Daily Papers

We introduce Ella, an embodied social agent capable of lifelong learning within a community in a 3D open world, where agents accumulate experiences and acquire knowledge through everyday visual observations and social interactions. At the core of Ella's capabilities is a structured, long-term multimodal memory system that stores, updates, and retrieves information effectively. It consists of a name-centric semantic memory for organizing acquired knowledge and a spatiotemporal episodic memory for capturing multimodal experiences. By integrating this lifelong memory system with foundation models, Ella retrieves relevant information for decision-making, plans daily activities, builds social relationships, and evolves autonomously while coexisting with other intelligent beings in the open world. We conduct capability-oriented evaluations in a dynamic 3D open world where 15 agents engage in social activities for days and are assessed with a suite of unseen controlled evaluations. Experimental results show that Ella can influence, lead, and cooperate with other agents well to achieve goals, showcasing its ability to learn effectively through observation and social interaction. Our findings highlight the transformative potential of combining structured memory systems with foundation models for advancing embodied intelligence. More videos can be found at https://umass-embodied-agi.github.io/Ella/.

Large language models are being widely used across industries to generate content that contributes directly to key performance metrics, such as conversion rates. Pretrained models, however, often fall short when it comes to aligning with human preferences or optimizing for business objectives. As a result, fine-tuning with good-quality labeled data is essential to guide models to generate content that achieves better results. Controlled experiments, like A/B tests, can provide such data, but they are often expensive and come with significant engineering and logistical challenges. Meanwhile, companies have access to a vast amount of historical (observational) data that remains underutilized. In this work, we study the challenges and opportunities of fine-tuning LLMs using observational data. We show that while observational outcomes can provide valuable supervision, directly fine-tuning models on such data can lead them to learn spurious correlations. We present empirical evidence of this issue using various real-world datasets and propose DeconfoundLM, a method that explicitly removes the effect of known confounders from reward signals. Using simulation experiments, we demonstrate that DeconfoundLM improves the recovery of causal relationships and mitigates failure modes found in fine-tuning methods that ignore or naively incorporate confounding variables. Our findings highlight that while observational data presents risks, with the right causal corrections, it can be a powerful source of signal for LLM alignment. Please refer to the project page for code and related resources.

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

Employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to assess the quality of generated responses, such as prompting instruct-tuned models or fine-tuning judge models, has become a widely adopted evaluation method. It is also known that such evaluators are vulnerable to biases, such as favoring longer responses. While it is important to overcome this problem, the specifics of these biases remain under-explored. In this work, we qualitatively identify six types of biases inherent in various judge models. We propose EvalBiasBench as a meta-evaluation collection of hand-crafted test cases for each bias type. Additionally, we present de-biasing dataset construction methods and the associated preference dataset OffsetBias. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning on our dataset significantly enhances the robustness of judge models against biases and improves performance across most evaluation scenarios. We release our datasets and the fine-tuned judge model to public.

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

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

Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named Testset Slot Guessing (TS-Guessing), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the TruthfulQA benchmark, we find that LLMs exhibit notable performance improvement when provided with additional metadata in the benchmark. Further, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52\% and 57\%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.

Deep-Research agents, which integrate large language models (LLMs) with search tools, have shown success in improving the effectiveness of handling complex queries that require iterative search planning and reasoning over search results. Evaluations on current benchmarks like BrowseComp relies on black-box live web search APIs, have notable limitations in (1) fairness: dynamic and opaque web APIs hinder fair comparisons and reproducibility of deep research methods; (2) transparency: lack of control over the document corpus makes it difficult to isolate retriever contributions. In other words, the current evaluations may compare a complete deep research system at a given time, but they do not foster well-controlled experiments to provide insights into the capability of underlying deep research LLMs. To address these challenges, we introduce BrowseComp-Plus, a benchmark derived from BrowseComp, employing a fixed, carefully curated corpus. Each query in BrowseComp-Plus includes human-verified supporting documents and mined challenging negatives, enabling controlled experimentation. The benchmark is shown to be effective in distinguishing the performance of deep research systems. For instance, the open-source model Search-R1, when paired with the BM25 retriever, achieves 3.86% accuracy, whereas the GPT-5 achieves 55.9%. Integrating the GPT-5 with the Qwen3-Embedding-8B retriever further enhances its accuracy to 70.1% with fewer search calls. This benchmark allows comprehensive evaluation and disentangled analysis of deep research agents and retrieval methods, fostering insights into retrieval effectiveness, citation accuracy, and context engineering in Deep-Research system.

In this work we explore recent advances in instruction-tuning language models on a range of open instruction-following datasets. Despite recent claims that open models can be on par with state-of-the-art proprietary models, these claims are often accompanied by limited evaluation, making it difficult to compare models across the board and determine the utility of various resources. We provide a large set of instruction-tuned models from 6.7B to 65B parameters in size, trained on 12 instruction datasets ranging from manually curated (e.g., OpenAssistant) to synthetic and distilled (e.g., Alpaca) and systematically evaluate them on their factual knowledge, reasoning, multilinguality, coding, and open-ended instruction following abilities through a collection of automatic, model-based, and human-based metrics. We further introduce T\"ulu, our best performing instruction-tuned model suite finetuned on a combination of high-quality open resources. Our experiments show that different instruction-tuning datasets can uncover or enhance specific skills, while no single dataset (or combination) provides the best performance across all evaluations. Interestingly, we find that model and human preference-based evaluations fail to reflect differences in model capabilities exposed by benchmark-based evaluations, suggesting the need for the type of systemic evaluation performed in this work. Our evaluations show that the best model in any given evaluation reaches on average 83% of ChatGPT performance, and 68% of GPT-4 performance, suggesting that further investment in building better base models and instruction-tuning data is required to close the gap. We release our instruction-tuned models, including a fully finetuned 65B T\"ulu, along with our code, data, and evaluation framework at https://github.com/allenai/open-instruct to facilitate future research.

The development of large language models (LLMs) depends on trustworthy evaluation. However, most current evaluations rely on public benchmarks, which are prone to data contamination issues that significantly compromise fairness. Previous researches have focused on constructing dynamic benchmarks to address contamination. However, continuously building new benchmarks is costly and cyclical. In this work, we aim to tackle contamination by analyzing the mechanisms of contaminated models themselves. Through our experiments, we discover that the overestimation of contaminated models is likely due to parameters acquiring shortcut solutions in training. We further propose a novel method for identifying shortcut neurons through comparative and causal analysis. Building on this, we introduce an evaluation method called shortcut neuron patching to suppress shortcut neurons. Experiments validate the effectiveness of our approach in mitigating contamination. Additionally, our evaluation results exhibit a strong linear correlation with MixEval, a recently released trustworthy benchmark, achieving a Spearman coefficient (rho) exceeding 0.95. This high correlation indicates that our method closely reveals true capabilities of the models and is trustworthy. We conduct further experiments to demonstrate the generalizability of our method across various benchmarks and hyperparameter settings. Code: https://github.com/GaryStack/Trustworthy-Evaluation

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator's limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Reasoning-based Bias Detector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types--verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment--evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD's strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively. These results highlight RBD's effectiveness and scalability. Additional experiments further demonstrate its strong generalization across biases and domains, as well as its efficiency.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios. Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models, such as GPT-4. However, these methods are largely limited to text-based analyses under predefined general criteria, resulting in reduced adaptability for unseen instructions and demonstrating instability in evaluating adherence to quantitative and structural constraints. To address these limitations, we propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses to evaluate LLM responses. ARJudge consists of two components: a fine-tuned Analyzer that generates multi-faceted evaluation analyses and a tuning-free Refiner that combines and refines all analyses to make the final judgment. We construct a Composite Analysis Corpus that integrates tasks for evaluation criteria generation alongside text-based and code-driven analysis generation to train the Analyzer. Our results demonstrate that ARJudge outperforms existing fine-tuned evaluators in effectiveness and robustness. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of multi-faceted evaluation and code-driven analyses in enhancing evaluation capabilities.

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.

One core capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to follow natural language instructions. However, the evaluation of such abilities is not standardized: Human evaluations are expensive, slow, and not objectively reproducible, while LLM-based auto-evaluation is potentially biased or limited by the ability of the evaluator LLM. To overcome these issues, we introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. It focuses on a set of "verifiable instructions" such as "write in more than 400 words" and "mention the keyword of AI at least 3 times". We identified 25 types of those verifiable instructions and constructed around 500 prompts, with each prompt containing one or more verifiable instructions. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/instruction_following_eval

We consider an online learning problem with one-sided feedback, in which the learner is able to observe the true label only for positively predicted instances. On each round, k instances arrive and receive classification outcomes according to a randomized policy deployed by the learner, whose goal is to maximize accuracy while deploying individually fair policies. We first extend the framework of Bechavod et al. (2020), which relies on the existence of a human fairness auditor for detecting fairness violations, to instead incorporate feedback from dynamically-selected panels of multiple, possibly inconsistent, auditors. We then construct an efficient reduction from our problem of online learning with one-sided feedback and a panel reporting fairness violations to the contextual combinatorial semi-bandit problem (Cesa-Bianchi & Lugosi, 2009, Gy\"{o}rgy et al., 2007). Finally, we show how to leverage the guarantees of two algorithms in the contextual combinatorial semi-bandit setting: Exp2 (Bubeck et al., 2012) and the oracle-efficient Context-Semi-Bandit-FTPL (Syrgkanis et al., 2016), to provide multi-criteria no regret guarantees simultaneously for accuracy and fairness. Our results eliminate two potential sources of bias from prior work: the "hidden outcomes" that are not available to an algorithm operating in the full information setting, and human biases that might be present in any single human auditor, but can be mitigated by selecting a well chosen panel.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a practical and scalable approach to enhancing large language models in areas such as math, code, and other structured tasks. Two questions motivate this paper: how much of the reported gains survive under strictly parity-controlled evaluation, and whether RLVR is cost-free or exacts a measurable tax. We argue that progress is real, but gains are often overstated due to three forces - an RLVR tax, evaluation pitfalls, and data contamination. Using a partial-prompt contamination audit and matched-budget reproductions across base and RL models, we show that several headline gaps shrink or vanish under clean, parity-controlled evaluation. We then propose a tax-aware training and evaluation protocol that co-optimizes accuracy, grounding, and calibrated abstention and standardizes budgeting and provenance checks. Applied to recent RLVR setups, this protocol yields more reliable estimates of reasoning gains and, in several cases, revises prior conclusions. Our position is constructive: RLVR is valuable and industry-ready; we advocate keeping its practical benefits while prioritizing reliability, safety, and measurement.

Recently, there has been a trend of evaluating the Large Language Model (LLM) quality in the flavor of LLM-as-a-Judge, namely leveraging another LLM to evaluate the current output quality. However, existing judges are proven to be biased, namely they would favor answers which present better superficial quality (such as verbosity, fluency) while ignoring the instruction following ability. In this work, we propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, for closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality, both on probability level and prompt level. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality. We apply our methods on the bias evaluation benchmark, and experiment results show our methods mitigate the bias by a large margin while maintaining a satisfactory evaluation accuracy.

Human evaluation is critical for validating the performance of text-to-image generative models, as this highly cognitive process requires deep comprehension of text and images. However, our survey of 37 recent papers reveals that many works rely solely on automatic measures (e.g., FID) or perform poorly described human evaluations that are not reliable or repeatable. This paper proposes a standardized and well-defined human evaluation protocol to facilitate verifiable and reproducible human evaluation in future works. In our pilot data collection, we experimentally show that the current automatic measures are incompatible with human perception in evaluating the performance of the text-to-image generation results. Furthermore, we provide insights for designing human evaluation experiments reliably and conclusively. Finally, we make several resources publicly available to the community to facilitate easy and fast implementations.

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.

