rule-based approaches across all experiments on key evaluation metrics, including MAE, RMSE, and R2. The model's high accuracy, broad content coverage, and ease of use make trustworthy information more accessible and help reduce the spread of false or misleading content online. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/AlgazinovAleksandr/TrueGL, and our model is publicly released at https://huggingface.co/JoydeepC/trueGL.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific writing promises efficiency but risks introducing informational entropy. While "hallucinated papers" are a known artifact, the systematic degradation of valid citation chains remains unquantified. We conducted a forensic audit of 50 recent survey papers in Artificial Intelligence (N=5,514 citations) published between September 2024 and January 2026. We utilized a hybrid verification pipeline combining DOI resolution, Crossref metadata analysis, Semantic Scholar queries, and fuzzy text matching to distinguish between formatting errors ("Sloppiness") and verifiable non-existence ("Phantoms). We detect a persistent 17.0% Phantom Rate -- citations that cannot be resolved to any digital object despite aggressive forensic recovery. Diagnostic categorization reveals three distinct failure modes: pure hallucinations (5.1%), hallucinated identifiers with valid titles (16.4%), and parsing-induced matching failures (78.5%). Longitudinal analysis reveals a flat trend (+0.07 pp/month), suggesting that high-entropy citation practices have stabilized as an endemic feature of the field. The scientific citation graph in AI survey literature exhibits "link rot" at scale. This suggests a mechanism where AI tools act as "lazy research assistants," retrieving correct titles but hallucinating metadata, thereby severing the digital chain of custody required for reproducible science.

While LLM-as-a-Judge is widely used in automated evaluation, existing validation practices primarily operate at the level of observed outputs, offering limited insight into whether LLM judges themselves function as stable and reliable measurement instruments. To address this limitation, we introduce a two-phase diagnostic framework for assessing reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge, grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT). The framework adopts Graded Response Model (GRM) of IRT and formalizes reliability along two complementary dimensions: (1) intrinsic consistency, defined as the stability of measurement behavior under prompt variations, and (2) human alignment, capturing correspondence with human quality assessments. We empirically examine diverse LLM judges with this framework, and show that leveraging IRT-GRM yields interpretable signals for diagnosing judgments systematically. These signals provide practical guidance for verifying reliablity of LLM-as-a-Judge and identifying potential causes of unreliability.

Evaluating the reliability of news sources is a routine task for journalists and organizations committed to acquiring and disseminating accurate information. Recent research has shown that predicting sources' reliability represents an important first-prior step in addressing additional challenges such as fake news detection and fact-checking. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for source reliability estimation that leverages reinforcement learning strategies for estimating the reliability degree of news sources. Contrary to previous research, our proposed approach models the problem as the estimation of a reliability degree, and not a reliability label, based on how all the news media sources interact with each other on the Web. We validated the effectiveness of our method on a news media reliability dataset that is an order of magnitude larger than comparable existing datasets. Results show that the estimated reliability degrees strongly correlates with journalists-provided scores (Spearman=0.80) and can effectively predict reliability labels (macro-avg. F_1 score=81.05). We release our implementation and dataset, aiming to provide a valuable resource for the NLP community working on information verification.

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.

Previous research on radiology report generation has made significant progress in terms of increasing the clinical accuracy of generated reports. In this paper, we emphasize another crucial quality that it should possess, i.e., inter-report consistency, which refers to the capability of generating consistent reports for semantically equivalent radiographs. This quality is even of greater significance than the overall report accuracy in terms of ensuring the system's credibility, as a system prone to providing conflicting results would severely erode users' trust. Regrettably, existing approaches struggle to maintain inter-report consistency, exhibiting biases towards common patterns and susceptibility to lesion variants. To address this issue, we propose ICON, which improves the inter-report consistency of radiology report generation. Aiming at enhancing the system's ability to capture the similarities in semantically equivalent lesions, our approach involves first extracting lesions from input images and examining their characteristics. Then, we introduce a lesion-aware mix-up augmentation technique to ensure that the representations of the semantically equivalent lesions align with the same attributes, by linearly interpolating them during the training phase. Extensive experiments on three publicly available chest X-ray datasets verify the effectiveness of our approach, both in terms of improving the consistency and accuracy of the generated reports.

While automatic metrics drive progress in Machine Translation (MT) and Text Summarization (TS), existing metrics have been developed and validated almost exclusively for English and other high-resource languages. This narrow focus leaves Indian languages, spoken by over 1.5 billion people, largely overlooked, casting doubt on the universality of current evaluation practices. To address this gap, we introduce ITEM, a large-scale benchmark that systematically evaluates the alignment of 26 automatic metrics with human judgments across six major Indian languages, enriched with fine-grained annotations. Our extensive evaluation, covering agreement with human judgments, sensitivity to outliers, language-specific reliability, inter-metric correlations, and resilience to controlled perturbations, reveals four central findings: (1) LLM-based evaluators show the strongest alignment with human judgments at both segment and system levels; (2) outliers exert a significant impact on metric-human agreement; (3) in TS, metrics are more effective at capturing content fidelity, whereas in MT, they better reflect fluency; and (4) metrics differ in their robustness and sensitivity when subjected to diverse perturbations. Collectively, these findings offer critical guidance for advancing metric design and evaluation in Indian languages.

Advanced LLMs have achieved near-ceiling instruction-following accuracy on benchmarks such as IFEval. However, these impressive scores do not necessarily translate to reliable services in real-world use, where users often vary their phrasing, contextual framing, and task formulations. In this paper, we study nuance-oriented reliability: whether models exhibit consistent competence across cousin prompts that convey analogous user intents but with subtle nuances. To quantify this, we introduce a new metric, reliable@k, and develop an automated pipeline that generates high-quality cousin prompts via data augmentation. Building upon this, we construct IFEval++ for systematic evaluation. Across 20 proprietary and 26 open-source LLMs, we find that current models exhibit substantial insufficiency in nuance-oriented reliability -- their performance can drop by up to 61.8% with nuanced prompt modifications. What's more, we characterize it and explore three potential improvement recipes. Our findings highlight nuance-oriented reliability as a crucial yet underexplored next step toward more dependable and trustworthy LLM behavior. Our code and benchmark are accessible: https://github.com/jianshuod/IFEval-pp.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

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.

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering legal workflows, yet we lack a jurisdiction-specific framework to assess their baseline competence therein. We use India's public legal examinations as a transparent proxy. Our multi-year benchmark assembles objective screens from top national and state exams and evaluates open and frontier LLMs under real-world exam conditions. To probe beyond multiple-choice questions, we also include a lawyer-graded, paired-blinded study of long-form answers from the Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record exam. This is, to our knowledge, the first exam-grounded, India-specific yardstick for LLM court-readiness released with datasets and protocols. Our work shows that while frontier systems consistently clear historical cutoffs and often match or exceed recent top-scorer bands on objective exams, none surpasses the human topper on long-form reasoning. Grader notes converge on three reliability failure modes: procedural or format compliance, authority or citation discipline, and forum-appropriate voice and structure. These findings delineate where LLMs can assist (checks, cross-statute consistency, statute and precedent lookups) and where human leadership remains essential: forum-specific drafting and filing, procedural and relief strategy, reconciling authorities and exceptions, and ethical, accountable judgment.

Radiological imaging is central to diagnosis, treatment planning, and clinical decision-making. Vision-language foundation models have spurred interest in automated radiology report generation (RRG), but safe deployment requires reliable clinical evaluation of generated reports. Existing metrics often rely on surface-level similarity or behave as black boxes, lacking interpretability. We introduce ICARE (Interpretable and Clinically-grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation), an interpretable evaluation framework leveraging large language model agents and dynamic multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Two agents, each with either the ground-truth or generated report, generate clinically meaningful questions and quiz each other. Agreement on answers captures preservation and consistency of findings, serving as interpretable proxies for clinical precision and recall. By linking scores to question-answer pairs, ICARE enables transparent, and interpretable assessment. Clinician studies show ICARE aligns significantly more with expert judgment than prior metrics. Perturbation analyses confirm sensitivity to clinical content and reproducibility, while model comparisons reveal interpretable error patterns.

LLMs are highly sensitive to prompt phrasing, yet standard benchmarks typically report performance using a single prompt, raising concerns about the reliability of such evaluations. In this work, we argue for a stochastic method of moments evaluation over the space of meaning-preserving prompt perturbations. We introduce a formal definition of reliable evaluation that accounts for prompt sensitivity, and suggest ReliableEval - a method for estimating the number of prompt resamplings needed to obtain meaningful results. Using our framework, we stochastically evaluate five frontier LLMs and find that even top-performing models like GPT-4o and Claude-3.7-Sonnet exhibit substantial prompt sensitivity. Our approach is model-, task-, and metric-agnostic, offering a recipe for meaningful and robust LLM evaluation.

Evaluating free-text explanations is a multifaceted, subjective, and labor-intensive task. Large language models (LLMs) present an appealing alternative due to their potential for consistency, scalability, and cost-efficiency. In this work, we present ACORN, a new dataset of 3,500 free-text explanations and aspect-wise quality ratings, and use it to gain insights into how LLMs evaluate explanations. We observed that replacing one of the human ratings sometimes maintained, but more often lowered the inter-annotator agreement across different settings and quality aspects, suggesting that their judgments are not always consistent with human raters. We further quantified this difference by comparing the correlation between LLM-generated ratings with majority-voted human ratings across different quality aspects. With the best system, Spearman's rank correlation ranged between 0.53 to 0.95, averaging 0.72 across aspects, indicating moderately high but imperfect alignment. Finally, we considered the alternative of using an LLM as an additional rater when human raters are scarce, and measured the correlation between majority-voted labels with a limited human pool and LLMs as an additional rater, compared to the original gold labels. While GPT-4 improved the outcome when there were only two human raters, in all other observed cases, LLMs were neutral to detrimental when there were three or more human raters. We publicly release the dataset to support future improvements in LLM-in-the-loop evaluation here: https://github.com/a-brassard/ACORN.

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.

This study evaluates the performance of large language models (LLMs) as medical agents in Portuguese, aiming to develop a reliable and relevant virtual assistant for healthcare professionals. The HealthCareMagic-100k-en and MedQuAD datasets, translated from English using GPT-3.5, were used to fine-tune the ChatBode-7B model using the PEFT-QLoRA method. The InternLM2 model, with initial training on medical data, presented the best overall performance, with high precision and adequacy in metrics such as accuracy, completeness and safety. However, DrBode models, derived from ChatBode, exhibited a phenomenon of catastrophic forgetting of acquired medical knowledge. Despite this, these models performed frequently or even better in aspects such as grammaticality and coherence. A significant challenge was low inter-rater agreement, highlighting the need for more robust assessment protocols. This work paves the way for future research, such as evaluating multilingual models specific to the medical field, improving the quality of training data, and developing more consistent evaluation methodologies for the medical field.

We introduce a corpus of 7,032 sentences rated by human annotators for formality, informativeness, and implicature on a 1-7 scale. The corpus was annotated using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Reliability in the obtained judgments was examined by comparing mean ratings across two MTurk experiments, and correlation with pilot annotations (on sentence formality) conducted in a more controlled setting. Despite the subjectivity and inherent difficulty of the annotation task, correlations between mean ratings were quite encouraging, especially on formality and informativeness. We further explored correlation between the three linguistic variables, genre-wise variation of ratings and correlations within genres, compatibility with automatic stylistic scoring, and sentential make-up of a document in terms of style. To date, our corpus is the largest sentence-level annotated corpus released for formality, informativeness, and implicature.

Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.

Rubric-based evaluation is widely used in LLM benchmarks and training pipelines for open-ended, less verifiable tasks. While prior work has demonstrated the effectiveness of rubrics using downstream signals such as reinforcement learning outcomes, there remains no principled way to diagnose how a rubric itself fails from such aggregated or downstream signals alone. To address this gap, we introduce RIFT: RubrIc Failure mode Taxonomy, a taxonomy for systematically characterizing failure modes in rubric composition and design. RIFT consists of eight failure modes organized into three high-level categories: Reliability Failures, Content Validity Failures, and Consequential Validity Failures. RIFT is developed using grounded theory by iteratively annotating rubrics drawn from five diverse data sources spanning general instruction following, code generation, creative writing, and expert-level deep research, until no new failure modes are identified. We evaluate the consistency of the taxonomy by measuring agreement among independent human annotators, observing fair agreement overall (87% pairwise agreement and 0.64 average Cohen's kappa). Finally, to support scalable diagnosis, we propose automated rubric quality metrics and show that they align with human failure-mode annotations, achieving up to 0.925 F1.

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.

Handwritten STEM exams capture open-ended reasoning and diagrams, but manual grading is slow and difficult to scale. We present an end-to-end workflow for grading scanned handwritten engineering quizzes with multimodal large language models (LLMs) that preserves the standard exam process (A4 paper, unconstrained student handwriting). The lecturer provides only a handwritten reference solution (100%) and a short set of grading rules; the reference is converted into a text-only summary that conditions grading without exposing the reference scan. Reliability is achieved through a multi-stage design with a format/presence check to prevent grading blank answers, an ensemble of independent graders, supervisor aggregation, and rigid templates with deterministic validation to produce auditable, machine-parseable reports. We evaluate the frozen pipeline in a clean-room protocol on a held-out real course quiz in Slovenian, including hand-drawn circuit schematics. With state-of-the-art backends (GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3 Pro), the full pipeline achieves approx8-point mean absolute difference to lecturer grades with low bias and an estimated manual-review trigger rate of approx17% at D_{max}=40. Ablations show that trivial prompting and removing the reference solution substantially degrade accuracy and introduce systematic over-grading, confirming that structured prompting and reference grounding are essential.

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.

Users typically engage with LLMs interactively, yet most existing benchmarks evaluate them in a static, single-turn format, posing reliability concerns in interactive scenarios. We identify a key obstacle towards reliability: LLMs are trained to answer any question, even with incomplete context or insufficient knowledge. In this paper, we propose to change the static paradigm to an interactive one, develop systems that proactively ask questions to gather more information and respond reliably, and introduce an benchmark - MediQ - to evaluate question-asking ability in LLMs. MediQ simulates clinical interactions consisting of a Patient System and an adaptive Expert System; with potentially incomplete initial information, the Expert refrains from making diagnostic decisions when unconfident, and instead elicits missing details via follow-up questions. We provide a pipeline to convert single-turn medical benchmarks into an interactive format. Our results show that directly prompting state-of-the-art LLMs to ask questions degrades performance, indicating that adapting LLMs to proactive information-seeking settings is nontrivial. We experiment with abstention strategies to better estimate model confidence and decide when to ask questions, improving diagnostic accuracy by 22.3%; however, performance still lags compared to an (unrealistic in practice) upper bound with complete information upfront. Further analyses show improved interactive performance with filtering irrelevant contexts and reformatting conversations. Overall, we introduce a novel problem towards LLM reliability, an interactive MediQ benchmark and a novel question-asking system, and highlight directions to extend LLMs' information-seeking abilities in critical domains.

We present the first sizeable corpus of Thai speech emotion recognition, THAI-SER, containing 41 hours and 36 minutes (27,854 utterances) from 100 recordings made in different recording environments: Zoom and two studio setups. The recordings contain both scripted and improvised sessions, acted by 200 professional actors (112 females and 88 males, aged 18 to 55) and were directed by professional directors. There are five primary emotions: neutral, angry, happy, sad, and frustrated, assigned to the actors when recording utterances. The utterances are annotated with an emotional category using crowdsourcing. To control the annotation process's quality, we also design an extensive filtering and quality control scheme to ensure that the majority agreement score remains above 0.71. We evaluate our annotated corpus using two metrics: inter-annotator reliability and human recognition accuracy. Inter-annotator reliability score was calculated using Krippendorff's alpha, where our corpus, after filtering, achieved an alpha score of 0.692, higher than a recommendation of 0.667. For human recognition accuracy, our corpus scored up to 0.772 post-filtering. We also provide the results of the model trained on the corpus evaluated on both in-corpus and cross-corpus setups. The corpus is publicly available under a Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0, as well as our codes for the experiments.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

Comprehensive evaluations of language models (LM) during both development and deployment phases are necessary because these models possess numerous capabilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning, legal support, or medical diagnostic) as well as safety risks (e.g., racial bias, toxicity, or misinformation). The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of these LMs in practice. Currently, holistic evaluations are costly due to the large volume of benchmark questions, making frequent evaluations impractical. A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark. This approach, unfortunately, often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset. Item response theory (IRT) was designed to address this challenge, providing a reliable measurement by careful controlling for question difficulty. Unfortunately, question difficulty is expensive to estimate. Facing this challenge, we train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost. In addition, we leverage this difficulty predictor to further improve the evaluation efficiency through training a question generator given a difficulty level. This question generator is essential in adaptive testing, where, instead of using a random subset of the benchmark questions, informative questions are adaptively chosen based on the current estimation of LLM performance. Experiments on 22 common natural language benchmarks and 172 LMs show that this approach is more reliable and efficient compared to current common practice.

In this work we design an end-to-end deep learning architecture for predicting, on Chest X-rays images (CXR), a multi-regional score conveying the degree of lung compromise in COVID-19 patients. Such semi-quantitative scoring system, namely Brixia~score, is applied in serial monitoring of such patients, showing significant prognostic value, in one of the hospitals that experienced one of the highest pandemic peaks in Italy. To solve such a challenging visual task, we adopt a weakly supervised learning strategy structured to handle different tasks (segmentation, spatial alignment, and score estimation) trained with a "from-the-part-to-the-whole" procedure involving different datasets. In particular, we exploit a clinical dataset of almost 5,000 CXR annotated images collected in the same hospital. Our BS-Net demonstrates self-attentive behavior and a high degree of accuracy in all processing stages. Through inter-rater agreement tests and a gold standard comparison, we show that our solution outperforms single human annotators in rating accuracy and consistency, thus supporting the possibility of using this tool in contexts of computer-assisted monitoring. Highly resolved (super-pixel level) explainability maps are also generated, with an original technique, to visually help the understanding of the network activity on the lung areas. We also consider other scores proposed in literature and provide a comparison with a recently proposed non-specific approach. We eventually test the performance robustness of our model on an assorted public COVID-19 dataset, for which we also provide Brixia~score annotations, observing good direct generalization and fine-tuning capabilities that highlight the portability of BS-Net in other clinical settings. The CXR dataset along with the source code and the trained model are publicly released for research purposes.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for analyzing complex datasets. Recent studies demonstrate their potential to generate useful, personalized responses when provided with patient-specific health information that encompasses lifestyle, biomarkers, and context. As LLM-driven health applications are increasingly adopted, rigorous and efficient one-sided evaluation methodologies are crucial to ensure response quality across multiple dimensions, including accuracy, personalization and safety. Current evaluation practices for open-ended text responses heavily rely on human experts. This approach introduces human factors and is often cost-prohibitive, labor-intensive, and hinders scalability, especially in complex domains like healthcare where response assessment necessitates domain expertise and considers multifaceted patient data. In this work, we introduce Adaptive Precise Boolean rubrics: an evaluation framework that streamlines human and automated evaluation of open-ended questions by identifying gaps in model responses using a minimal set of targeted rubrics questions. Our approach is based on recent work in more general evaluation settings that contrasts a smaller set of complex evaluation targets with a larger set of more precise, granular targets answerable with simple boolean responses. We validate this approach in metabolic health, a domain encompassing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity. Our results demonstrate that Adaptive Precise Boolean rubrics yield higher inter-rater agreement among expert and non-expert human evaluators, and in automated assessments, compared to traditional Likert scales, while requiring approximately half the evaluation time of Likert-based methods. This enhanced efficiency, particularly in automated evaluation and non-expert contributions, paves the way for more extensive and cost-effective evaluation of LLMs in health.

The rapid advancement of speech-to-speech (S2S) large language models (LLMs) has significantly improved real-time spoken interaction. However, current evaluation frameworks remain inadequate for assessing performance in complex, multi-turn dialogues. To address this, we introduce MTalk-Bench, a multi-turn S2S benchmark covering three core dimensions: Semantic Information, Paralinguistic Information, and Ambient Sound. Each dimension includes nine realistic scenarios, along with targeted tasks to assess specific capabilities such as reasoning. Our dual-method evaluation framework combines Arena-style evaluation (pairwise comparison) and Rubrics-based evaluation (absolute scoring) for relative and absolute assessment. The benchmark includes both model and human outputs, evaluated by human evaluators and LLMs. Experimental results reveal two sets of findings. Overall performance of S2S LLMs: (1) models excel at semantic information processing yet underperform on paralinguistic information and ambient sounds perception; (2) models typically regain coherence by increasing response length, sacrificing efficiency in multi-turn dialogues; (3) modality-aware, task-specific designs outperform brute scaling. Evaluation framework and reliability: (1) Arena and Rubrics yield consistent, complementary rankings, but reliable distinctions emerge only when performance gaps are large; (2) LLM-as-a-judge aligns with humans when gaps are clear or criteria explicit, but exhibits position and length biases and is reliable on nonverbal evaluation only with text annotations. These results highlight current limitations in S2S evaluation and the need for more robust, speech-aware assessment frameworks.