We consider the task of evaluating policies of algorithmic resource allocation through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Such policies are tasked with optimizing the utilization of limited intervention resources, with the goal of maximizing the benefits derived. Evaluation of such allocation policies through RCTs proves difficult, notwithstanding the scale of the trial, because the individuals' outcomes are inextricably interlinked through resource constraints controlling the policy decisions. Our key contribution is to present a new estimator leveraging our proposed novel concept, that involves retrospective reshuffling of participants across experimental arms at the end of an RCT. We identify conditions under which such reassignments are permissible and can be leveraged to construct counterfactual trials, whose outcomes can be accurately ascertained, for free. We prove theoretically that such an estimator is more accurate than common estimators based on sample means -- we show that it returns an unbiased estimate and simultaneously reduces variance. We demonstrate the value of our approach through empirical experiments on synthetic, semi-synthetic as well as real case study data and show improved estimation accuracy across the board.

The recent emergence of Large Vision-Language Models(VLMs) has resulted in a variety of different benchmarks for evaluating such models. Despite this, we observe that most existing evaluation methods suffer from the fact that they either require the model to choose from pre-determined responses, sacrificing open-endedness, or evaluate responses using a judge model, resulting in subjective and unreliable evaluation. In addition, we observe a lack of benchmarks for VLMs in the Korean language, which are necessary as a separate metric from more common English language benchmarks, as the performance of generative language models can differ significantly based on the language being used. Therefore, we present KOFFVQA, a general-purpose free-form visual question answering benchmark in the Korean language for the evaluation of VLMs. Our benchmark consists of 275 carefully crafted questions each paired with an image and grading criteria covering 10 different aspects of VLM performance. The grading criteria eliminate the problem of unreliability by allowing the judge model to grade each response based on a pre-determined set of rules. By defining the evaluation criteria in an objective manner, even a small open-source model can be used to evaluate models on our benchmark reliably. In addition to evaluating a large number of existing VLMs on our benchmark, we also experimentally verify that our method of using pre-existing grading criteria for evaluation is much more reliable than existing methods. Our evaluation code is available at https://github.com/maum-ai/KOFFVQA

Rigorous and reproducible evaluation is critical for assessing the state of the art and for guiding scientific advances in Artificial Intelligence. Evaluation is challenging in practice due to several reasons, including benchmark saturation, lack of transparency in methods used for measurement, development challenges in extracting measurements for generative tasks, and, more generally, the extensive number of capabilities required for a well-rounded comparison across models. We make three contributions to alleviate the above challenges. First, we present Eureka, an open-source framework for standardizing evaluations of large foundation models beyond single-score reporting and rankings. Second, we introduce Eureka-Bench as an extensible collection of benchmarks testing capabilities that (i) are still challenging for state-of-the-art models and (ii) represent fundamental but overlooked language and multimodal capabilities. The inherent space for improvement in non-saturated benchmarks enables us to discover meaningful differences between models at a capability level. Third, using Eureka, we conduct an analysis of 12 state-of-the-art models, providing in-depth insights into failure understanding and model comparison, which can be leveraged to plan targeted improvements. In contrast to recent trends in reports and leaderboards showing absolute rankings and claims for one model or another to be the best, our analysis shows that there is no such best model. Different models have different strengths, but there are models that appear more often than others as best performers for some capabilities. Despite the recent improvements, current models still struggle with several fundamental capabilities including detailed image understanding, benefiting from multimodal input when available rather than fully relying on language, factuality and grounding for information retrieval, and over refusals.

Large language models that exhibit instruction-following behaviour represent one of the biggest recent upheavals in conversational interfaces, a trend in large part fuelled by the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT, a proprietary large language model for text generation fine-tuned through reinforcement learning from human feedback (LLM+RLHF). We review the risks of relying on proprietary software and survey the first crop of open-source projects of comparable architecture and functionality. The main contribution of this paper is to show that openness is differentiated, and to offer scientific documentation of degrees of openness in this fast-moving field. We evaluate projects in terms of openness of code, training data, model weights, RLHF data, licensing, scientific documentation, and access methods. We find that while there is a fast-growing list of projects billing themselves as 'open source', many inherit undocumented data of dubious legality, few share the all-important instruction-tuning (a key site where human annotation labour is involved), and careful scientific documentation is exceedingly rare. Degrees of openness are relevant to fairness and accountability at all points, from data collection and curation to model architecture, and from training and fine-tuning to release and deployment.

To be informative, an evaluation must measure how well systems generalize to realistic unseen data. We identify limitations of and propose improvements to current evaluations of text-to-SQL systems. First, we compare human-generated and automatically generated questions, characterizing properties of queries necessary for real-world applications. To facilitate evaluation on multiple datasets, we release standardized and improved versions of seven existing datasets and one new text-to-SQL dataset. Second, we show that the current division of data into training and test sets measures robustness to variations in the way questions are asked, but only partially tests how well systems generalize to new queries; therefore, we propose a complementary dataset split for evaluation of future work. Finally, we demonstrate how the common practice of anonymizing variables during evaluation removes an important challenge of the task. Our observations highlight key difficulties, and our methodology enables effective measurement of future development.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the benchmark for causal inference, yet field implementation can deviate. We here present a remote audit - a design-based, preregistrable diagnostic that uses only pre-treatment satellite imagery to test whether assignment is independent of local conditions. The conditional randomization test of the remote audit evaluates whether treatment assignment is more predictable from pre-treatment satellite features than expected under the experiment's registered mechanism, providing a finite-sample valid, design-based diagnostic that requires no parametric assumptions. The procedure is finite-sample valid, honors blocks and clusters, and controls multiplicity across image models and resolutions via a max-statistic. We illustrate with two RCTs: Uganda's Youth Opportunities Program, where the audit corroborates randomization and flags selection and missing-data risks; and a school-based trial in Bangladesh, where assignment is highly predictable from pre-treatment features relative to the stated design, consistent with independent concerns about irregularities. Remote audits complement balance tests, lower early-stage costs, and enable rapid design checks when baseline surveys are expensive or infeasible.

As research in large language models (LLMs) continues to accelerate, LLM-based evaluation has emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations for comparing the ever increasing list of models. This paper investigates the efficacy of these "LLM evaluators", particularly in using them to assess instruction following, a metric that gauges how closely generated text adheres to the given instruction. We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. The authors manually curated 419 pairs of outputs, one adhering to instructions while the other diverging, yet may possess deceptive qualities that mislead an LLM evaluator, e.g., a more engaging tone. Contrary to existing meta-evaluation, we discover that different evaluators (i.e., combinations of LLMs and prompts) exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement. We also present a novel suite of prompting strategies that further close the gap between LLM and human evaluators. With LLMBar, we hope to offer more insight into LLM evaluators and foster future research in developing better instruction-following models.

Model-based evaluation is at the heart of successful model development -- as a reward model for training, and as a replacement for human evaluation. To train such evaluators, the standard approach is to collect a large amount of human preference judgments over model responses, which is costly and the data becomes stale as models improve. In this work, we present an approach that aims to im-prove evaluators without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Starting from unlabeled instructions, our iterative self-improvement scheme generates contrasting model outputs and trains an LLM-as-a-Judge to produce reasoning traces and final judgments, repeating this training at each new iteration using the improved predictions. Without any labeled preference data, our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM (Llama3-70B-Instruct) from 75.4 to 88.3 (88.7 with majority vote) on RewardBench. This outperforms commonly used LLM judges such as GPT-4 and matches the performance of the top-performing reward models trained with labeled examples.

Human feedback has become the de facto standard for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models, and is increasingly being used as a training objective. However, it is not clear which properties of a generated output this single `preference' score captures. We hypothesise that preference scores are subjective and open to undesirable biases. We critically analyse the use of human feedback for both training and evaluation, to verify whether it fully captures a range of crucial error criteria. We find that while preference scores have fairly good coverage, they under-represent important aspects like factuality. We further hypothesise that both preference scores and error annotation may be affected by confounders, and leverage instruction-tuned models to generate outputs that vary along two possible confounding dimensions: assertiveness and complexity. We find that the assertiveness of an output skews the perceived rate of factuality errors, indicating that human annotations are not a fully reliable evaluation metric or training objective. Finally, we offer preliminary evidence that using human feedback as a training objective disproportionately increases the assertiveness of model outputs. We encourage future work to carefully consider whether preference scores are well aligned with the desired objective.

Large language models (LLMs) garner significant attention for their unprecedented performance, leading to an increasing number of researches evaluating LLMs. However, these evaluation benchmarks are limited to assessing the instruction-following capabilities, overlooking the fundamental abilities that emerge during the pre-training stage. Previous subjective evaluation methods mainly reply on scoring by API models. However, in the absence of references, large models have shown limited ability to discern subtle differences. To bridge the gap, we propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. The tasks in F-Eval include multi-choice objective tasks, open-ended objective tasks, reference-based subjective tasks and reference-free subjective tasks. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models. We conduct evaluations on 13 advanced LLMs. Results show that our evaluation methods show higher correlation coefficients and larger distinction than other evaluators. Additionally, we discuss the influence of different model sizes, dimensions, and normalization methods. We anticipate that F-Eval will facilitate the study of LLMs' fundamental abilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and code agents in software development are rapidly evolving from generating isolated code snippets to producing full-fledged software applications with graphical interfaces, interactive logic, and dynamic behaviors. However, current benchmarks fall short in evaluating such production-ready software, as they often rely on static checks or binary pass/fail scripts, failing to capture the interactive behaviors and runtime dynamics that define real-world usability - qualities that only emerge when an application is actively used. This is the blind spot of current evaluation: you don't know if an app works until you click through it, interact with it, and observe how it responds. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealDevWorld, a novel evaluation framework for automated end-to-end assessment of LLMs' ability to generate production-ready repositories from scratch. It features two key components: (1) RealDevBench, a diverse collection of 194 open-ended software engineering tasks across multiple domains, incorporating multimodal elements to reflect real-world complexity; and (2) AppEvalPilot, a new agent-as-a-judge evaluation system that simulates realistic, GUI-based user interactions to automatically and holistically assess software functional correctness, visual fidelity, and runtime behavior. The framework delivers fine-grained, task-specific diagnostic feedback, supporting nuanced evaluation beyond simple success/failure judgments. Empirical results show that RealDevWorld delivers effective, automatic, and human-aligned evaluations, achieving an accuracy of 0.92 and a correlation of 0.85 with expert human assessments, while significantly reducing the reliance on manual review. This enables scalable, human-aligned assessment of production-level software generated by LLMs. Our code is available on GitHub.

Prompt-based probing has been widely used in evaluating the abilities of pretrained language models (PLMs). Unfortunately, recent studies have discovered such an evaluation may be inaccurate, inconsistent and unreliable. Furthermore, the lack of understanding its inner workings, combined with its wide applicability, has the potential to lead to unforeseen risks for evaluating and applying PLMs in real-world applications. To discover, understand and quantify the risks, this paper investigates the prompt-based probing from a causal view, highlights three critical biases which could induce biased results and conclusions, and proposes to conduct debiasing via causal intervention. This paper provides valuable insights for the design of unbiased datasets, better probing frameworks and more reliable evaluations of pretrained language models. Furthermore, our conclusions also echo that we need to rethink the criteria for identifying better pretrained language models. We openly released the source code and data at https://github.com/c-box/causalEval.