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), the Elo rating system, originally designed for ranking players in dynamic games such as chess, is increasingly being used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) through "A vs B" paired comparisons. However, while popular, the system's suitability for assessing entities with constant skill levels, such as LLMs, remains relatively unexplored. We study two fundamental axioms that evaluation methods should adhere to: reliability and transitivity. We conduct extensive evaluation of Elo behaviour, illustrating that individual Elo computations exhibit volatility and delving into the impact of varying the Elo rating system's hyperparameters. We show that these axioms are not always satisfied raising questions about the reliability of current comparative evaluations of LLMs. If the current use of Elo scores is intended to substitute the costly head-to-head comparison of LLMs, it is crucial to ensure the ranking is as robust as possible. Guided by the axioms, our findings offer concrete guidelines for enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluation methods, suggesting a need for reassessment of existing comparative approaches.

Techniques for reliable rubric-based LLM evaluation -- ensemble judging, bias mitigation, few-shot calibration -- are scattered across papers with inconsistent terminology and partial implementations. We introduce Autorubric, an open-source framework that unifies these rubric-based LLM evaluation lessons with opinionated defaults: analytic rubrics with binary, ordinal, and nominal criteria; single-judge and ensemble evaluation; few-shot calibration; bias mitigations; and psychometric reliability metrics. We validate on three benchmarks: RiceChem (college chemistry grading, 80\% accuracy with 5-shot calibration), ResearcherBench (deep research evaluation, 931 criteria, cross-judge agreement analysis), and CHARM-100, a new chatbot evaluation dataset combining all three criterion types with ground truth labels (87\% binary accuracy, moderate-to-substantial κ). Beyond measurement, per-criterion scores and explanations serve as optimization signals. We demonstrate how Autorubric's rubric-evaluation explanations raise a peer review agent's score from 0.47 to 0.85 (above the 0.82 expert-curated baseline), and its scores serve as RL rewards to produce statistically significant improvement on AdvancedIF (+0.039, Wilcoxon p = 0.032) with positive transfer to IFEval. In all of these cases, Autorubric enabled us to rapidly operationalize various rubric design choices and best practices with minimal effort.

We tasked 16 state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) with estimating the likelihood of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) emerging by 2030. To assess the quality of these forecasts, we implemented an automated peer review process (LLM-PR). The LLMs' estimates varied widely, ranging from 3% (Reka- Core) to 47.6% (GPT-4o), with a median of 12.5%. These estimates closely align with a recent expert survey that projected a 10% likelihood of AGI by 2027, underscoring the relevance of LLMs in forecasting complex, speculative scenarios. The LLM-PR process demonstrated strong reliability, evidenced by a high Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC = 0.79), reflecting notable consistency in scoring across the models. Among the models, Pplx-70b-online emerged as the top performer, while Gemini-1.5-pro-api ranked the lowest. A cross-comparison with external benchmarks, such as LMSYS Chatbot Arena, revealed that LLM rankings remained consistent across different evaluation methods, suggesting that existing benchmarks may not encapsulate some of the skills relevant for AGI prediction. We further explored the use of weighting schemes based on external benchmarks, optimizing the alignment of LLMs' predictions with human expert forecasts. This analysis led to the development of a new, 'AGI benchmark' designed to highlight performance differences in AGI-related tasks. Our findings offer insights into LLMs' capabilities in speculative, interdisciplinary forecasting tasks and emphasize the growing need for innovative evaluation frameworks for assessing AI performance in complex, uncertain real-world scenarios.

Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations that sound plausible yet fail to reflect the underlying decision process, undermining trust in high-stakes clinical use. Existing evaluations rarely catch this misalignment, prioritizing answer accuracy or adherence to formats. We present a clinically grounded framework for chest X-ray visual question answering (VQA) that probes CoT faithfulness via controlled text and image modifications across three axes: clinical fidelity, causal attribution, and confidence calibration. In a reader study (n=4), evaluator-radiologist correlations fall within the observed inter-radiologist range for all axes, with strong alignment for attribution (Kendall's tau_b=0.670), moderate alignment for fidelity (tau_b=0.387), and weak alignment for confidence tone (tau_b=0.091), which we report with caution. Benchmarking six VLMs shows that answer accuracy and explanation quality are decoupled, acknowledging injected cues does not ensure grounding, and text cues shift explanations more than visual cues. While some open-source models match final answer accuracy, proprietary models score higher on attribution (25.0% vs. 1.4%) and often on fidelity (36.1% vs. 31.7%), highlighting deployment risks and the need to evaluate beyond final answer accuracy.

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.

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.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for high-stakes medical applications, there has emerged a critical need for reliable and accurate evaluation methodologies. Traditional accuracy metrics fail inadequately as they neither capture question characteristics nor offer topic-specific insights. To address this gap, we introduce MedIRT, a rigorous evaluation framework grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT), the gold standard in high-stakes educational testing. Unlike previous research relying on archival data, we prospectively gathered fresh responses from 80 diverse LLMs on a balanced, 1,100-question USMLE-aligned benchmark. Using one unidimensional two-parameter logistic IRT model per topic, we estimate LLM's latent model ability jointly with question difficulty and discrimination, yielding more stable and nuanced performance rankings than accuracy alone. Notably, we identify distinctive ``spiky'' ability profiles, where overall rankings can be misleading due to highly specialized model abilities. While GPT-5 was the top performer in a majority of domains (8 of 11), it was outperformed in Social Science and Communication by Claude-3-opus, demonstrating that even an overall 23rd-ranked model can hold the top spot for specific competencies. Furthermore, we demonstrate IRT's utility in auditing benchmarks by identifying flawed questions. We synthesize these findings into a practical decision-support framework that integrates our multi-factor competency profiles with operational metrics. This work establishes a robust, psychometrically grounded methodology essential for the safe, effective, and trustworthy deployment of LLMs in healthcare.

Scaling educational assessment with large language models requires not just accuracy, but the ability to recognize when predictions are trustworthy. Instruction-tuned models tend to be overconfident, and their reliability deteriorates as curricula evolve, making fully autonomous deployment unsafe in high-stakes settings. We introduce CHiL(L)Grader, the first automated grading framework that incorporates calibrated confidence estimation into a human-in-the-loop workflow. Using post-hoc temperature scaling, confidence-based selective prediction, and continual learning, CHiL(L)Grader automates only high-confidence predictions while routing uncertain cases to human graders, and adapts to evolving rubrics and unseen questions. Across three short-answer grading datasets, CHiL(L)Grader automatically scores 35-65% of responses at expert-level quality (QWK >= 0.80). A QWK gap of 0.347 between accepted and rejected predictions confirms the effectiveness of the confidence-based routing. Each correction cycle strengthens the model's grading capability as it learns from teacher feedback. These results show that uncertainty quantification is key for reliable AI-assisted grading.

Large Language Models (LLMs) should refuse to answer questions beyond their knowledge. This capability, which we term knowledge-aware refusal, is crucial for factual reliability. However, existing metrics fail to faithfully measure this ability. On the one hand, simple refusal-based metrics are biased by refusal rates and yield inconsistent scores when models exhibit different refusal tendencies. On the other hand, existing calibration metrics are proxy-based, capturing the performance of auxiliary calibration processes rather than the model's actual refusal behavior. In this work, we propose the Refusal Index (RI), a principled metric that measures how accurately LLMs refuse questions they do not know. We define RI as Spearman's rank correlation between refusal probability and error probability. To make RI practically measurable, we design a lightweight two-pass evaluation method that efficiently estimates RI from observed refusal rates across two standard evaluation runs. Extensive experiments across 16 models and 5 datasets demonstrate that RI accurately quantifies a model's intrinsic knowledge-aware refusal capability in factual tasks. Notably, RI remains stable across different refusal rates and provides consistent model rankings independent of a model's overall accuracy and refusal rates. More importantly, RI provides insight into an important but previously overlooked aspect of LLM factuality: while LLMs achieve high accuracy on factual tasks, their refusal behavior can be unreliable and fragile. This finding highlights the need to complement traditional accuracy metrics with the Refusal Index for comprehensive factuality evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as automated judges, where practical value depends on both accuracy and trustworthy, risk-aware judgments. Existing approaches predominantly focus on accuracy, overlooking the necessity of well-calibrated confidence, which is vital for adaptive and reliable evaluation pipelines. In this work, we advocate a shift from accuracy-centric evaluation to confidence-driven, risk-aware LLM-as-a-Judge systems, emphasizing the necessity of well-calibrated confidence for trustworthy and adaptive evaluation. We systematically identify the Overconfidence Phenomenon in current LLM-as-a-Judges, where predicted confidence significantly overstates actual correctness, undermining reliability in practical deployment. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce TH-Score, a novel metric measuring confidence-accuracy alignment. Furthermore, we propose LLM-as-a-Fuser, an ensemble framework that transforms LLMs into reliable, risk-aware evaluators. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach substantially improves calibration and enables adaptive, confidence-driven evaluation pipelines, achieving superior reliability and accuracy compared to existing baselines.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

Cross-lingual evaluation of large language models (LLMs) typically conflates two sources of variance: genuine model performance differences and measurement instability. We investigate evaluation reliability by holding generation conditions constant while varying target language. Using synthetic customer-support dialogues generated with identical parameters across Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian, we test whether automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge scoring produce stable model rankings across these morphologically rich, related Finno-Ugric languages. With a small set of Estonian native speaker annotations as a reference point, we find systematic ranking instabilities: surface-level metrics (lexical diversity, surface and semantic similarity) maintain cross-language stability, but pragmatic judgments (coherence, instruction-following) exhibit rank inversions and near-zero correlations. Because generation is controlled, these inconsistencies reflect how judge scoring behaves differently across languages rather than true model differences. This controlled design provides a diagnostic probe: evaluation methods that fail to maintain stability under identical generation conditions signal transfer failure before deployment. Our findings suggest that zero-shot judge transfer is unreliable for discourse-level assessment in morphologically rich languages, motivating language-specific calibration against targeted human baselines. We release our controlled generation protocol, synthetic data, and evaluation framework to enable replication across language families at https://github.com/isaac-chung/cross-lingual-stability-judges.

The ability to estimate the quality of scientific papers is central to how both humans and AI systems will advance scientific knowledge in the future. However, existing LLM-based estimation methods suffer from high inference cost, whereas the faster direct score regression approach is limited by scale inconsistencies. We present NAIPv2, a debiased and efficient framework for paper quality estimation. NAIPv2 employs pairwise learning within domain-year groups to reduce inconsistencies in reviewer ratings and introduces the Review Tendency Signal (RTS) as a probabilistic integration of reviewer scores and confidences. To support training and evaluation, we further construct NAIDv2, a large-scale dataset of 24,276 ICLR submissions enriched with metadata and detailed structured content. Trained on pairwise comparisons but enabling efficient pointwise prediction at deployment, NAIPv2 achieves state-of-the-art performance (78.2% AUC, 0.432 Spearman), while maintaining scalable, linear-time efficiency at inference. Notably, on unseen NeurIPS submissions, it further demonstrates strong generalization, with predicted scores increasing consistently across decision categories from Rejected to Oral. These findings establish NAIPv2 as a debiased and scalable framework for automated paper quality estimation, marking a step toward future scientific intelligence systems. Code and dataset are released at https://sway.cloud.microsoft/Pr42npP80MfPhvj8.

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.

Evaluating long-form responses to research queries heavily relies on expert annotators, restricting attention to areas like AI where researchers can conveniently enlist colleagues. Yet, research expertise is widespread: survey articles synthesize knowledge distributed across the literature. We introduce ResearchQA, a resource for evaluating LLM systems by distilling survey articles from 75 research fields into 21K queries and 160K rubric items. Each rubric, derived jointly with queries from survey sections, lists query-specific answer evaluation criteria, i.e., citing papers, making explanations, and describing limitations. Assessments by 31 Ph.D. annotators in 8 fields indicate 96% of queries support Ph.D. information needs and 87% of rubric items should be addressed in system responses by a sentence or more. Using our rubrics, we are able to construct an automatic pairwise judge obtaining 74% agreement with expert judgments. We leverage ResearchQA to analyze competency gaps in 18 systems in over 7.6K pairwise evaluations. No parametric or retrieval-augmented system we evaluate exceeds 70% on covering rubric items, and the highest-ranking agentic system shows 75% coverage. Error analysis reveals that the highest-ranking system fully addresses less than 11% of citation rubric items, 48% of limitation items, and 49% of comparison items. We release our data to facilitate more comprehensive multi-field evaluations.

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including AI in Science (AIS), should be done following the principles of responsible AI. Progress in responsible AI is often quantified through evaluation metrics, yet there has been less work on assessing the robustness and reliability of the metrics themselves. We reflect on prior work that examines the robustness of fairness metrics for recommender systems as a type of AI application and summarise their key takeaways into a set of non-exhaustive guidelines for developing reliable metrics of responsible AI. Our guidelines apply to a broad spectrum of AI applications, including AIS.

Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. Recent work has focused on using LLMs to improve review efficiency or generate insightful review content. However, unchecked deficient reviews from both human experts and AI systems threaten to systematically undermine the peer review ecosystem and compromise academic integrity. To address this critical issue, we introduce ReviewGuard, an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews. ReviewGuard employs a comprehensive four-stage LLM-driven framework that: (1) collects ICLR and NeurIPS papers with their corresponding reviews from OpenReview; (2) annotates review types using GPT-4.1 with human validation; (3) addresses class imbalance and data scarcity through LLM-driven synthetic data augmentation, producing a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews; and (4) fine-tunes both encoder-based models and open source LLMs. We perform comprehensive feature analysis of the structure and quality of the review text. Compared to sufficient reviews, deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment. AI-generated text detection reveals that, since ChatGPT's emergence, AI-generated reviews have increased dramatically. In the evaluation of deficient review detection models, mixed training with synthetic and real review data provides substantial enhancements to recall and F1 scores on the binary task. This study presents the first LLM-driven system for detecting deficient peer reviews, providing evidence to inform AI governance in peer review while offering valuable insights into human-AI collaboration to maintain academic integrity.

Interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation, enabling models to produce and interpret both images and text in arbitrary sequences, have become a pivotal area in multimodal learning. Despite significant advancements, the evaluation of this capability remains insufficient. Existing benchmarks suffer from limitations in data scale, scope, and evaluation depth, while current evaluation metrics are often costly or biased, lacking in reliability for practical applications. To address these challenges, we introduce MMIE, a large-scale knowledge-intensive benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies. Moreover, we propose a reliable automated evaluation metric, leveraging a scoring model fine-tuned with human-annotated data and systematic evaluation criteria, aimed at reducing bias and improving evaluation accuracy. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our benchmark and metrics in providing a comprehensive evaluation of interleaved LVLMs. Specifically, we evaluate eight LVLMs, revealing that even the best models show significant room for improvement, with most achieving only moderate results. We believe MMIE will drive further advancements in the development of interleaved LVLMs. We publicly release our benchmark and code in https://mmie-bench.github.io/.

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant paradigm for grading model outputs at scale, yet the same model assigns systematically different scores when its output format changes (e.g., a 1-5 rating vs. a True/False label). Existing diagnoses of these format-induced inconsistencies stop at the input-output level. Using Position-aware Edge Attribution Patching (PEAP), we causally investigate the internal mechanism in Gemma-3, Qwen2.5, and Llama-3. We find that judgments across structured understanding and open-ended preference tasks share a sparse, generalized Latent Evaluator sub-graph in the mid-to-late multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs); zero-ablating it collapses judgment while preserving world knowledge in architecturally modular models. By structurally decoupling abstract judging from output formatting, we provide a mechanistic account of format-induced inconsistency on the open-weight models we study: a continuous judgment signal computed in the shared trunk is mapped through fragile, format-specific terminal branches, enabling format-independent preference to be isolated downstream of the requested output format. Our findings imply that benchmark-level reliability comparisons across formats are partially measuring formatter geometry rather than evaluation quality.

Benchmarks shape scientific conclusions about model capabilities and steer model development. This creates a feedback loop: stronger benchmarks drive better models, and better models demand more discriminative benchmarks. Ensuring benchmark reliability is therefore essential for trustworthy evaluation and meaningful progress. In this work, we study benchmark reliability from a distributional perspective and introduce benchmark harmony, which measures how uniformly a model's performance is distributed across the subdomains of a benchmark. We posit that high harmony is a desirable benchmark property, indicating that the aggregate metric reflects uniform competence across subdomains. Across 19 multiple-choice benchmarks and five model families, we map each benchmark onto a mean-variance plane of harmony computed across models, where high mean and low variance signal more reliable evaluation. Our analysis shows that less harmonious benchmarks can give misleading results, since overall accuracy may be disproportionately influenced by specific subdomains. For instance, ARC-Easy is overwhelmed by questions on Biological Concepts, overshadowing other critical subdomains such as Geography, Physics, Chemistry, and Environmental Science. By recommending that harmony should be reported alongside accuracy, we reframe evaluation from simple performance averages to a more robust, distributionally reliable measurement of performance.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an effective approach to enhance the factual accuracy of large language models (LLMs) by retrieving information from external databases, which are typically composed of diverse sources, to supplement the limited internal knowledge of LLMs. However, the standard RAG often risks retrieving incorrect information, as it relies solely on relevance between a query and a document, overlooking the heterogeneous reliability of these sources. To address this issue, we propose Reliability-Aware RAG (RA-RAG), a new multi-source RAG framework that estimates the reliability of sources and leverages this information to prioritize highly reliable and relevant documents, ensuring more robust and accurate response generation. Specifically, RA-RAG first estimates source reliability by cross-checking information across multiple sources. It then retrieves documents from the top-kappa reliable and relevant sources and aggregates their information using weighted majority voting (WMV), where the selective retrieval ensures scalability while not compromising the performance. Comprehensive experiments show that RA-RAG consistently outperforms baselines in scenarios with heterogeneous source reliability while scaling efficiently as the number of sources increases. Furthermore, we demonstrate the ability of RA-RAG to estimate real-world sources' reliability, highlighting its practical applicability. Our code and data are available at \href{https://github.com/ml-postech/RA-RAG{RA-RAG}.}

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs and verify moderate agreements. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality. A thorough disagreement analysis further supports a potential of fully automated ReviewScore evaluation.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and by what criteria; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. Alongside rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that while current deep research systems can produce structurally plausible reports that cite external evidence, there is room for improvement in fulfilling expert-level user requests and achieving logical completeness. Beyond simple performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

Evaluating the truthfulness of online content is critical for combating misinformation. This study examines the efficiency and effectiveness of crowdsourced truthfulness assessments through a comparative analysis of two approaches: one involving full-length webpages as evidence for each claim, and another using summaries for each evidence document generated with a large language model. Using an A/B testing setting, we engage a diverse pool of participants tasked with evaluating the truthfulness of statements under these conditions. Our analysis explores both the quality of assessments and the behavioral patterns of participants. The results reveal that relying on summarized evidence offers comparable accuracy and error metrics to the Standard modality while significantly improving efficiency. Workers in the Summary setting complete a significantly higher number of assessments, reducing task duration and costs. Additionally, the Summary modality maximizes internal agreement and maintains consistent reliance on and perceived usefulness of evidence, demonstrating its potential to streamline large-scale truthfulness evaluations.

The rapid growth of AI conferences is straining an already fragile peer-review system, leading to heavy reviewer workloads, expertise mismatches, inconsistent evaluation standards, superficial or templated reviews, and limited accountability under compressed timelines. In response, conference organizers have introduced new policies and interventions to preserve review standards. Yet these ad-hoc changes often create further concerns and confusion about the review process, leaving how papers are ultimately accepted - and how practices evolve across years - largely opaque. We present Paper Copilot, a system that creates durable digital archives of peer reviews across a wide range of computer-science venues, an open dataset that enables researchers to study peer review at scale, and a large-scale empirical analysis of ICLR reviews spanning multiple years. By releasing both the infrastructure and the dataset, Paper Copilot supports reproducible research on the evolution of peer review. We hope these resources help the community track changes, diagnose failure modes, and inform evidence-based improvements toward a more robust, transparent, and reliable peer-review system.