Fake news detection becomes particularly challenging in real-time scenarios, where emerging events often lack sufficient supporting evidence. Existing approaches often rely heavily on external evidence and therefore struggle to generalize under evidence scarcity. To address this issue, we propose Evaluation-Aware Selection of Experts (EASE), a novel framework for real-time fake news detection that dynamically adapts its decision-making process according to the assessed sufficiency of available evidence. EASE introduces a sequential evaluation mechanism comprising three independent perspectives: (1) Evidence-based evaluation, which assesses evidence and incorporates it into decision-making only when the evidence is sufficiently supportive; (2) Reasoning-based evaluation, which leverages the world knowledge of large language models (LLMs) and applies them only when their reliability is adequately established; and (3) Sentiment-based fallback, which integrates sentiment cues when neither evidence nor reasoning is reliable. To enhance the accuracy of evaluation processes, EASE employs instruction tuning with pseudo labels to guide each evaluator in justifying its perspective-specific knowledge through interpretable reasoning. Furthermore, the expert modules integrate the evaluators' justified assessments with the news content to enable evaluation-aware decision-making, thereby enhancing overall detection accuracy. Moreover, we introduce RealTimeNews-25, a new benchmark comprising recent news for evaluating model generalization on emerging news with limited evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EASE not only achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, but also significantly improves generalization to real-time news. The code and dataset are available: https://github.com/wgyhhhh/EASE.

A prominent challenge of offline reinforcement learning (RL) is the issue of hidden confounding: unobserved variables may influence both the actions taken by the agent and the observed outcomes. Hidden confounding can compromise the validity of any causal conclusion drawn from data and presents a major obstacle to effective offline RL. In the present paper, we tackle the problem of hidden confounding in the nonidentifiable setting. We propose a definition of uncertainty due to hidden confounding bias, termed delphic uncertainty, which uses variation over world models compatible with the observations, and differentiate it from the well-known epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties. We derive a practical method for estimating the three types of uncertainties, and construct a pessimistic offline RL algorithm to account for them. Our method does not assume identifiability of the unobserved confounders, and attempts to reduce the amount of confounding bias. We demonstrate through extensive experiments and ablations the efficacy of our approach on a sepsis management benchmark, as well as on electronic health records. Our results suggest that nonidentifiable hidden confounding bias can be mitigated to improve offline RL solutions in practice.

Representation engineering methods have recently shown promise for enabling efficient steering of model behavior. However, evaluation pipelines for these methods have primarily relied on subjective demonstrations, instead of quantitative, objective metrics. We aim to take a step towards addressing this issue by advocating for four properties missing from current evaluations: (i) contexts sufficiently similar to downstream tasks should be used for assessing intervention quality; (ii) model likelihoods should be accounted for; (iii) evaluations should allow for standardized comparisons across different target behaviors; and (iv) baseline comparisons should be offered. We introduce an evaluation pipeline grounded in these criteria, offering both a quantitative and visual analysis of how effectively a given method works. We use this pipeline to evaluate two representation engineering methods on how effectively they can steer behaviors such as truthfulness and corrigibility, finding that some interventions are less effective than previously reported.

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

Researchers and developers increasingly rely on toxicity scoring to moderate generative language model outputs, in settings such as customer service, information retrieval, and content generation. However, toxicity scoring may render pertinent information inaccessible, rigidify or "value-lock" cultural norms, and prevent language reclamation processes, particularly for marginalized people. In this work, we extend the concept of algorithmic recourse to generative language models: we provide users a novel mechanism to achieve their desired prediction by dynamically setting thresholds for toxicity filtering. Users thereby exercise increased agency relative to interactions with the baseline system. A pilot study (n = 30) supports the potential of our proposed recourse mechanism, indicating improvements in usability compared to fixed-threshold toxicity-filtering of model outputs. Future work should explore the intersection of toxicity scoring, model controllability, user agency, and language reclamation processes -- particularly with regard to the bias that many communities encounter when interacting with generative language models.

Recent work found that LLMs are sensitive to a wide range of arbitrary prompt dimensions, including the type of delimiters, answer enumerators, instruction wording, and more. This throws into question popular single-prompt evaluation practices. We present DOVE (Dataset Of Variation Evaluation) a large-scale dataset containing prompt perturbations of various evaluation benchmarks. In contrast to previous work, we examine LLM sensitivity from an holistic perspective, and assess the joint effects of perturbations along various dimensions, resulting in thousands of perturbations per instance. We evaluate several model families against DOVE, leading to several findings, including efficient methods for choosing well-performing prompts, observing that few-shot examples reduce sensitivity, and identifying instances which are inherently hard across all perturbations. DOVE consists of more than 250M prompt perturbations and model outputs, which we make publicly available to spur a community-wide effort toward meaningful, robust, and efficient evaluation. Browse the data, contribute, and more: https://slab-nlp.github.io/DOVE/

Providing constructive feedback to paper authors is a core component of peer review. With reviewers increasingly having less time to perform reviews, automated support systems are required to ensure high reviewing quality, thus making the feedback in reviews useful for authors. To this end, we identify four key aspects of review comments (individual points in weakness sections of reviews) that drive the utility for authors: Actionability, Grounding & Specificity, Verifiability, and Helpfulness. To enable evaluation and development of models assessing review comments, we introduce the RevUtil dataset. We collect 1,430 human-labeled review comments and scale our data with 10k synthetically labeled comments for training purposes. The synthetic data additionally contains rationales, i.e., explanations for the aspect score of a review comment. Employing the RevUtil dataset, we benchmark fine-tuned models for assessing review comments on these aspects and generating rationales. Our experiments demonstrate that these fine-tuned models achieve agreement levels with humans comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, those of powerful closed models like GPT-4o. Our analysis further reveals that machine-generated reviews generally underperform human reviews on our four aspects.

Hampering the interpretation of benchmark scores, evaluation data contamination has become a growing concern in the evaluation of LLMs, and an active area of research studies its effects. While evaluation data contamination is easily understood intuitively, it is surprisingly difficult to define precisely which samples should be considered contaminated and, consequently, how it impacts benchmark scores. We propose that these questions should be addressed together and that contamination metrics can be assessed based on whether models benefit from the examples they mark contaminated. We propose a novel analysis method called ConTAM, and show with a large scale survey of existing and novel n-gram based contamination metrics across 13 benchmarks and 7 models from 2 different families that ConTAM can be used to better understand evaluation data contamination and its effects. We find that contamination may have a much larger effect than reported in recent LLM releases and benefits models differently at different scales. We also find that considering only the longest contaminated substring provides a better signal than considering a union of all contaminated substrings, and that doing model and benchmark specific threshold analysis greatly increases the specificity of the results. Lastly, we investigate the impact of hyperparameter choices, finding that, among other things, both using larger values of n and disregarding matches that are infrequent in the pre-training data lead to many false negatives. With ConTAM, we provide a method to empirically ground evaluation data contamination metrics in downstream effects. With our exploration, we shed light on how evaluation data contamination can impact LLMs and provide insight into the considerations important when doing contamination analysis. We end our paper by discussing these in more detail and providing concrete suggestions for future work.

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

The automatic evaluation of instruction following typically involves using large language models (LLMs) to assess response quality. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of these LLM-based evaluators across two dimensions: the base LLMs and the evaluation protocols. Therefore, we present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 recently proposed evaluation protocols, on 4 human-annotated datasets, assessing the evaluation accuracy of the LLM-evaluators. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness. Moreover, our large-scale evaluation reveals: (1) Base LLM performance ranking remains largely consistent across evaluation protocols, with less capable LLMs showing greater improvement from protocol enhancements; (2) Robust evaluation of evaluation protocols requires many base LLMs with varying capability levels, as protocol effectiveness can depend on the base LLM used; (3) Evaluation results on different datasets are not always consistent, so a rigorous evaluation requires multiple datasets with distinctive features. We release our meta-evaluation suite ReIFE, which provides the codebase and evaluation result collection for more than 500 LLM-evaluator configurations, to support future research in instruction-following evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been applied to forecasting tasks, with some works claiming these systems match or exceed human performance. In this paper, we argue that, as a community, we should be careful about such conclusions as evaluating LLM forecasters presents unique challenges. We identify two broad categories of issues: (1) difficulty in trusting evaluation results due to many forms of temporal leakage, and (2) difficulty in extrapolating from evaluation performance to real-world forecasting. Through systematic analysis and concrete examples from prior work, we demonstrate how evaluation flaws can raise concerns about current and future performance claims. We argue that more rigorous evaluation methodologies are needed to confidently assess the forecasting abilities of LLMs.

Manual curation of evaluation datasets is struggling to keep up with the rapidly expanding capabilities and deployment scenarios of language models. Towards scalable model profiling, we introduce and validate a framework for evaluating LLMs, called Adaptive Evaluations. Adaptive evaluations use scaffolded language models (evaluator agents) to search through a target model's behavior on a domain dataset and create difficult questions (tasks) that can discover and probe the model's failure modes. We find that frontier models lack consistency when adaptively probed with our framework on a diverse suite of datasets and tasks, including but not limited to legal reasoning, forecasting, and online harassment. Generated questions pass human validity checks and often transfer to other models with different capability profiles, demonstrating that adaptive evaluations can also be used to create difficult domain-specific datasets.

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

In this paper, we uncover a systematic bias in the evaluation paradigm of adopting large language models~(LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, as a referee to score and compare the quality of responses generated by candidate models. We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by simply altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other, e.g., Vicuna-13B could beat ChatGPT on 66 over 80 tested queries with ChatGPT as an evaluator. To address this issue, we propose a calibration framework with three simple yet effective strategies: 1) Multiple Evidence Calibration, which requires the evaluator model to generate multiple evaluation evidence before assigning ratings; 2) Balanced Position Calibration, which aggregates results across various orders to determine the final score; 3) Human-in-the-Loop Calibration, which introduces a balanced position diversity entropy to measure the difficulty of each example and seeks human assistance when needed. We also manually annotate the "win/tie/lose" outcomes of responses from ChatGPT and Vicuna-13B in the Vicuna Benchmark's question prompt, and extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach successfully mitigates evaluation bias, resulting in closer alignment with human judgments. We release our code and human annotation at https://github.com/i-Eval/FairEval to facilitate future research.

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

When developing new large language models (LLMs), a key step is evaluating their final performance, often by computing the win-rate against a reference model based on external feedback. Human feedback is the gold standard, particularly for capturing nuanced qualities like coherence, readability, and alignment with human expectations. However, human evaluations are costly -- even for large tech companies -- and when conducted with active users, they may negatively impact user experience. A promising alternative is synthetic feedback, where evaluations are conducted by other large language models, including reward models. While this eliminates the need for costly human annotations, it introduces biases that may distort the evaluation process. In this work, we propose a statistically principled framework that integrates human and synthetic feedback to reduce reliance on human annotations while maintaining unbiased win-rate calculations. Our experiments demonstrate a reduction in human annotations by up to 12.2% with an off-the-shelf synthetic evaluator and up to 24.8% with a finetuned variant. Apart from being generalizable, scalable, and free of hyper-parameter tuning, our method offers predictable annotation savings, which can be estimated based on data-dependent characteristics.

Fairness for machine learning predictions is widely required in practice for legal, ethical, and societal reasons. Existing work typically focuses on settings without unobserved confounding, even though unobserved confounding can lead to severe violations of causal fairness and, thus, unfair predictions. In this work, we analyze the sensitivity of causal fairness to unobserved confounding. Our contributions are three-fold. First, we derive bounds for causal fairness metrics under different sources of unobserved confounding. This enables practitioners to examine the sensitivity of their machine learning models to unobserved confounding in fairness-critical applications. Second, we propose a novel neural framework for learning fair predictions, which allows us to offer worst-case guarantees of the extent to which causal fairness can be violated due to unobserved confounding. Third, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in a series of experiments, including a real-world case study about predicting prison sentences. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to study causal fairness under unobserved confounding. To this end, our work is of direct practical value as a refutation strategy to ensure the fairness of predictions in high-stakes applications.

The Automated Model Evaluation (AutoEval) framework entertains the possibility of evaluating a trained machine learning model without resorting to a labeled testing set. Despite the promise and some decent results, the existing AutoEval methods heavily rely on computing distribution shifts between the unlabelled testing set and the training set. We believe this reliance on the training set becomes another obstacle in shipping this technology to real-world ML development. In this work, we propose Contrastive Automatic Model Evaluation (CAME), a novel AutoEval framework that is rid of involving training set in the loop. The core idea of CAME bases on a theoretical analysis which bonds the model performance with a contrastive loss. Further, with extensive empirical validation, we manage to set up a predictable relationship between the two, simply by deducing on the unlabeled/unseen testing set. The resulting framework CAME establishes a new SOTA results for AutoEval by surpassing prior work significantly.

We introduce a new benchmark for reward models that quantifies their ability to produce strong language models through RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback). The gold-standard approach is to run a full RLHF training pipeline and directly probe downstream LLM performance. However, this process is prohibitively expensive. To address this, we build a predictive model of downstream LLM performance by evaluating the reward model on proxy tasks. These proxy tasks consist of a large-scale human preference and a verifiable correctness preference dataset, in which we measure 12 metrics across 12 domains. To investigate which reward model metrics are most correlated to gold-standard RLHF outcomes, we launch an end-to-end RLHF experiment on a large-scale crowdsourced human preference platform to view real reward model downstream performance as ground truth. Ultimately, we compile our data and findings into Preference Proxy Evaluations (PPE), the first reward model benchmark explicitly linked to post-RLHF real-world human preference performance, which we open-source for public use and further development. Our code and evaluations can be found at https://github.com/lmarena/PPE .

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.

If AI models can detect when they are being evaluated, the effectiveness of evaluations might be compromised. For example, models could have systematically different behavior during evaluations, leading to less reliable benchmarks for deployment and governance decisions. We investigate whether frontier language models can accurately classify transcripts based on whether they originate from evaluations or real-world deployment, a capability we call evaluation awareness. To achieve this, we construct a diverse benchmark of 1,000 prompts and transcripts from 61 distinct datasets. These span public benchmarks (e.g., MMLU, SWEBench), real-world deployment interactions, and agent trajectories from scaffolding frameworks (e.g., web-browsing agents). Frontier models clearly demonstrate above-random evaluation awareness (Gemini-2.5-Pro reaches an AUC of 0.83), but do not yet surpass our simple human baseline (AUC of 0.92). Furthermore, both AI models and humans are better at identifying evaluations in agentic settings compared to chat settings. Additionally, we test whether models can identify the purpose of the evaluation. Under multiple-choice and open-ended questioning, AI models far outperform random chance in identifying what an evaluation is testing for. Our results indicate that frontier models already exhibit a substantial, though not yet superhuman, level of evaluation-awareness. We recommend tracking this capability in future models.

Recently, a myriad of conditional image generation and editing models have been developed to serve different downstream tasks, including text-to-image generation, text-guided image editing, subject-driven image generation, control-guided image generation, etc. However, we observe huge inconsistencies in experimental conditions: datasets, inference, and evaluation metrics - render fair comparisons difficult. This paper proposes ImagenHub, which is a one-stop library to standardize the inference and evaluation of all the conditional image generation models. Firstly, we define seven prominent tasks and curate high-quality evaluation datasets for them. Secondly, we built a unified inference pipeline to ensure fair comparison. Thirdly, we design two human evaluation scores, i.e. Semantic Consistency and Perceptual Quality, along with comprehensive guidelines to evaluate generated images. We train expert raters to evaluate the model outputs based on the proposed metrics. Our human evaluation achieves a high inter-worker agreement of Krippendorff's alpha on 76% models with a value higher than 0.4. We comprehensively evaluated a total of around 30 models and observed three key takeaways: (1) the existing models' performance is generally unsatisfying except for Text-guided Image Generation and Subject-driven Image Generation, with 74% models achieving an overall score lower than 0.5. (2) we examined the claims from published papers and found 83% of them hold with a few exceptions. (3) None of the existing automatic metrics has a Spearman's correlation higher than 0.2 except subject-driven image generation. Moving forward, we will continue our efforts to evaluate newly published models and update our leaderboard to keep track of the progress in conditional image generation.

The rapid scaling of AI has spurred a growing emphasis on ethical considerations in both development and practice. This has led to the formulation of increasingly sophisticated model auditing and reporting requirements, as well as governance frameworks to mitigate potential risks to individuals and society. At this critical juncture, we review the practical challenges of promoting responsible AI and transparency in informal sectors like OSS that support vital infrastructure and see widespread use. We focus on how model performance evaluation may inform or inhibit probing of model limitations, biases, and other risks. Our controlled analysis of 7903 Hugging Face projects found that risk documentation is strongly associated with evaluation practices. Yet, submissions (N=789) from the platform's most popular competitive leaderboard showed less accountability among high performers. Our findings can inform AI providers and legal scholars in designing interventions and policies that preserve open-source innovation while incentivizing ethical uptake.

Large language models in the past have typically relied on some form of reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) to better align model responses with human preferences. However, because of oft-observed instabilities when implementing these RLHF pipelines, various reparameterization techniques have recently been introduced to sidestep the need for separately learning an RL reward model. Instead, directly fine-tuning for human preferences is achieved via the minimization of a single closed-form training objective, a process originally referred to as direct preference optimization (DPO) and followed by several notable descendants. Although effective in certain real-world settings, we introduce new evaluation criteria that serve to highlight unresolved shortcomings in the ability of existing DPO methods to interpolate between a pre-trained reference model and empirical measures of human preferences, as well as unavoidable trade-offs in how low- and high-quality responses are regularized and constraints are handled. Our insights then motivate an alternative DPO-like loss that provably mitigates these limitations. Empirical results serve to corroborate notable aspects of our analyses.

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) has raised great concerns in the community due to the issue of data contamination. Existing work designed evaluation protocols using well-defined algorithms for specific tasks, which cannot be easily extended to diverse scenarios. Moreover, current evaluation benchmarks can only provide the overall benchmark results and cannot support a fine-grained and multifaceted analysis of LLMs' abilities. In this paper, we propose meta probing agents (MPA), a general dynamic evaluation protocol inspired by psychometrics to evaluate LLMs. MPA is the key component of DyVal 2, which naturally extends the previous DyVal~zhu2023dyval. MPA designs the probing and judging agents to automatically transform an original evaluation problem into a new one following psychometric theory on three basic cognitive abilities: language understanding, problem solving, and domain knowledge. These basic abilities are also dynamically configurable, allowing multifaceted analysis. We conducted extensive evaluations using MPA and found that most LLMs achieve poorer performance, indicating room for improvement. Our multifaceted analysis demonstrated the strong correlation between the basic abilities and an implicit Matthew effect on model size, i.e., larger models possess stronger correlations of the abilities. MPA can also be used as a data augmentation approach to enhance LLMs. Code is available at: https://github.com/microsoft/promptbench.

A recent focus of large language model (LLM) development, as exemplified by generative search engines, is to incorporate external references to generate and support their claims. However, evaluating the attribution, i.e., verifying whether the generated statement is indeed fully supported by the cited reference, remains an open problem. Although human evaluation is common practice, it is costly and time-consuming. In this paper, we investigate the automatic evaluation of attribution by LLMs. We begin by providing a definition of attribution and then explore two approaches for automatic evaluation: prompting LLMs and fine-tuning smaller LMs. The fine-tuning data is repurposed from related tasks, such as question answering, fact-checking, natural language inference, and summarization. To facilitate the evaluation, we manually curate a set of test examples covering 12 domains from a generative search engine, New Bing. Our results on the curated test set and simulated test examples from existing benchmark questions highlight both promising signals as well as remaining challenges for the automatic evaluation of attribution. We hope our testbed, modeling methodology, and insights will help lay the foundation for future studies on this important problem.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable, it is prudent to assess whether safety measures remain effective even if LLMs intentionally try to bypass them. Previous work introduced control evaluations, an adversarial framework for testing deployment strategies of untrusted models (i.e., models which might be trying to bypass safety measures). While prior work treats a single failure as unacceptable, we perform control evaluations in a "distributed threat setting" -- a setting where no single action is catastrophic and no single action provides overwhelming evidence of misalignment. We approach this problem with a two-level deployment framework that uses an adaptive macro-protocol to choose between micro-protocols. Micro-protocols operate on a single task, using a less capable, but extensively tested (trusted) model to harness and monitor the untrusted model. Meanwhile, the macro-protocol maintains an adaptive credence on the untrusted model's alignment based on its past actions, using it to pick between safer and riskier micro-protocols. We evaluate our method in a code generation testbed where a red team attempts to generate subtly backdoored code with an LLM whose deployment is safeguarded by a blue team. We plot Pareto frontiers of safety (# of non-backdoored solutions) and usefulness (# of correct solutions). At a given level of usefulness, our adaptive deployment strategy reduces the number of backdoors by 80% compared to non-adaptive baselines.

Auto-evaluation is crucial for assessing response quality and offering feedback for model development. Recent studies have explored training large language models (LLMs) as generative judges to evaluate and critique other models' outputs. In this work, we investigate the idea of learning from both positive and negative data with preference optimization to enhance the evaluation capabilities of LLM judges across an array of different use cases. We achieve this by employing three approaches to collect the preference pairs for different use cases, each aimed at improving our generative judge from a different perspective. Our comprehensive study over a wide range of benchmarks demonstrates the effectiveness of our method. In particular, our generative judge achieves the best performance on 10 out of 13 benchmarks, outperforming strong baselines like GPT-4o and specialized judge models. Further analysis show that our judge model robustly counters inherent biases such as position and length bias, flexibly adapts to any evaluation protocol specified by practitioners, and provides helpful language feedback for improving downstream generator models.

Proprietary LMs such as GPT-4 are often employed to assess the quality of responses from various LMs. However, concerns including transparency, controllability, and affordability strongly motivate the development of open-source LMs specialized in evaluations. On the other hand, existing open evaluator LMs exhibit critical shortcomings: 1) they issue scores that significantly diverge from those assigned by humans, and 2) they lack the flexibility to perform both direct assessment and pairwise ranking, the two most prevalent forms of assessment. Additionally, they do not possess the ability to evaluate based on custom evaluation criteria, focusing instead on general attributes like helpfulness and harmlessness. To address these issues, we introduce Prometheus 2, a more powerful evaluator LM than its predecessor that closely mirrors human and GPT-4 judgements. Moreover, it is capable of processing both direct assessment and pair-wise ranking formats grouped with a user-defined evaluation criteria. On four direct assessment benchmarks and four pairwise ranking benchmarks, Prometheus 2 scores the highest correlation and agreement with humans and proprietary LM judges among all tested open evaluator LMs. Our models, code, and data are all publicly available at https://github.com/prometheus-eval/prometheus-eval.

State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) are now claiming remarkable supported context lengths of 256k or even more. In contrast, the average context lengths of mainstream benchmarks are insufficient (5k-21k), and they suffer from potential knowledge leakage and inaccurate metrics, resulting in biased evaluation. This paper introduces LV-Eval, a challenging long-context benchmark with five length levels (16k, 32k, 64k, 128k, and 256k) reaching up to 256k words. LV-Eval features two main tasks, single-hop QA and multi-hop QA, comprising 11 bilingual datasets. The design of LV-Eval has incorporated three key techniques, namely confusing facts insertion, keyword and phrase replacement, and keyword-recall-based metric design. The advantages of LV-Eval include controllable evaluation across different context lengths, challenging test instances with confusing facts, mitigated knowledge leakage, and more objective evaluations. We evaluate 10 LLMs on LV-Eval and conduct ablation studies on the techniques used in LV-Eval construction. The results reveal that: (i) Commercial LLMs generally outperform open-source LLMs when evaluated within length levels shorter than their claimed context length. However, their overall performance is surpassed by open-source LLMs with longer context lengths. (ii) Extremely long-context LLMs, such as Yi-6B-200k, exhibit a relatively gentle degradation of performance, but their absolute performances may not necessarily be higher than those of LLMs with shorter context lengths. (iii) LLMs' performances can significantly degrade in the presence of confusing information, especially in the pressure test of "needle in a haystack". (iv) Issues related to knowledge leakage and inaccurate metrics introduce bias in evaluation, and these concerns are alleviated in LV-Eval. All datasets and evaluation codes are released at: https://github.com/infinigence/LVEval.