We present E3, an automated review assistant that augments reviewers and engineering teams by identifying decision-relevant technical concerns in research papers. For each concern, E3 reports its nature, its location, its bearing on the contribution, and the analysis or evidence that would resolve it, covering unsupported claims, missing ablations, weak baselines, hidden assumptions, threats to validity, and leakage risks. To evaluate E3 without contamination confounds we adopt an issue-level backtesting protocol: the corpus is restricted to papers postdating the training cutoff of every automated source, and for each paper a meta-judge that observes only anonymised reviews labels every issue-source pair as Caught, Partial, or Missed. Applied to 100 ICLR 2026 papers and 4598 judged issue rows, comparing E3 against the ICLR human reviews and two prompt-matched LLM baselines built on gpt-5.4 from OpenAI and claude-opus-4-6 from Anthropic, with meta-judge gpt-5.5, E3 attains the highest recall on every aggregate metric. Partial-inclusive recall reaches 90.2 percent, which is 15.5 points over GPT, 17.1 points over Claude, and 29.2 points over the human reviews, and strict recall preserves the ordering at 65.8 percent. On concerns raised by the human reviewers, E3 recovers 89.6 percent; on concerns the human reviewers missed it surfaces 1635 additional rows admitted into the judged union, 406 above the next-best source. Corpus, baseline prompts, judge prompt template, and evaluation code are released.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

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.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md

This paper presents a comprehensive study on resume classification to reduce the time and labor needed to screen an overwhelming number of applications significantly, while improving the selection of suitable candidates. A total of 6,492 resumes are extracted from 24,933 job applications for 252 positions designated into four levels of experience for Clinical Research Coordinators (CRC). Each resume is manually annotated to its most appropriate CRC position by experts through several rounds of triple annotation to establish guidelines. As a result, a high Kappa score of 61% is achieved for inter-annotator agreement. Given this dataset, novel transformer-based classification models are developed for two tasks: the first task takes a resume and classifies it to a CRC level (T1), and the second task takes both a resume and a job description to apply and predicts if the application is suited to the job T2. Our best models using section encoding and multi-head attention decoding give results of 73.3% to T1 and 79.2% to T2. Our analysis shows that the prediction errors are mostly made among adjacent CRC levels, which are hard for even experts to distinguish, implying the practical value of our models in real HR platforms.

The ability of critique is vital for models to self-improve and serve as reliable AI assistants. While extensively studied in language-only settings, multimodal critique of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) remains underexplored despite their growing capabilities in tasks like captioning and visual reasoning. In this work, we introduce MM-CRITIC, a holistic benchmark for evaluating the critique ability of LMMs across multiple dimensions: basic, correction, and comparison. Covering 8 main task types and over 500 tasks, MM-CRITIC collects responses from various LMMs with different model sizes and is composed of 4471 samples. To enhance the evaluation reliability, we integrate expert-informed ground answers into scoring rubrics that guide GPT-4o in annotating responses and generating reference critiques, which serve as anchors for trustworthy judgments. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of MM-CRITIC and provide a comprehensive assessment of leading LMMs' critique capabilities under multiple dimensions. Further analysis reveals some key insights, including the correlation between response quality and critique, and varying critique difficulty across evaluation dimensions. Our code is available at https://github.com/MichealZeng0420/MM-Critic.

Infographics are composite visual artifacts that combine data visualizations with textual and illustrative elements to communicate information. While recent text-to-image (T2I) models can generate aesthetically appealing images, their reliability in generating infographics remains unclear. Generated infographics may appear correct at first glance but contain easily overlooked issues, such as distorted data encoding or incorrect textual content. We present IGENBENCH, the first benchmark for evaluating the reliability of text-to-infographic generation, comprising 600 curated test cases spanning 30 infographic types. We design an automated evaluation framework that decomposes reliability verification into atomic yes/no questions based on a taxonomy of 10 question types. We employ multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to verify each question, yielding question-level accuracy (Q-ACC) and infographic-level accuracy (I-ACC). We comprehensively evaluate 10 state-of-the-art T2I models on IGENBENCH. Our systematic analysis reveals key insights for future model development: (i) a three-tier performance hierarchy with the top model achieving Q-ACC of 0.90 but I-ACC of only 0.49; (ii) data-related dimensions emerging as universal bottlenecks (e.g., Data Completeness: 0.21); and (iii) the challenge of achieving end-to-end correctness across all models. We release IGENBENCH at https://igen-bench.vercel.app/.

A retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system deployed over a multi-author institutional corpus can give a different answer to the same question depending on which source it retrieves -- a failure mode the dominant single-gold-answer paradigm cannot diagnose. We argue that source-dependence is a missing axis of NLP evaluation, and that auditing it means shifting the unit of evaluation from answer correctness to the inter-source relationship. We make this concrete in transplant patient education, where institutional sources demonstrably disagree, releasing three artefacts: TransplantQA, a benchmark of real patient questions, each answered by grounding generation in multiple institutional handbooks as candidate sources; HERO-QA, a hierarchical retrieval strategy that grounds and audits each answer; and a structured-output judge that scores inter-source relationships on a validated 5-label taxonomy. At scale, better retrieval reveals far more disagreement than prior estimates suggested -- understating its prevalence, not its intensity. The framework is domain-agnostic and transfers to legal and educational RAG: measuring source-dependence is a responsibility for deployed multi-source NLP generally.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

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.

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.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in the development of reliable LLMs, and the choice of feedback protocol plays a central role in both but remains understudied. In this work, we show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation (absolute scores versus relative preferences) can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In the context of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, we show that pairwise protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation. Generator models can exploit spurious attributes (or distractor features) favored by the LLM judge, resulting in inflated scores for lower-quality outputs. We find that absolute scoring is more robust to such manipulation, producing judgments that better reflect response quality and are less influenced by distractor features. Our results demonstrate that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features, skewing LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and leading to inaccurate conclusions about model quality in benchmark evaluations. Pairwise preferences flip in about 35% of the cases, compared to only 9% for absolute scores. We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.

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.

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/.

Machine unlearning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) is required for compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), yet current evaluation practices are inconsistent. We present the first systematic study of metric reliability in multimodal unlearning. Five standard metrics, Forget Accuracy (FA), Retain Accuracy (RA), Membership Inference Attack (MIA), Activation Distance (AD), and JS divergence (JS), yield conflicting method rankings across three VQA benchmarks (MLLMU-Bench, UnLOK-VQA, MMUBench). Kendall tau analysis over 36 unlearned LLaVA-1.5-7B models reveals two opposing clusters, {FA, RA, MIA} and {AD, JS}, with tau_FA_AD = -0.26, reproduced on BLIP-2 OPT-2.7B. Agreement is lower in multimodal VQA (average tau = 0.086) than in unimodal classification (average tau = 0.158; difference = 0.072), indicating that dual image-and-text pathways amplify inconsistency. We introduce the Unified Quality Score (UQS), a composite metric with weights derived from each metric's Spearman correlation with the oracle distance d(M_hat, M_star), where M_star is the oracle model retrained only on the retain set. RA shows the strongest reliability (rho = 0.484, p = 0.003), while FA is negatively correlated (rho = -0.418, p = 0.011). UQS yields stable rankings under 100 random weight perturbations (tau = 0.647 +- 0.262). We release the benchmark, 36 checkpoints, and an interactive leaderboard. Code and pre-computed results are available at https://github.com/neurips26/UnifiedUnl.

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its efficiency, effectiveness, and the quality of published papers. We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes, focusing on before- and after-rebuttal scores and reviewer-author interactions. We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects. Combining quantitative analyses with LLM-based categorization of review texts and rebuttal discussions, we identify common strengths and weaknesses for each rating group, as well as trends in rebuttal strategies that are most strongly associated with score changes. Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal, pointing to a degree of reviewer influence. Rebuttals play a valuable role in improving outcomes for borderline papers, where thoughtful author responses can meaningfully shift reviewer perspectives. More broadly, our study offers evidence-based insights to improve the peer review process, guiding authors on effective rebuttal strategies and helping the community design fairer and more efficient review processes. Our code and score changes data are available at https://github.com/papercopilot/iclr-insights.

Automated Essay Score (AES) is proven to be one of the cutting-edge technologies. Scoring techniques are used for various purposes. Reliable scores are calculated based on influential variables. Such variables can be computed by different methods based on the domain. The research is concentrated on the user's understanding of a given topic. The analysis is based on a scoring index by using Large Language Models. The user can then compare and contrast the understanding of a topic that they recently learned. The results are then contributed towards learning analytics and progression is made for enhancing the learning ability. In this research, the focus is on summarizing a PDF document and gauging a user's understanding of its content. The process involves utilizing a Langchain tool to summarize the PDF and extract the essential information. By employing this technique, the research aims to determine how well the user comprehends the summarized content.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage -- a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline-which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation-and are subsequently validated through expert review. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

Ambient AI "scribe" systems promise to reduce clinical documentation burden, but automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors can remain unnoticed without careful review, and high-quality human reference transcripts are often unavailable for calibrating uncertainty. We investigate whether cross-model disagreement among heterogeneous ASR systems can act as a reference-free uncertainty signal to prioritize human verification in medical transcription workflows. Using 50 publicly available medical education audio clips (8 h 14 min), we transcribed each clip with eight ASR systems spanning commercial APIs and open-source engines. We aligned multi-model outputs, built consensus pseudo-references, and quantified token-level agreement using a majority-strength metric; we further characterized disagreements by type (content vs. punctuation/formatting) and assessed per-model agreement via leave-one-model-out (jackknife) consensus scoring. Inter-model reliability was low (ICC[2,1] = 0.131), indicating heterogeneous failure modes across systems. Across 76,398 evaluated token positions, 72.1% showed near-unanimous agreement (7-8 models), while 2.5% fell into high-risk bands (0-3 models), with high-risk mass varying from 0.7% to 11.4% across accent groups. Low-agreement regions were enriched for content disagreements, with the content fraction increasing from 53.9% to 73.9% across quintiles of high-risk mass. These results suggest that cross-model disagreement provides a sparse, localizable signal that can surface potentially unreliable transcript spans without human-verified references, enabling targeted review; clinical accuracy of flagged regions remains to be established.