RLHF has emerged as a predominant approach for aligning artificial intelligence systems with human preferences, demonstrating exceptional and measurable efficacy in instruction following tasks; however, it exhibits insufficient compliance capabilities when confronted with complex multi-instruction tasks. Conventional approaches rely heavily on human annotation or more sophisticated large language models, thereby introducing substantial resource expenditure or potential bias concerns. Meanwhile, alternative synthetic methods that augment standard preference datasets often compromise the model's semantic quality. Our research identifies a critical oversight in existing techniques, which predominantly focus on comparing responses while neglecting valuable latent signals embedded within prompt inputs, and which only focus on preference disparities at the intra-sample level, while neglecting to account for the inter-sample level preference differentials that exist among preference data. To leverage these previously neglected indicators, we propose a novel Multi-level Aware Preference Learning (MAPL) framework, capable of enhancing multi-instruction capabilities. Specifically, for any given response in original preference data pairs, we construct varied prompts with a preference relation under different conditions, in order to learn intra-sample level preference disparities. Furthermore, for any given original preference pair, we synthesize multi-instruction preference pairs to capture preference discrepancies at the inter-sample level. Building on the two datasets constructed above, we consequently devise two sophisticated training objective functions. Subsequently, our framework integrates seamlessly into both Reward Modeling and Direct Preference Optimization paradigms. Through rigorous evaluation across multiple benchmarks, we empirically validate the efficacy of our framework.

Recently, there has been growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for scientific research. Numerous benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate the ability of LLMs for scientific research. However, current benchmarks are mostly based on pre-collected objective questions. This design suffers from data leakage problem and lacks the evaluation of subjective Q/A ability. In this paper, we propose SciEval, a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary evaluation benchmark to address these issues. Based on Bloom's taxonomy, SciEval covers four dimensions to systematically evaluate scientific research ability. In particular, we design a "dynamic" subset based on scientific principles to prevent evaluation from potential data leakage. Both objective and subjective questions are included in SciEval. These characteristics make SciEval a more effective benchmark for scientific research ability evaluation of LLMs. Comprehensive experiments on most advanced LLMs show that, although GPT-4 achieves SOTA performance compared to other LLMs, there is still substantial room for improvement, especially for dynamic questions. The data and codes are now publicly available.

The development of robust safety benchmarks for large language models requires open, reproducible datasets that can measure both appropriate refusal of harmful content and potential over-restriction of legitimate scientific discourse. We present an open-source dataset and testing framework for evaluating LLM safety mechanisms across mainly controlled substance queries, analyzing four major models' responses to systematically varied prompts. Our results reveal distinct safety profiles: Claude-3.5-sonnet demonstrated the most conservative approach with 73% refusals and 27% allowances, while Mistral attempted to answer 100% of queries. GPT-3.5-turbo showed moderate restriction with 10% refusals and 90% allowances, and Grok-2 registered 20% refusals and 80% allowances. Testing prompt variation strategies revealed decreasing response consistency, from 85% with single prompts to 65% with five variations. This publicly available benchmark enables systematic evaluation of the critical balance between necessary safety restrictions and potential over-censorship of legitimate scientific inquiry, while providing a foundation for measuring progress in AI safety implementation. Chain-of-thought analysis reveals potential vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms, highlighting the complexity of implementing robust safeguards without unduly restricting desirable and valid scientific discourse.

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

The automatic generation of visualizations is an old task that, through the years, has shown more and more interest from the research and practitioner communities. Recently, large language models (LLM) have become an interesting option for supporting generative tasks related to visualization, demonstrating initial promising results. At the same time, several pitfalls, like the multiple ways of instructing an LLM to generate the desired result, the different perspectives leading the generation (code-based, image-based, grammar-based), and the presence of hallucinations even for the visualization generation task, make their usage less affordable than expected. Following similar initiatives for benchmarking LLMs, this paper copes with the problem of modeling the evaluation of a generated visualization through an LLM. We propose a theoretical evaluation stack, EvaLLM, that decomposes the evaluation effort in its atomic components, characterizes their nature, and provides an overview of how to implement and interpret them. We also designed and implemented an evaluation platform that provides a benchmarking resource for the visualization generation task. The platform supports automatic and manual scoring conducted by multiple assessors to support a fine-grained and semantic evaluation based on the EvaLLM stack. Two case studies on GPT3.5-turbo with Code Interpreter and Llama2-70-b models show the benefits of EvaLLM and illustrate interesting results on the current state-of-the-art LLM-generated visualizations.

Making LLMs speak for different, especially minority groups of people, and generate statements supporting their diverse or even controversial perspectives is critical to creating an inclusive environment. However, existing LLMs lack sufficient controllability to the stance of their generated content, which often contains inconsistent, neutral, or biased statements. In this paper, we improve the controllability of LLMs in generating statements supporting an argument the user defined in the prompt. We find that multi-round debates between two LLMs with opposite stances generate higher-quality and more salient statements for each, which are important training data to improve the controllability of LLMs. Motivated by this, we develop a novel debate & tuning (DEBATUNE) pipeline finetuning LLMs to generate the statements obtained via debate. To examine DEBATUNE, we curate the largest dataset of debate topics so far, which covers 710 controversial topics and corresponding arguments for each topic. Evaluations by the GPT-4 judge with a novel controversy controllability metric show that LLMs' capability of generating diverse perspectives is significantly improved by DEBATUNE. Moreover, such controllability can be generalized to unseen topics, generating high-quality statements supporting controversial arguments.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods in model development. While their combination significantly enhances the efficiency of model training and evaluation, little attention has been given to the potential contamination brought by this new model development paradigm. In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators. To study this issue, we first define three common relatednesses between data generator LLM and judge LLM: being the same model, having an inheritance relationship, and belonging to the same model family. Through extensive experiments, we empirically confirm the bias of judges towards their related student models caused by preference leakage across multiple LLM baselines and benchmarks. Further analysis suggests that preference leakage is a pervasive issue that is harder to detect compared to previously identified biases in LLM-as-a-judge scenarios. All of these findings imply that preference leakage is a widespread and challenging problem in the area of LLM-as-a-judge. We release all codes and data at: https://github.com/David-Li0406/Preference-Leakage.

Comprehensive, unbiased, and comparable evaluation of modern generalist policies is uniquely challenging: existing approaches for robot benchmarking typically rely on heavy standardization, either by specifying fixed evaluation tasks and environments, or by hosting centralized ''robot challenges'', and do not readily scale to evaluating generalist policies across a broad range of tasks and environments. In this work, we propose RoboArena, a new approach for scalable evaluation of generalist robot policies in the real world. Instead of standardizing evaluations around fixed tasks, environments, or locations, we propose to crowd-source evaluations across a distributed network of evaluators. Importantly, evaluators can freely choose the tasks and environments they evaluate on, enabling easy scaling of diversity, but they are required to perform double-blind evaluations over pairs of policies. Then, by aggregating preference feedback from pairwise comparisons across diverse tasks and environments, we can derive a ranking of policies. We instantiate our approach across a network of evaluators at seven academic institutions using the DROID robot platform. Through more than 600 pairwise real-robot evaluation episodes across seven generalist policies, we demonstrate that our crowd-sourced approach can more accurately rank the performance of existing generalist policies than conventional, centralized evaluation approaches, while being more scalable, resilient, and trustworthy. We open our evaluation network to the community and hope that it can enable more accessible comparisons of generalist robot policies.

Due to the expanding capabilities and pre-training data, Large Language Models (LLMs) are facing increasingly serious evaluation challenges. On one hand, the data leakage issue cause over-estimation on existing benchmarks. On the other hand, periodically curating datasets manually is costly. In this paper, we propose to automate dataset updates for reliable and timely evaluation. The basic idea is to generate unseen and high-quality testing samples based on existing ones to mitigate leakage issues. In specific, we propose two strategies with systematically verification. First, the mimicking strategy employs LLMs to create new samples resembling existing ones, to the maximum extent preserving the stylistic of the original dataset. Our experiments demonstrate its evaluation stability across multiple instantiations and its effectiveness in dealing with data leakage issues in most cases. Second, for the cases that mimicking dataset works poorly, we design an extending strategy that adjusts the difficulty of the generated samples according to varying cognitive levels. This not only makes our evaluation more systematic, but also, with a balanced difficulty, even discern model capabilities better at fine-grained levels.

Spurious correlations allow flexible models to predict well during training but poorly on related test distributions. Recent work has shown that models that satisfy particular independencies involving correlation-inducing nuisance variables have guarantees on their test performance. Enforcing such independencies requires nuisances to be observed during training. However, nuisances, such as demographics or image background labels, are often missing. Enforcing independence on just the observed data does not imply independence on the entire population. Here we derive mmd estimators used for invariance objectives under missing nuisances. On simulations and clinical data, optimizing through these estimates achieves test performance similar to using estimators that make use of the full data.

Given the widespread adoption and usage of Large Language Models (LLMs), it is crucial to have flexible and interpretable evaluations of their instruction-following ability. Preference judgments between model outputs have become the de facto evaluation standard, despite distilling complex, multi-faceted preferences into a single ranking. Furthermore, as human annotation is slow and costly, LLMs are increasingly used to make these judgments, at the expense of reliability and interpretability. In this work, we propose TICK (Targeted Instruct-evaluation with ChecKlists), a fully automated, interpretable evaluation protocol that structures evaluations with LLM-generated, instruction-specific checklists. We first show that, given an instruction, LLMs can reliably produce high-quality, tailored evaluation checklists that decompose the instruction into a series of YES/NO questions. Each question asks whether a candidate response meets a specific requirement of the instruction. We demonstrate that using TICK leads to a significant increase (46.4% to 52.2%) in the frequency of exact agreements between LLM judgements and human preferences, as compared to having an LLM directly score an output. We then show that STICK (Self-TICK) can be used to improve generation quality across multiple benchmarks via self-refinement and Best-of-N selection. STICK self-refinement on LiveBench reasoning tasks leads to an absolute gain of +7.8%, whilst Best-of-N selection with STICK attains +6.3% absolute improvement on the real-world instruction dataset, WildBench. In light of this, structured, multi-faceted self-improvement is shown to be a promising way to further advance LLM capabilities. Finally, by providing LLM-generated checklists to human evaluators tasked with directly scoring LLM responses to WildBench instructions, we notably increase inter-annotator agreement (0.194 to 0.256).

Instruction-tuned large language models have revolutionized natural language processing and have shown great potential in applications such as conversational agents. These models, such as GPT-4, can not only master language but also solve complex tasks in areas like mathematics, coding, medicine, and law. Despite their impressive capabilities, there is still a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding their full potential, primarily due to the black-box nature of many models and the absence of holistic evaluation studies. To address these challenges, we present INSTRUCTEVAL, a more comprehensive evaluation suite designed specifically for instruction-tuned large language models. Unlike previous works, our evaluation involves a rigorous assessment of models based on problem-solving, writing ability, and alignment to human values. We take a holistic approach to analyze various factors affecting model performance, including the pretraining foundation, instruction-tuning data, and training methods. Our findings reveal that the quality of instruction data is the most crucial factor in scaling model performance. While open-source models demonstrate impressive writing abilities, there is substantial room for improvement in problem-solving and alignment. We are encouraged by the rapid development of models by the open-source community, but we also highlight the need for rigorous evaluation to support claims made about these models. Through INSTRUCTEVAL, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of instruction-tuned models and advancements in their capabilities. INSTRUCTEVAL is publicly available at https://github.com/declare-lab/instruct-eval.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly versatile, numerous large scale benchmarks have been developed to thoroughly assess their capabilities. These benchmarks typically consist of diverse datasets and prompts to evaluate different aspects of LLM performance. However, comprehensive evaluations on hundreds or thousands of prompts incur tremendous costs in terms of computation, money, and time. In this work, we investigate strategies to improve evaluation efficiency by selecting a subset of examples from each benchmark using a learned policy. Our approach models the dependencies across test examples, allowing accurate prediction of the evaluation outcomes for the remaining examples based on the outcomes of the selected ones. Consequently, we only need to acquire the actual evaluation outcomes for the selected subset. We rigorously explore various subset selection policies and introduce a novel RL-based policy that leverages the captured dependencies. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach significantly reduces the number of evaluation prompts required while maintaining accurate performance estimates compared to previous methods.

Evaluating aligned large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests is crucial for safe, policy-compliant deployments. Existing evaluation efforts, however, face three limitations that we address with SORRY-Bench, our proposed benchmark. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomies of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. For example, among the ten existing datasets that we evaluated, tests for refusals of self-harm instructions are over 3x less represented than tests for fraudulent activities. SORRY-Bench improves on this by using a fine-grained taxonomy of 45 potentially unsafe topics, and 450 class-balanced unsafe instructions, compiled through human-in-the-loop methods. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. We supplement SORRY-Bench with 20 diverse linguistic augmentations to systematically examine these effects. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) for evaluation, which can be computationally expensive. We investigate design choices for creating a fast, accurate automated safety evaluator. By collecting 7K+ human annotations and conducting a meta-evaluation of diverse LLM-as-a-judge designs, we show that fine-tuned 7B LLMs can achieve accuracy comparable to GPT-4 scale LLMs, with lower computational cost. Putting these together, we evaluate over 40 proprietary and open-source LLMs on SORRY-Bench, analyzing their distinctive refusal behaviors. We hope our effort provides a building block for systematic evaluations of LLMs' safety refusal capabilities, in a balanced, granular, and efficient manner.

For observational studies, we study the sensitivity of causal inference when treatment assignments may depend on unobserved confounders. We develop a loss minimization approach for estimating bounds on the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) when unobserved confounders have a bounded effect on the odds ratio of treatment selection. Our approach is scalable and allows flexible use of model classes in estimation, including nonparametric and black-box machine learning methods. Based on these bounds for the CATE, we propose a sensitivity analysis for the average treatment effect (ATE). Our semi-parametric estimator extends/bounds the augmented inverse propensity weighted (AIPW) estimator for the ATE under bounded unobserved confounding. By constructing a Neyman orthogonal score, our estimator of the bound for the ATE is a regular root-n estimator so long as the nuisance parameters are estimated at the o_p(n^{-1/4}) rate. We complement our methodology with optimality results showing that our proposed bounds are tight in certain cases. We demonstrate our method on simulated and real data examples, and show accurate coverage of our confidence intervals in practical finite sample regimes with rich covariate information.

Hypothesis ranking is a crucial component of automated scientific discovery, particularly in natural sciences where wet-lab experiments are costly and throughput-limited. Existing approaches focus on pre-experiment ranking, relying solely on large language model's internal reasoning without incorporating empirical outcomes from experiments. We introduce the task of experiment-guided ranking, which aims to prioritize candidate hypotheses based on the results of previously tested ones. However, developing such strategies is challenging due to the impracticality of repeatedly conducting real experiments in natural science domains. To address this, we propose a simulator grounded in three domain-informed assumptions, modeling hypothesis performance as a function of similarity to a known ground truth hypothesis, perturbed by noise. We curate a dataset of 124 chemistry hypotheses with experimentally reported outcomes to validate the simulator. Building on this simulator, we develop a pseudo experiment-guided ranking method that clusters hypotheses by shared functional characteristics and prioritizes candidates based on insights derived from simulated experimental feedback. Experiments show that our method outperforms pre-experiment baselines and strong ablations.

Recent advancements in visual generative models have enabled high-quality image and video generation, opening diverse applications. However, evaluating these models often demands sampling hundreds or thousands of images or videos, making the process computationally expensive, especially for diffusion-based models with inherently slow sampling. Moreover, existing evaluation methods rely on rigid pipelines that overlook specific user needs and provide numerical results without clear explanations. In contrast, humans can quickly form impressions of a model's capabilities by observing only a few samples. To mimic this, we propose the Evaluation Agent framework, which employs human-like strategies for efficient, dynamic, multi-round evaluations using only a few samples per round, while offering detailed, user-tailored analyses. It offers four key advantages: 1) efficiency, 2) promptable evaluation tailored to diverse user needs, 3) explainability beyond single numerical scores, and 4) scalability across various models and tools. Experiments show that Evaluation Agent reduces evaluation time to 10% of traditional methods while delivering comparable results. The Evaluation Agent framework is fully open-sourced to advance research in visual generative models and their efficient evaluation.

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.

With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their ubiquitous deployment in diverse domains, measuring language model behavior on realistic data is imperative. For example, a company deploying a client-facing chatbot must ensure that the model will not respond to client requests with profanity. Current evaluations approach this problem using small, domain-specific datasets with human-curated labels. These evaluation sets are often sampled from a narrow and simplified distribution, and data sources can unknowingly be leaked into the training set which can lead to misleading evaluations. To bypass these drawbacks, we propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of LLMs by analyzing their sensitivity or invariance to transformations on the input text. Self-supervised evaluation can directly monitor LLM behavior on datasets collected in the wild or streamed during live model deployment. We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence, in addition to sensitivity to grammatical structure and tokenization errors. When comparisons to similar human-labeled benchmarks are available, we find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations. The self-supervised paradigm complements current evaluation strategies that rely on labeled data.

Given questions regarding some prototypical situation such as Name something that people usually do before they leave the house for work? a human can easily answer them via acquired experiences. There can be multiple right answers for such questions, with some more common for a situation than others. This paper introduces a new question answering dataset for training and evaluating common sense reasoning capabilities of artificial intelligence systems in such prototypical situations. The training set is gathered from an existing set of questions played in a long-running international game show FAMILY- FEUD. The hidden evaluation set is created by gathering answers for each question from 100 crowd-workers. We also propose a generative evaluation task where a model has to output a ranked list of answers, ideally covering all prototypical answers for a question. After presenting multiple competitive baseline models, we find that human performance still exceeds model scores on all evaluation metrics with a meaningful gap, supporting the challenging nature of the task.

Recently, there has been a growing trend of utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) to evaluate the quality of other LLMs. Many studies have employed proprietary close-source models, especially GPT4, as the evaluator. Alternatively, other works have fine-tuned judge models based on open-source LLMs as the evaluator. In this study, we conduct an empirical study of different judge models on their evaluation capability. Our findings indicate that although the fine-tuned judge models achieve high accuracy on in-domain test sets, even surpassing GPT4, they are inherently task-specific classifiers, and their generalizability and fairness severely underperform GPT4.

This paper investigates the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of understanding their own knowledge and measuring their uncertainty. We argue this is an important feature for mitigating hallucinations. Specifically, we focus on addressing known-unknown questions, characterized by high uncertainty due to the absence of definitive answers. To facilitate our study, we collect a dataset with new Known-Unknown Questions (KUQ) and propose a novel categorization scheme to elucidate the sources of uncertainty. Subsequently, we assess the LLMs' ability to differentiate between known and unknown questions and classify them accordingly. Moreover, we evaluate the quality of their answers in an Open-Ended QA setting. To quantify the uncertainty expressed in the answers, we create a semantic evaluation method that measures the model's accuracy in expressing uncertainty between known vs unknown questions.

Test set contamination, wherein test data from a benchmark ends up in a newer model's training set, is a well-documented obstacle for fair LLM evaluation and can quickly render benchmarks obsolete. To mitigate this, many recent benchmarks crowdsource new prompts and evaluations from human or LLM judges; however, these can introduce significant biases, and break down when scoring hard questions. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark for LLMs designed to be immune to both test set contamination and the pitfalls of LLM judging and human crowdsourcing. We release LiveBench, the first benchmark that (1) contains frequently-updated questions from recent information sources, (2) scores answers automatically according to objective ground-truth values, and (3) contains a wide variety of challenging tasks, spanning math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. To achieve this, LiveBench contains questions that are based on recently-released math competitions, arXiv papers, news articles, and datasets, and it contains harder, contamination-free versions of tasks from previous benchmarks such as Big-Bench Hard, AMPS, and IFEval. We evaluate many prominent closed-source models, as well as dozens of open-source models ranging from 0.5B to 110B in size. LiveBench is difficult, with top models achieving below 65% accuracy. We release all questions, code, and model answers. Questions will be added and updated on a monthly basis, and we will release new tasks and harder versions of tasks over time so that LiveBench can distinguish between the capabilities of LLMs as they improve in the future. We welcome community engagement and collaboration for expanding the benchmark tasks and models.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. Therefore, we identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM-which systematically quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge by using automated and principle-guided modification. Our experiments cover multiple popular language models, and the results indicate that while advanced models have achieved commendable overall performance, significant biases persist in certain specific tasks. Empirical results suggest that there remains room for improvement in the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge. Moreover, we also discuss the explicit and implicit influence of these biases and give some suggestions for the reliable application of LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.

Helpful reviews have been essential for the success of e-commerce services, as they help customers make quick purchase decisions and benefit the merchants in their sales. While many reviews are informative, others provide little value and may contain spam, excessive appraisal, or unexpected biases. With the large volume of reviews and their uneven quality, the problem of detecting helpful reviews has drawn much attention lately. Existing methods for identifying helpful reviews primarily focus on review text and ignore the two key factors of (1) who post the reviews and (2) when the reviews are posted. Moreover, the helpfulness votes suffer from scarcity for less popular products and recently submitted (a.k.a., cold-start) reviews. To address these challenges, we introduce a dataset and develop a model that integrates the reviewer's expertise, derived from the past review history of the reviewers, and the temporal dynamics of the reviews to automatically assess review helpfulness. We conduct experiments on our dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating these factors and report improved results compared to several well-established baselines.

To solve complex tasks, large language models (LLMs) often require multiple rounds of interactions with the user, sometimes assisted by external tools. However, current evaluation protocols often emphasize benchmark performance with single-turn exchanges, neglecting the nuanced interactions among the user, LLMs, and external tools, while also underestimating the importance of natural language feedback from users. These oversights contribute to discrepancies between research benchmark evaluations and real-world use cases. We introduce MINT, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs' ability to solve tasks with multi-turn interactions by (1) using tools and (2) leveraging natural language feedback. To ensure reproducibility, we provide an evaluation framework where LLMs can access tools by executing Python code and receive users' natural language feedback simulated by GPT-4. We repurpose a diverse set of established evaluation datasets focusing on reasoning, coding, and decision-making and carefully curate them into a compact subset for efficient evaluation. Our analysis of 20 open- and closed-source LLMs offers intriguing findings. (a) LLMs generally benefit from tools and language feedback, with performance gains (absolute, same below) of 1-8% for each turn of tool use and 2-17% with natural language feedback. (b) Better single-turn performance does not guarantee better multi-turn performance. (c) Surprisingly, on the LLMs evaluated, supervised instruction-finetuning (SIFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) generally hurt multi-turn capabilities. We expect MINT can help measure progress and incentivize research in improving LLMs' capabilities in multi-turn interactions, especially for open-source communities where multi-turn human evaluation can be less accessible compared to commercial LLMs with a larger user base.