Discharge summaries in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are crucial for clinical decision-making, but their length and complexity make information extraction challenging, especially when dealing with accumulated summaries across multiple patient admissions. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in addressing this challenge by efficiently analyzing vast and complex data. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in properly evaluating LLMs' capabilities in this context, as they typically focus on single-note information or limited topics, failing to reflect the real-world inquiries required by clinicians. To bridge this gap, we introduce EHRNoteQA, a novel benchmark built on the MIMIC-IV EHR, comprising 962 different QA pairs each linked to distinct patients' discharge summaries. Every QA pair is initially generated using GPT-4 and then manually reviewed and refined by three clinicians to ensure clinical relevance. EHRNoteQA includes questions that require information across multiple discharge summaries and covers eight diverse topics, mirroring the complexity and diversity of real clinical inquiries. We offer EHRNoteQA in two formats: open-ended and multi-choice question answering, and propose a reliable evaluation method for each. We evaluate 27 LLMs using EHRNoteQA and examine various factors affecting the model performance (e.g., the length and number of discharge summaries). Furthermore, to validate EHRNoteQA as a reliable proxy for expert evaluations in clinical practice, we measure the correlation between the LLM performance on EHRNoteQA, and the LLM performance manually evaluated by clinicians. Results show that LLM performance on EHRNoteQA have higher correlation with clinician-evaluated performance (Spearman: 0.78, Kendall: 0.62) compared to other benchmarks, demonstrating its practical relevance in evaluating LLMs in clinical settings.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. A critical but under-modeled issue is that judge LLMs differ substantially in reliability; treating all judges equally can yield biased leaderboards and misleading uncertainty estimates. More data can make evaluation more confidently wrong under misspecified aggregation. We propose a judge-aware ranking framework that extends the Bradley-Terry-Luce model by introducing judge-specific discrimination parameters, jointly estimating latent model quality and judge reliability from pairwise comparisons without reference labels. We establish identifiability up to natural normalizations and prove consistency and asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator, enabling confidence intervals for score differences and rank comparisons. Across multiple public benchmarks and a newly collected dataset, our method improves agreement with human preferences, achieves higher data efficiency than unweighted baselines, and produces calibrated uncertainty quantification for LLM rankings.

In mental health counseling, a variety of earlier studies have focused on dialogue modeling. However, most of these studies give limited to no emphasis on the quality of interaction between a patient and a therapist. The therapeutic bond between a patient and a therapist directly correlates with effective mental health counseling. It involves developing the patient's trust on the therapist over the course of counseling. To assess the therapeutic bond in counseling, we introduce trust as a therapist-assistive metric. Our definition of trust involves patients' willingness and openness to express themselves and, consequently, receive better care. We conceptualize it as a dynamic trajectory observable through textual interactions during the counseling. To facilitate trust modeling, we present MENTAL-TRUST, a novel counseling dataset comprising manual annotation of 212 counseling sessions with first-of-its-kind seven expert-verified ordinal trust levels. We project our problem statement as an ordinal classification task for trust quantification and propose a new benchmark, TrustBench, comprising a suite of classical and state-of-the-art language models on MENTAL-TRUST. We evaluate the performance across a suite of metrics and lay out an exhaustive set of findings. Our study aims to unfold how trust evolves in therapeutic interactions.

Rigorous evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies on comparing models by the prevalence of desirable or undesirable behaviors, such as task pass rates or policy violations. These prevalence estimates are produced by a classifier, either an LLM-as-a-judge or human annotators, making the choice of classifier central to trustworthy evaluation. Common metrics used for this choice, such as Accuracy, Precision, and F1, are sensitive to class imbalance and to arbitrary choices of positive class, and can favor judges that distort prevalence estimates. We show that Youden's J statistic is theoretically aligned with choosing the best judge to compare models, and that Balanced Accuracy is an equivalent linear transformation of J. Through both analytical arguments and empirical examples and simulations, we demonstrate how selecting judges using Balanced Accuracy leads to better, more robust classifier selection.

The composition of pre-training datasets for large language models (LLMs) remains largely undisclosed, hindering transparency and efforts to optimize data quality, a critical driver of model performance. Current data selection methods, such as natural language quality assessments, diversity-based filters, and classifier-based approaches, are limited by single-dimensional evaluation or redundancy-focused strategies. To address these gaps, we propose four dimensions to evaluate data quality: professionalism, readability, reasoning, and cleanliness. We further introduce Meta-rater,a multi-dimensional data selection method that integrates these dimensions with existing quality metrics through learned optimal weightings. Meta-rater employs proxy models to train a regression model that predicts validation loss, enabling the identification of optimal combinations of quality scores. Experiments demonstrate that Meta-rater doubles convergence speed for 1.3B parameter models and improves downstream task performance by 3.23, with advantages that scale to models as large as 7.2B parameters. Our work establishes that holistic, multi-dimensional quality integration significantly outperforms conventional single-dimension approaches, offering a scalable paradigm for enhancing pre-training efficiency and model capability. To advance future research, we release scripts, data, and models at https://github.com/opendatalab/Meta-rater.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human bias that undermines the assessment of reliability and imposes scalability constraints. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without necessitating any human annotation. Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency (pair-wise preference stability) and global logical consistency (transitivity across a full set of preferences). We curate a dataset of 650 questions by combining structured benchmark problems with real-world user queries. Our experiments demonstrate both the stability of our metrics and their high correlation with supervised benchmarks like LLMBar and RewardBench2, confirming Sage's reliability as an evaluation suite for the robustness and accuracy of LLM-as-a-Judge. Based on Sage, we reveal that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant reliability problems when acting as judges in both scoring and pairwise settings; even the top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5, fail to maintain consistent preferences in nearly a quarter of difficult cases. We attribute this to a new phenomenon called situational preference, which explains why explicit rubrics or criteria can help the model judge consistently across answer pairs. Our further analysis shows that finetuned LLM-as-a-Judge is a feasible method to boost performance, and the panel-based judge as well as deep reasoning can enhance the judging consistency. We also find substantial inconsistency in human judgments, which indicates that human annotation may not be a reliable gold standard.

Recent work on chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness reports single aggregate numbers (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 acknowledges hints 39% of the time), implying that faithfulness is an objective, measurable property of a model. This paper demonstrates that it is not. Three classifiers (a regex-only detector, a two-stage regex-plus-LLM pipeline, and an independent Claude Sonnet 4 judge) are applied to 10,276 influenced reasoning traces from 12 open-weight models spanning 9 families and 7B to 1T parameters. On identical data, these classifiers produce overall faithfulness rates of 74.4%, 82.6%, and 69.7%, respectively, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Per-model gaps range from 2.6 to 30.6 percentage points; all are statistically significant (McNemar's test, p < 0.001). The disagreements are systematic, not random: inter-classifier agreement measured by Cohen's kappa ranges from 0.06 ("slight") for sycophancy hints to 0.42 ("moderate") for grader hints, and the asymmetry is pronounced: for sycophancy, 883 cases are classified as faithful by the pipeline but unfaithful by the Sonnet judge, while only 2 go the other direction. Classifier choice can also reverse model rankings: Qwen3.5-27B ranks 1st under the pipeline but 7th under the Sonnet judge; OLMo-3.1-32B moves in the opposite direction, from 9th to 3rd. The root cause is that different classifiers operationalize related faithfulness constructs at different levels of stringency (lexical mention versus epistemic dependence), and these constructs yield divergent measurements on the same behavior. These results demonstrate that published faithfulness numbers cannot be meaningfully compared across studies that use different classifiers, and that future evaluations should report sensitivity ranges across multiple classification methodologies rather than single point estimates.

The surge in scientific submissions has placed increasing strain on the traditional peer-review process, prompting the exploration of large language models (LLMs) for automated review generation. While LLMs demonstrate competence in producing structured and coherent feedback, their capacity for critical reasoning, contextual grounding, and quality sensitivity remains limited. To systematically evaluate these aspects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates semantic similarity analysis and structured knowledge graph metrics to assess LLM-generated reviews against human-written counterparts. We construct a large-scale benchmark of 1,683 papers and 6,495 expert reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS in multiple years, and generate reviews using five LLMs. Our findings show that LLMs perform well in descriptive and affirmational content, capturing the main contributions and methodologies of the original work, with GPT-4o highlighted as an illustrative example, generating 15.74% more entities than human reviewers in the strengths section of good papers in ICLR 2025. However, they consistently underperform in identifying weaknesses, raising substantive questions, and adjusting feedback based on paper quality. GPT-4o produces 59.42% fewer entities than real reviewers in the weaknesses and increases node count by only 5.7% from good to weak papers, compared to 50% in human reviews. Similar trends are observed across all conferences, years, and models, providing empirical foundations for understanding the merits and defects of LLM-generated reviews and informing the development of future LLM-assisted reviewing tools. Data, code, and more detailed results are publicly available at https://github.com/RichardLRC/Peer-Review.

We present OpenReviewer, an open-source system for generating high-quality peer reviews of machine learning and AI conference papers. At its core is Llama-OpenReviewer-8B, an 8B parameter language model specifically fine-tuned on 79,000 expert reviews from top conferences. Given a PDF paper submission and review template as input, OpenReviewer extracts the full text, including technical content like equations and tables, and generates a structured review following conference-specific guidelines. Our evaluation on 400 test papers shows that OpenReviewer produces considerably more critical and realistic reviews compared to general-purpose LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude-3.5. While other LLMs tend toward overly positive assessments, OpenReviewer's recommendations closely match the distribution of human reviewer ratings. The system provides authors with rapid, constructive feedback to improve their manuscripts before submission, though it is not intended to replace human peer review. OpenReviewer is available as an online demo and open-source tool.

The way users acquire information is undergoing a paradigm shift with the advent of ChatGPT. Unlike conventional search engines, ChatGPT retrieves knowledge from the model itself and generates answers for users. ChatGPT's impressive question-answering (QA) capability has attracted more than 100 million users within a short period of time but has also raised concerns regarding its reliability. In this paper, we perform the first large-scale measurement of ChatGPT's reliability in the generic QA scenario with a carefully curated set of 5,695 questions across ten datasets and eight domains. We find that ChatGPT's reliability varies across different domains, especially underperforming in law and science questions. We also demonstrate that system roles, originally designed by OpenAI to allow users to steer ChatGPT's behavior, can impact ChatGPT's reliability. We further show that ChatGPT is vulnerable to adversarial examples, and even a single character change can negatively affect its reliability in certain cases. We believe that our study provides valuable insights into ChatGPT's reliability and underscores the need for strengthening the reliability and security of large language models (LLMs).