Recently, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have received much attention for their impressive capabilities. The evaluation of MLLMs is becoming critical to analyzing attributes of MLLMs and providing valuable insights. However, current benchmarks overlook the problem of prompt sensitivity - minor prompt variations may lead to significant performance fluctuations. Thus, inappropriate prompts may obscure the models' capabilities, underestimating the models' performance. Moreover, different models have different preferences for different prompts, and thus, using the same prompt for all models will cause evaluation bias. This paper analyzes this deficiency in existing benchmarks and further introduces a new evaluation framework named TP-Eval, which introduces a prompt customization method to reduce evaluation biases and tap models' potential. TP-Eval will rewrite the original prompts to different customized prompts for different models. In particular, we propose some well-designed modules for prompt customization tailored to the scenario of MLLM evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach to uncovering models' capabilities, and TP-Eval should benefit the community in developing more comprehensive and convincing MLLM evaluation benchmarks.

Large language models (LLMs) have a tendency to generate plausible-sounding yet factually incorrect responses, especially when queried on unfamiliar concepts. In this work, we explore the underlying mechanisms that govern how finetuned LLMs hallucinate. Our investigation reveals an interesting pattern: as inputs become more unfamiliar, LLM outputs tend to default towards a ``hedged'' prediction, whose form is determined by how the unfamiliar examples in the finetuning data are supervised. Thus, by strategically modifying these examples' supervision, we can control LLM predictions for unfamiliar inputs (e.g., teach them to say ``I don't know''). Based on these principles, we develop an RL approach that more reliably mitigates hallucinations for long-form generation tasks, by tackling the challenges presented by reward model hallucinations. We validate our findings with a series of controlled experiments in multiple-choice QA on MMLU, as well as long-form biography and book/movie plot generation tasks.

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.

This position paper emphasizes the critical gap in the evaluation of Explainable AI (XAI) due to the lack of standardized and reliable metrics, which diminishes its practical value, trustworthiness, and ability to meet regulatory requirements. Current evaluation methods are often fragmented, subjective, and biased, making them prone to manipulation and complicating the assessment of complex models. A central issue is the absence of a ground truth for explanations, complicating comparisons across various XAI approaches. To address these challenges, we advocate for widespread research into developing robust, context-sensitive evaluation metrics. These metrics should be resistant to manipulation, relevant to each use case, and based on human judgment and real-world applicability. We also recommend creating domain-specific evaluation benchmarks that align with the user and regulatory needs of sectors such as healthcare and finance. By encouraging collaboration among academia, industry, and regulators, we can create standards that balance flexibility and consistency, ensuring XAI explanations are meaningful, trustworthy, and compliant with evolving regulations.

With the ever-increasing popularity of pretrained Video-Language Models (VidLMs), there is a pressing need to develop robust evaluation methodologies that delve deeper into their visio-linguistic capabilities. To address this challenge, we present ViLMA (Video Language Model Assessment), a task-agnostic benchmark that places the assessment of fine-grained capabilities of these models on a firm footing. Task-based evaluations, while valuable, fail to capture the complexities and specific temporal aspects of moving images that VidLMs need to process. Through carefully curated counterfactuals, ViLMA offers a controlled evaluation suite that sheds light on the true potential of these models, as well as their performance gaps compared to human-level understanding. ViLMA also includes proficiency tests, which assess basic capabilities deemed essential to solving the main counterfactual tests. We show that current VidLMs' grounding abilities are no better than those of vision-language models which use static images. This is especially striking once the performance on proficiency tests is factored in. Our benchmark serves as a catalyst for future research on VidLMs, helping to highlight areas that still need to be explored.

Assessing long-form responses generated by Vision-Language Models (VLMs) is challenging. It not only requires checking whether the VLM follows the given instruction but also verifying whether the text output is properly grounded on the given image. Inspired by the recent approach of evaluating LMs with LMs, in this work, we propose to evaluate VLMs with VLMs. For this purpose, we present a new feedback dataset called the Perception Collection, encompassing 15K customized score rubrics that users might care about during assessment. Using the Perception Collection, we train Prometheus-Vision, the first open-source VLM evaluator model that can understand the user-defined score criteria during evaluation. Prometheus-Vision shows the highest Pearson correlation with human evaluators and GPT-4V among open-source models, showing its effectiveness for transparent and accessible evaluation of VLMs. We open-source our code, dataset, and model at https://github.com/kaistAI/prometheus-vision

In natural language processing, a recently popular line of work explores how to best report the experimental results of neural networks. One exemplar publication, titled "Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Results," advocates for reporting the expected validation effectiveness of the best-tuned model, with respect to the computational budget. In the present work, we critically examine this paper. As far as statistical generalizability is concerned, we find unspoken pitfalls and caveats with this approach. We analytically show that their estimator is biased and uses error-prone assumptions. We find that the estimator favors negative errors and yields poor bootstrapped confidence intervals. We derive an unbiased alternative and bolster our claims with empirical evidence from statistical simulation. Our codebase is at http://github.com/castorini/meanmax.

The current focus of AI research is shifting from emphasizing model training towards enhancing evaluation quality, a transition that is crucial for driving further advancements in AI systems. Traditional evaluation methods typically rely on reward models assigning scalar preference scores to outputs. Although effective, such approaches lack interpretability, leaving users often uncertain about why a reward model rates a particular response as high or low. The advent of LLM-as-a-Judge provides a more scalable and interpretable method of supervision, offering insights into the decision-making process. Moreover, with the emergence of large reasoning models, which consume more tokens for deeper thinking and answer refinement, scaling test-time computation in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm presents an avenue for further boosting performance and providing more interpretability through reasoning traces. In this paper, we introduce J1-7B, which is first supervised fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets collected via rejection-sampling and subsequently trained using Reinforcement Learning (RL) with verifiable rewards. At inference time, we apply Simple Test-Time Scaling (STTS) strategies for additional performance improvement. Experimental results demonstrate that J1-7B surpasses the previous state-of-the-art LLM-as-a-Judge by 4.8\% and exhibits a 5.1\% stronger scaling trend under STTS. Additionally, we present three key findings: (1) Existing LLM-as-a-Judge does not inherently exhibit such scaling trend. (2) Model simply fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets continues to demonstrate similarly weak scaling behavior. (3) Significant scaling trend emerges primarily during the RL phase, suggesting that effective STTS capability is acquired predominantly through RL training.

Perceiving and generating diverse modalities are crucial for AI models to effectively learn from and engage with real-world signals, necessitating reliable evaluations for their development. We identify two major issues in current evaluations: (1) inconsistent standards, shaped by different communities with varying protocols and maturity levels; and (2) significant query, grading, and generalization biases. To address these, we introduce MixEval-X, the first any-to-any real-world benchmark designed to optimize and standardize evaluations across input and output modalities. We propose multi-modal benchmark mixture and adaptation-rectification pipelines to reconstruct real-world task distributions, ensuring evaluations generalize effectively to real-world use cases. Extensive meta-evaluations show our approach effectively aligns benchmark samples with real-world task distributions and the model rankings correlate strongly with that of crowd-sourced real-world evaluations (up to 0.98). We provide comprehensive leaderboards to rerank existing models and organizations and offer insights to enhance understanding of multi-modal evaluations and inform future research.

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has enhanced the ability to generalize across a wide range of unseen natural language processing (NLP) tasks through instruction-following. Yet, their effectiveness often diminishes in low-resource languages like Chinese, exacerbated by biased evaluations from data leakage, casting doubt on their true generalizability to new linguistic territories. In response, we introduce the Chinese Instruction-Following Benchmark (CIF-Bench), designed to evaluate the zero-shot generalizability of LLMs to the Chinese language. CIF-Bench comprises 150 tasks and 15,000 input-output pairs, developed by native speakers to test complex reasoning and Chinese cultural nuances across 20 categories. To mitigate evaluation bias, we release only half of the dataset publicly, with the remainder kept private, and introduce diversified instructions to minimize score variance, totaling 45,000 data instances. Our evaluation of 28 selected LLMs reveals a noticeable performance gap, with the best model scoring only 52.9%, highlighting the limitations of LLMs in less familiar language and task contexts. This work aims to uncover the current limitations of LLMs in handling Chinese tasks, pushing towards the development of more culturally informed and linguistically diverse models with the released data and benchmark (https://yizhilll.github.io/CIF-Bench/).

Existing evaluations of foundation models, including recent human-centric approaches, fail to capture what truly matters: user's experience during interaction. Current methods treat evaluation as a matter of output correctness alone, overlooking that user satisfaction emerges from the interplay between response quality and interaction, which limits their ability to account for the mechanisms underlying user experience. To address this gap, we introduce QoNext, the first framework that adapts Quality of Experience (QoE) principles from networking and multimedia to the assessment of foundation models. QoNext identifies experiential factors that shape user experience and incorporates them into controlled experiments, where human ratings are collected under varied configurations. From these studies we construct a QoE-oriented database and train predictive models that estimate perceived user experience from measurable system parameters. Our results demonstrate that QoNext not only enables proactive and fine-grained evaluation but also provides actionable guidance for productized services of optimizing foundation models in practice.

We introduce a new framework for sample-efficient model evaluation that we call active testing. While approaches like active learning reduce the number of labels needed for model training, existing literature largely ignores the cost of labeling test data, typically unrealistically assuming large test sets for model evaluation. This creates a disconnect to real applications, where test labels are important and just as expensive, e.g. for optimizing hyperparameters. Active testing addresses this by carefully selecting the test points to label, ensuring model evaluation is sample-efficient. To this end, we derive theoretically-grounded and intuitive acquisition strategies that are specifically tailored to the goals of active testing, noting these are distinct to those of active learning. As actively selecting labels introduces a bias; we further show how to remove this bias while reducing the variance of the estimator at the same time. Active testing is easy to implement and can be applied to any supervised machine learning method. We demonstrate its effectiveness on models including WideResNets and Gaussian processes on datasets including Fashion-MNIST and CIFAR-100.

Leading vision-language models (VLMs) are trained on general Internet content, overlooking scientific journals' rich, domain-specific knowledge. Training on specialty-specific literature could yield high-performance, task-specific tools, enabling generative AI to match generalist models in specialty publishing, educational, and clinical tasks. We created NeuroPubs, a multimodal dataset of 23,000 Neurosurgery Publications articles (134M words, 78K image-caption pairs). Using NeuroPubs, VLMs generated publication-ready graphical abstracts (70% of 100 abstracts) and board-style questions indistinguishable from human-written ones (54% of 89,587 questions). We used these questions to train CNS-Obsidian, a 34B-parameter VLM. In a blinded, randomized controlled trial, our model demonstrated non-inferiority to then state-of-the-art GPT-4o in neurosurgical differential diagnosis (clinical utility, 40.62% upvotes vs. 57.89%, p=0.1150; accuracy, 59.38% vs. 65.79%, p=0.3797). Our pilot study demonstrates how training generative AI models on specialty-specific journal content - without large-scale internet data - results in high-performance academic and clinical tools, enabling domain-tailored AI across diverse fields.

Pre-trained Language Models (LMs) exhibit strong zero-shot and in-context learning capabilities; however, their behaviors are often difficult to control. By utilizing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), it is possible to fine-tune unsupervised LMs to follow instructions and produce outputs that reflect human preferences. Despite its benefits, RLHF has been shown to potentially harm a language model's reasoning capabilities and introduce artifacts such as hallucinations where the model may fabricate facts. To address this issue we introduce Direct Preference Heads (DPH), a fine-tuning framework that enables LMs to learn human preference signals through an auxiliary reward head without directly affecting the output distribution of the language modeling head. We perform a theoretical analysis of our objective function and find strong ties to Conservative Direct Preference Optimization (cDPO). Finally we evaluate our models on GLUE, RACE, and the GPT4All evaluation suite and demonstrate that our method produces models which achieve higher scores than those fine-tuned with Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) or Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) alone.