Critique, as a natural language description for assessing the quality of model-generated content, has been proven to play an essential role in the training, evaluation, and refinement of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, there is a lack of principled understanding in evaluating the quality of the critique itself. In this paper, we pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which is a framework to evaluate the critique from two aspects, i.e., factuality as precision score and comprehensiveness as recall score. We calculate the harmonic mean of precision and recall as the overall rating called F1 score. To obtain a reliable evaluation outcome, we propose Atomic Information Units (AIUs), which describe the critique in a more fine-grained manner. MetaCritique takes each AIU into account and aggregates each AIU's judgment for the overall score. Moreover, given the evaluation process involves intricate reasoning, our MetaCritique provides a natural language rationale to support each judgment. We construct a meta-evaluation dataset containing 300 critiques (2653 AIUs) across four tasks (question answering, reasoning, entailment, and summarization), and we conduct a comparative study to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness. Experiments also show superior critique judged by MetaCritique leads to better refinement, indicating generative artificial intelligence indeed has the potential to be significantly advanced with our MetaCritique. We will release relevant code and meta-evaluation datasets at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/MetaCritique.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as 'safety' and 'robustness' requires strong construct validity, that is, having measures that represent what matters to the phenomenon. With a team of 29 expert reviewers, we conduct a systematic review of 445 LLM benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning. Across the reviewed articles, we find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims. To address these shortcomings, we provide eight key recommendations and detailed actionable guidance to researchers and practitioners in developing LLM benchmarks.

We examine if frontier chat-based large language models (LLMs) adjust their outputs based on neurodivergence (ND) context in system prompts and describe the nature of these adjustments. Specifically, we propose NDBench, a 576-output benchmark involving two frontier models, three system prompt types (baseline, ND-profile assertion, and ND-profile assertion with explicit instructions for adjustments), four canonical ND profiles, and 24 prompts across four categories, one of which involves an adversarial masking strategy. Four trends emerge consistently from our findings. First, LLMs show significant adaptation under ND context, where fully instructed conditions yield lengthier and more structured outputs, characterized by higher token counts, more headings, and more granular steps (p < 10^-8, Holm-corrected). Second, such adaptation is largely structural in nature: although list density does not change much, there is a marked rise in the frequency of headings and per-step detail. Third, ND persona assertion alone fails to suppress potentially harmful tendencies, as masking-reinforcement decreases only in explicitly instructed cases (36-44% reduction); the reduction rate barely changes in persona assertion conditions. Moreover, reliability analysis of LLM-based harm assessment reveals that only two out of the six dimensions (masking and reinforcement, validation quality) exceed the pre-defined inter-judge agreement criterion (alpha >= 0.67) and thus can be considered primary results. NDBench is made publicly available along with its prompts, outputs, code, and other resources, forming a reproducible framework for auditing future LLMs' adaptation to ND awareness.

Reward modeling is essential for aligning Large Language Models(LLMs) with human preferences, yet conventional reward models suffer from poor interpretability and heavy reliance on costly expert annotations. While recent rubric-based approaches enhance evaluation transparency, they lack systematic quality control, yielding noisy and redundant criteria, failing to mitigate persistent biases (e.g., verbosity, position) in LLM evaluators, and creating a scalability-reliability trade-off. To address these limitations, we propose CDRRM (Contrast-Driven Rubric Reward Model), a framework built on a novel Contrast-then-Synthesis paradigm for high-quality rubric generation and guided preference judgment. CDRRM first conducts multi-dimensional contrastive profiling on preference pairs to identify causal discriminative factors, then synthesizes these insights into compact, context-aware rubrics to guide preference judg- ments. Extensive experiments on three authoritative benchmarks (RewardBench, RMBench, RMB) demonstrate that CDRRM achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse domains and effectively mitigates aforementioned evaluation biases. Notably, our approach delivers exceptional data efficiency: training the rubric generator on only 3k high-quality samples empowers a frozen pre-trained judge model to outperform fully fine-tuned baselines. This work offers a scalable, interpretable, and data-efficient path for reward modeling.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

The scholarly publishing ecosystem faces a dual crisis of unmanageable submission volumes and unregulated AI, creating an urgent need for new governance models to safeguard scientific integrity. The traditional human-only peer review regime lacks a scalable, objective benchmark, making editorial processes opaque and difficult to audit. Here we investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports. Analyzing 352 peer-review simulation reports, we identify consistent system state indicators that demonstrate its reliability. First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome (>50%) across all disciplines, while 'Reject' rates dynamically adapt to field-specific norms, rising to 45% in Health Sciences. Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate that remains invariant across diverse review tasks and scientific domains. These findings demonstrate a system that is predictably rule-bound, mitigating the stochasticity of generative AI. For the scientific community, this provides a transparent tool to ensure fairness; for publishing strategists, it offers a scalable instrument for auditing workflows, managing integrity risks, and implementing evidence-based governance. The framework repositions AI as an essential component of institutional accountability, providing the critical infrastructure to maintain trust in scholarly communication.

Reward modeling lies at the core of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), yet most existing reward models rely on scalar or pairwise judgments that fail to capture the multifaceted nature of human preferences. Recent studies have explored rubrics-as-rewards (RaR) that uses structured natural language criteria that capture multiple dimensions of response quality. However, producing rubrics that are both reliable and scalable remains a key challenge. In this work, we introduce OpenRubrics, a diverse, large-scale collection of (prompt, rubric) pairs for training rubric-generation and rubric-based reward models. To elicit discriminative and comprehensive evaluation signals, we introduce Contrastive Rubric Generation (CRG), which derives both hard rules (explicit constraints) and principles (implicit qualities) by contrasting preferred and rejected responses. We further improve reliability by enforcing preference-label consistency via rejection sampling to remove noisy rubrics. Across multiple reward-modeling benchmarks, our rubric-based reward model, Rubric-RM, surpasses strong size-matched baselines by 6.8%. These gains transfer to policy models on instruction-following and biomedical benchmarks. Our results show that rubrics provide scalable alignment signals that narrow the gap between costly human evaluation and automated reward modeling, enabling a new principle-driven paradigm for LLM alignment.

Evaluating open-ended long-form generation is challenging because it is hard to define what clearly separates good from bad outputs. Existing methods often miss key aspects like coherence, style, or relevance, or are biased by pretraining data, making open-ended long-form evaluation an underexplored problem. To address this gap, we propose PrefBERT, a scoring model for evaluating open-ended long-form generation in GRPO and guiding its training with distinct rewards for good and bad outputs. Trained on two response evaluation datasets with diverse long-form styles and Likert-rated quality, PrefBERT effectively supports GRPO by offering better semantic reward feedback than traditional metrics ROUGE-L and BERTScore do. Through comprehensive evaluations, including LLM-as-a-judge, human ratings, and qualitative analysis, we show that PrefBERT, trained on multi-sentence and paragraph-length responses, remains reliable across varied long passages and aligns well with the verifiable rewards GRPO needs. Human evaluations confirm that using PrefBERT as the reward signal to train policy models yields responses better aligned with human preferences than those trained with traditional metrics. Our code is available at https://github.com/zli12321/long_form_rl.

This paper reports on the ReINTEL Shared Task for Responsible Information Identification on social network sites, which is hosted at the seventh annual workshop on Vietnamese Language and Speech Processing (VLSP 2020). Given a piece of news with respective textual, visual content and metadata, participants are required to classify whether the news is `reliable' or `unreliable'. In order to generate a fair benchmark, we introduce a novel human-annotated dataset of over 10,000 news collected from a social network in Vietnam. All models will be evaluated in terms of AUC-ROC score, a typical evaluation metric for classification. The competition was run on the Codalab platform. Within two months, the challenge has attracted over 60 participants and recorded nearly 1,000 submission entries.

BACKGROUND: Radiology reports are typically written in a free-text format, making clinical information difficult to extract and use. Recently the adoption of structured reporting (SR) has been recommended by various medical societies thanks to the advantages it offers, e.g. standardization, completeness and information retrieval. We propose a pipeline to extract information from free-text radiology reports, that fits with the items of the reference SR registry proposed by a national society of interventional and medical radiology, focusing on CT staging of patients with lymphoma. METHODS: Our work aims to leverage the potential of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Transformer-based models to deal with automatic SR registry filling. With the availability of 174 radiology reports, we investigate a rule-free generative Question Answering approach based on a domain-specific version of T5 (IT5). Two strategies (batch-truncation and ex-post combination) are implemented to comply with the model's context length limitations. Performance is evaluated in terms of strict accuracy, F1, and format accuracy, and compared with the widely used GPT-3.5 Large Language Model. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire is used to collect human-expert feedback on the similarity between medical annotations and generated answers. RESULTS: The combination of fine-tuning and batch splitting allows IT5 to achieve notable results; it performs on par with GPT-3.5 albeit its size being a thousand times smaller in terms of parameters. Human-based assessment scores show a high correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficients>0.88, p-values<0.001) with AI performance metrics (F1) and confirm the superior ability of LLMs (i.e., GPT-3.5, 175B of parameters) in generating plausible human-like statements.

Reliable application of machine learning is of primary importance to the practical deployment of deep learning methods. A fundamental challenge is that models are often unreliable due to overconfidence. In this paper, we estimate a model's reliability by measuring the agreement between its latent space, and the latent space of a foundation model. However, it is challenging to measure the agreement between two different latent spaces due to their incoherence, \eg, arbitrary rotations and different dimensionality. To overcome this incoherence issue, we design a neighborhood agreement measure between latent spaces and find that this agreement is surprisingly well-correlated with the reliability of a model's predictions. Further, we show that fusing neighborhood agreement into a model's predictive confidence in a post-hoc way significantly improves its reliability. Theoretical analysis and extensive experiments on failure detection across various datasets verify the effectiveness of our method on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings.

Studies on evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models for automatic text summarization have largely been focused on English, limiting our understanding of their effectiveness in other languages. Through our new dataset BASSE (BAsque and Spanish Summarization Evaluation), we address this situation by collecting human judgments on 2,040 abstractive summaries in Basque and Spanish, generated either manually or by five LLMs with four different prompts. For each summary, annotators evaluated five criteria on a 5-point Likert scale: coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H. We use these data to reevaluate traditional automatic metrics used for evaluating summaries, as well as several LLM-as-a-Judge models that show strong performance on this task in English. Our results show that currently proprietary judge LLMs have the highest correlation with human judgments, followed by criteria-specific automatic metrics, while open-sourced judge LLMs perform poorly. We release BASSE and our code publicly, along with the first large-scale Basque summarization dataset containing 22,525 news articles with their subheads.

Evaluating radiology reports is a challenging problem as factual correctness is extremely important due to the need for accurate medical communication about medical images. Existing automatic evaluation metrics either suffer from failing to consider factual correctness (e.g., BLEU and ROUGE) or are limited in their interpretability (e.g., F1CheXpert and F1RadGraph). In this paper, we introduce GREEN (Generative Radiology Report Evaluation and Error Notation), a radiology report generation metric that leverages the natural language understanding of language models to identify and explain clinically significant errors in candidate reports, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Compared to current metrics, GREEN offers: 1) a score aligned with expert preferences, 2) human interpretable explanations of clinically significant errors, enabling feedback loops with end-users, and 3) a lightweight open-source method that reaches the performance of commercial counterparts. We validate our GREEN metric by comparing it to GPT-4, as well as to error counts of 6 experts and preferences of 2 experts. Our method demonstrates not only higher correlation with expert error counts, but simultaneously higher alignment with expert preferences when compared to previous approaches."

Matching submissions with suitable reviewers at scale is a growing challenge for major venues, yet existing approaches either rely on coarse proxy signals that conflate general relatedness with true suitability, or require expensive human annotations that are difficult to scale for training. We propose MERIT, a two-stage framework that bridges this gap by converting criterion-level expertise matching into scalable suitability supervision. In the first stage, we train a reviewer assessor via reinforcement learning to identify the expertise dimensions a paper requires, match them against the reviewer's prior work, and produce a suitability decision, with rewards provided by an LLM judge guided by paper-specific expertise rubrics. In the second stage, we distill the assessor's predictions into an embedding-based retriever for efficient large-scale assignment. Experiments show that our 4B reviewer assessor outperforms larger general-purpose LLMs on suitability classification, and the resulting retriever achieves state-of-the-art performance across LR-Bench and the CMU Gold dataset. Our code is available at https://github.com/Luli3220/MERIT.

We investigate whether synthetic question-answer (QA) data generated by large language models (LLMs) can serve as an effective proxy for human-labeled benchmarks when such data is unavailable. We assess the reliability of synthetic benchmarks across two experiments: one varying retriever parameters while keeping the generator fixed, and another varying the generator with fixed retriever parameters. Across four datasets, of which two open-domain and two proprietary, we find that synthetic benchmarks reliably rank the RAGs varying in terms of retriever configuration, aligning well with human-labeled benchmark baselines. However, they fail to produce consistent RAG rankings when comparing generator architectures. The breakdown possibly arises from a combination of task mismatch between the synthetic and human benchmarks, and stylistic bias favoring certain generators.

Automatic evaluation of long-form literary writing remains challenging, as generic LLM-as-Judge approaches may not fully capture creativity-related dimensions such as originality and flexibility. Although the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW) provides a structured creativity framework, and prior work has demonstrated reference-based TTCW evaluation at the pairwise level, no large-scale dataset exists for long-form TTCW-based literary review generation. We address this gap by constructing a dataset of 263,911 long-form stories, each annotated with scalar scores and meta-synthesised review comments across 14 TTCW-based dimensions. Using this dataset, we fine-tune Qwen3 models at two scales, 4B and 8B, under two conditions: with and without reasoning content. Results show that non-reasoning fine-tuning achieves stronger and more stable performance, with the best setting reaching an evaluation score of 0.6820. Further analysis shows that reasoning-supervised models are more prone to parse failures, often continuing with irrelevant or repetitive reasoning-style text rather than completing the required 14-metric review report. These results suggest that, for fixed-format rubric-based review generation, reasoning supervision is not straightforwardly beneficial, and precise metric-aligned scoring remains challenging even after task-specific fine-tuning.

Human evaluation is the foundation upon which the evaluation of both summarization systems and automatic metrics rests. However, existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale, and an in-depth analysis of human evaluation is lacking. Therefore, we address the shortcomings of existing summarization evaluation along the following axes: (1) We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units and allows for a high inter-annotator agreement. (2) We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems on three datasets. (3) We conduct a comparative study of four human evaluation protocols, underscoring potential confounding factors in evaluation setups. (4) We evaluate 50 automatic metrics and their variants using the collected human annotations across evaluation protocols and demonstrate how our benchmark leads to more statistically stable and significant results. The metrics we benchmarked include recent methods based on large language models (LLMs), GPTScore and G-Eval. Furthermore, our findings have important implications for evaluating LLMs, as we show that LLMs adjusted by human feedback (e.g., GPT-3.5) may overfit unconstrained human evaluation, which is affected by the annotators' prior, input-agnostic preferences, calling for more robust, targeted evaluation methods.

Speech technology remains out of reach for most of the over 2300 languages in Africa. We present the first systematic assessment of large-scale synthetic voice corpora for African ASR. We apply a three-step process: LLM-driven text creation, TTS voice synthesis, and ASR fine-tuning. Eight out of ten languages for which we create synthetic text achieved readability scores above 5 out of 7. We evaluated ASR improvement for three (Hausa, Dholuo, Chichewa) and created more than 2,500 hours of synthetic voice data at below 1% of the cost of real data. Fine-tuned Wav2Vec-BERT-2.0 models trained on 250h real and 250h synthetic Hausa matched a 500h real-data-only baseline, while 579h real and 450h to 993h synthetic data created the best performance. We also present gender-disaggregated ASR performance evaluation. For very low-resource languages, gains varied: Chichewa WER improved about 6.5% relative with a 1:2 real-to-synthetic ratio; a 1:1 ratio for Dholuo showed similar improvements on some evaluation data, but not on others. Investigating intercoder reliability, ASR errors and evaluation datasets revealed the need for more robust reviewer protocols and more accurate evaluation data. All data and models are publicly released to invite further work to improve synthetic data for African languages.

Relevance and fairness are two major objectives of recommender systems (RSs). Recent work proposes measures of RS fairness that are either independent from relevance (fairness-only) or conditioned on relevance (joint measures). While fairness-only measures have been studied extensively, we look into whether joint measures can be trusted. We collect all joint evaluation measures of RS relevance and fairness, and ask: How much do they agree with each other? To what extent do they agree with relevance/fairness measures? How sensitive are they to changes in rank position, or to increasingly fair and relevant recommendations? We empirically study for the first time the behaviour of these measures across 4 real-world datasets and 4 recommenders. We find that most of these measures: i) correlate weakly with one another and even contradict each other at times; ii) are less sensitive to rank position changes than relevance- and fairness-only measures, meaning that they are less granular than traditional RS measures; and iii) tend to compress scores at the low end of their range, meaning that they are not very expressive. We counter the above limitations with a set of guidelines on the appropriate usage of such measures, i.e., they should be used with caution due to their tendency to contradict each other and of having a very small empirical range.

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing is the de facto tool for assessing effectiveness differences between Information Retrieval systems. Researchers use statistical tests to check whether those differences will generalise to online settings or are just due to the samples observed in the laboratory. Much work has been devoted to studying which test is the most reliable when comparing a pair of systems, but most of the IR real-world experiments involve more than two. In the multiple comparisons scenario, testing several systems simultaneously may inflate the errors committed by the tests. In this paper, we use a new approach to assess the reliability of multiple comparison procedures using simulated and real TREC data. Experiments show that Wilcoxon plus the Benjamini-Hochberg correction yields Type I error rates according to the significance level for typical sample sizes while being the best test in terms of statistical power.

Large Language Models are prompting us to view more NLP tasks from a generative perspective. At the same time, they offer a new way of accessing information, mainly through the RAG framework. While there have been notable improvements for the autoregressive models, overcoming hallucination in the generated answers remains a continuous problem. A standard solution is to use commercial LLMs, such as GPT4, to evaluate these algorithms. However, such frameworks are expensive and not very transparent. Therefore, we propose a study which demonstrates the interest of open-weight models for evaluating RAG hallucination. We develop a lightweight approach using smaller, quantized LLMs to provide an accessible and interpretable metric that gives continuous scores for the generated answer with respect to their correctness and faithfulness. This score allows us to question decisions' reliability and explore thresholds to develop a new AUC metric as an alternative to correlation with human judgment.

For large language models (LLMs) to be trusted by humans they need to be well-calibrated in the sense that they can accurately assess and communicate how likely it is that their predictions are correct. Recent work has focused on the quality of internal LLM confidence assessments, but the question remains of how well LLMs can communicate this internal model confidence to human users. This paper explores the disparity between external human confidence in an LLM's responses and the internal confidence of the model. Through experiments involving multiple-choice questions, we systematically examine human users' ability to discern the reliability of LLM outputs. Our study focuses on two key areas: (1) assessing users' perception of true LLM confidence and (2) investigating the impact of tailored explanations on this perception. The research highlights that default explanations from LLMs often lead to user overestimation of both the model's confidence and its' accuracy. By modifying the explanations to more accurately reflect the LLM's internal confidence, we observe a significant shift in user perception, aligning it more closely with the model's actual confidence levels. This adjustment in explanatory approach demonstrates potential for enhancing user trust and accuracy in assessing LLM outputs. The findings underscore the importance of transparent communication of confidence levels in LLMs, particularly in high-stakes applications where understanding the reliability of AI-generated information is essential.

This paper introduces a framework for the automated evaluation of natural language texts. A manually constructed rubric describes how to assess multiple dimensions of interest. To evaluate a text, a large language model (LLM) is prompted with each rubric question and produces a distribution over potential responses. The LLM predictions often fail to agree well with human judges -- indeed, the humans do not fully agree with one another. However, the multiple LLM distributions can be combined to predict each human judge's annotations on all questions, including a summary question that assesses overall quality or relevance. LLM-Rubric accomplishes this by training a small feed-forward neural network that includes both judge-specific and judge-independent parameters. When evaluating dialogue systems in a human-AI information-seeking task, we find that LLM-Rubric with 9 questions (assessing dimensions such as naturalness, conciseness, and citation quality) predicts human judges' assessment of overall user satisfaction, on a scale of 1--4, with RMS error < 0.5, a 2times improvement over the uncalibrated baseline.