The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate-LLM can be edited post hoc to maximise the score assigned to them by a judge-LLM. In this study, we adopt a different approach and use the signal provided by judge-LLMs as a reward to adversarially tune models that generate text preambles designed to boost downstream performance. We find that frozen LLMs pipelined with these models attain higher LLM-evaluation scores than existing frameworks. Crucially, unlike other frameworks which intervene directly on the model's response, our method is virtually undetectable. We also demonstrate that the effectiveness of the tuned preamble generator transfers when the candidate-LLM and the judge-LLM are replaced with models that are not used during training. These findings raise important questions about the design of more reliable LLM-as-a-judge evaluation settings. They also demonstrate that human preferences can be reverse engineered effectively, by pipelining LLMs to optimise upstream preambles via reinforcement learning--an approach that could find future applications in diverse tasks and domains beyond adversarial attacks.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a common paradigm to use Large Language Models (LLMs) alongside private and up-to-date knowledge bases. In this work, we address the challenges of using LLM-as-a-Judge when evaluating grounded answers generated by RAG systems. To assess the calibration and discrimination capabilities of judge models, we identify 7 generator failure modes and introduce GroUSE (Grounded QA Unitary Scoring of Evaluators), a meta-evaluation benchmark of 144 unit tests. This benchmark reveals that existing automated RAG evaluation frameworks often overlook important failure modes, even when using GPT-4 as a judge. To improve on the current design of automated RAG evaluation frameworks, we propose a novel pipeline and find that while closed models perform well on GroUSE, state-of-the-art open-source judges do not generalize to our proposed criteria, despite strong correlation with GPT-4's judgement. Our findings suggest that correlation with GPT-4 is an incomplete proxy for the practical performance of judge models and should be supplemented with evaluations on unit tests for precise failure mode detection. We further show that finetuning Llama-3 on GPT-4's reasoning traces significantly boosts its evaluation capabilities, improving upon both correlation with GPT-4's evaluations and calibration on reference situations.

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

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often generate plausible but incorrect responses to visual queries. However, reliably quantifying the effect of such hallucinations in free-form responses to open-ended queries is challenging as it requires visually verifying each claim within the response. We propose Programmatic VLM Evaluation (PROVE), a new benchmarking paradigm for evaluating VLM responses to open-ended queries. To construct PROVE, we provide a large language model (LLM) with a high-fidelity scene-graph representation constructed from a hyper-detailed image caption, and prompt it to generate diverse question-answer (QA) pairs, as well as programs that can be executed over the scene graph object to verify each QA pair. We thus construct a benchmark of 10.5k challenging but visually grounded QA pairs. Next, to evaluate free-form model responses to queries in PROVE, we propose a programmatic evaluation strategy that measures both the helpfulness and truthfulness of a response within a unified scene graph-based framework. We benchmark the helpfulness-truthfulness trade-offs of a range of VLMs on PROVE, finding that very few are in-fact able to achieve a good balance between the two. Project page: https://prove-explorer.netlify.app/.

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

Large language models (LLMs) now write code in settings where misreading a single word can break safety or cost money, yet we still expect them to overlook stray typos. To probe where useful robustness ends and harmful insensitivity begins, we compile 50 LeetCode problems and craft three minimal prompt perturbations that should vary in importance: (i) progressive underspecification deleting 10 % of words per step; (ii) lexical flip swapping a pivotal quantifier ("max" to "min"); and (iii) jargon inflation replacing a common noun with an obscure technical synonym. Six frontier models, including three "reasoning-tuned" versions, solve each mutated prompt, and their Python outputs are checked against the original test suites to reveal whether they reused the baseline solution or adapted. Among 11 853 generations we observe a sharp double asymmetry. Models remain correct in 85 % of cases even after 90 % of the prompt is missing, showing over-robustness to underspecification, yet only 54 % react to a single quantifier flip that reverses the task, with reasoning-tuned variants even less sensitive than their bases. Jargon edits lie in between, passing through 56 %. Current LLMs thus blur the line between harmless noise and meaning - changing edits, often treating both as ignorable. Masking salient anchors such as function names can force re - evaluation. We advocate evaluation and training protocols that reward differential sensitivity: stay steady under benign noise but adapt - or refuse - when semantics truly change.

As LLM-as-a-Judge emerges as a new paradigm for assessing large language models (LLMs), concerns have been raised regarding the alignment, bias, and stability of LLM evaluators. While substantial work has focused on alignment and bias, little research has concentrated on the stability of LLM evaluators. In this paper, we conduct extensive experiments involving 9 widely used LLM evaluators across 2 different evaluation settings to investigate the uncertainty in model-based LLM evaluations. We pinpoint that LLM evaluators exhibit varying uncertainty based on model families and sizes. With careful comparative analyses, we find that employing special prompting strategies, whether during inference or post-training, can alleviate evaluation uncertainty to some extent. By utilizing uncertainty to enhance LLM's reliability and detection capability in Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) data, we further fine-tune an uncertainty-aware LLM evaluator named ConfiLM using a human-annotated fine-tuning set and assess ConfiLM's OOD evaluation ability on a manually designed test set sourced from the 2024 Olympics. Experimental results demonstrate that incorporating uncertainty as additional information during the fine-tuning phase can largely improve the model's evaluation performance in OOD scenarios. The code and data are released at: https://github.com/hasakiXie123/LLM-Evaluator-Uncertainty.

LLM-based auto-annotators have become a key component of the LLM development process due to their cost-effectiveness and scalability compared to human-based evaluation. However, these auto-annotators can introduce complex biases that are hard to remove. Even simple, known confounders such as preference for longer outputs remain in existing automated evaluation metrics. We propose a simple regression analysis approach for controlling biases in auto-evaluations. As a real case study, we focus on reducing the length bias of AlpacaEval, a fast and affordable benchmark for chat LLMs that uses LLMs to estimate response quality. Despite being highly correlated with human preferences, AlpacaEval is known to favor models that generate longer outputs. We introduce a length-controlled AlpacaEval that aims to answer the counterfactual question: "What would the preference be if the model's and baseline's output had the same length?". To achieve this, we first fit a generalized linear model to predict the biased output of interest (auto-annotator preferences) based on the mediators we want to control for (length difference) and other relevant features. We then obtain length-controlled preferences by predicting preferences while conditioning the GLM with a zero difference in lengths. Length-controlling not only improves the robustness of the metric to manipulations in model verbosity, we also find that it increases the Spearman correlation with LMSYS' Chatbot Arena from 0.94 to 0.98. We release the code and leaderboard at https://tatsu-lab.github.io/alpaca_eval/ .

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

LLM-as-a-Judge and reward models are widely used alternatives of multiple-choice questions or human annotators for large language model (LLM) evaluation. Their efficacy shines in evaluating long-form responses, serving a critical role as evaluators of leaderboards and as proxies to align LLMs via reinforcement learning. However, despite their popularity, their effectiveness outside of English remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis on automated evaluators, reporting key findings on their behavior in a non-English environment. First, we discover that English evaluation capabilities significantly influence language-specific capabilities, often more than the language proficiency itself, enabling evaluators trained in English to easily transfer their skills to other languages. Second, we identify critical shortcomings, where LLMs fail to detect and penalize errors, such as factual inaccuracies, cultural misrepresentations, and the presence of unwanted language. Finally, we release Kudge, the first non-English meta-evaluation dataset containing 5,012 human annotations in Korean.

We introduce Atla Selene Mini, a state-of-the-art small language model-as-a-judge (SLMJ). Selene Mini is a general-purpose evaluator that outperforms the best SLMJs and GPT-4o-mini on overall performance across 11 out-of-distribution benchmarks, spanning absolute scoring, classification, and pairwise preference tasks. It is the highest-scoring 8B generative model on RewardBench, surpassing strong baselines like GPT-4o and specialized judges. To achieve this, we develop a principled data curation strategy that augments public datasets with synthetically generated critiques and ensures high quality through filtering and dataset ablations. We train our model on a combined direct preference optimization (DPO) and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) loss, and produce a highly promptable evaluator that excels in real-world scenarios. Selene Mini shows dramatically improved zero-shot agreement with human expert evaluations on financial and medical industry datasets. It is also robust to variations in prompt format. Preliminary results indicate that Selene Mini is the top-ranking evaluator in a live, community-driven Judge Arena. We release the model weights on HuggingFace (https://hf.co/AtlaAI/Selene-1-Mini-Llama-3.1-8B) and Ollama to encourage widespread community adoption.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to evaluate text outputs of other LLMs, thereby influencing leaderboards and development decisions. However, concerns persist over the accuracy of these assessments and the potential for misleading conclusions. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of LLMs as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities in other LLMs: factual accuracy, instruction following, coherence in long-form writing, and reasoning proficiency. By introducing targeted perturbations in answers generated by LLMs, that clearly impact one of these key capabilities, we test whether an Evaluator LLM can detect these quality drops. By creating a total of 2400 perturbed answers covering 22 perturbation categories, we conduct a comprehensive study using different evaluation strategies on five prominent LLMs commonly used as evaluators in the literature. Our findings reveal significant shortcomings in current Evaluator LLMs, which failed to identify quality drops in over 50\% of cases on average. Single-answer and pairwise evaluations demonstrated notable limitations, whereas reference-based evaluations showed comparatively better performance. These results underscore the unreliable nature of current Evaluator LLMs and advocate for cautious implementation in practical applications. Code and data are available at https://github.com/AI4Bharat/FBI.

AI powered code-recommendation systems, such as Copilot and CodeWhisperer, provide code suggestions inside a programmer's environment (e.g., an IDE) with the aim of improving productivity. We pursue mechanisms for leveraging signals about programmers' acceptance and rejection of code suggestions to guide recommendations. We harness data drawn from interactions with GitHub Copilot, a system used by millions of programmers, to develop interventions that can save time for programmers. We introduce a utility-theoretic framework to drive decisions about suggestions to display versus withhold. The approach, conditional suggestion display from human feedback (CDHF), relies on a cascade of models that provide the likelihood that recommended code will be accepted. These likelihoods are used to selectively hide suggestions, reducing both latency and programmer verification time. Using data from 535 programmers, we perform a retrospective evaluation of CDHF and show that we can avoid displaying a significant fraction of suggestions that would have been rejected. We further demonstrate the importance of incorporating the programmer's latent unobserved state in decisions about when to display suggestions through an ablation study. Finally, we showcase how using suggestion acceptance as a reward signal for guiding the display of suggestions can lead to suggestions of reduced quality, indicating an unexpected pitfall.

Bias in textual data can lead to skewed interpretations and outcomes when the data is used. These biases could perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination, or other forms of unfair treatment. An algorithm trained on biased data may end up making decisions that disproportionately impact a certain group of people. Therefore, it is crucial to detect and remove these biases to ensure the fair and ethical use of data. To this end, we develop a comprehensive and robust framework NBIAS that consists of four main layers: data, corpus construction, model development and an evaluation layer. The dataset is constructed by collecting diverse data from various domains, including social media, healthcare, and job hiring portals. As such, we applied a transformer-based token classification model that is able to identify bias words/ phrases through a unique named entity BIAS. In the evaluation procedure, we incorporate a blend of quantitative and qualitative measures to gauge the effectiveness of our models. We achieve accuracy improvements ranging from 1% to 8% compared to baselines. We are also able to generate a robust understanding of the model functioning. The proposed approach is applicable to a variety of biases and contributes to the fair and ethical use of textual data.

Despite its importance to experimental design, statistical power (the probability that, given a real effect, an experiment will reject the null hypothesis) has largely been ignored by the NLP community. Underpowered experiments make it more difficult to discern the difference between statistical noise and meaningful model improvements, and increase the chances of exaggerated findings. By meta-analyzing a set of existing NLP papers and datasets, we characterize typical power for a variety of settings and conclude that underpowered experiments are common in the NLP literature. In particular, for several tasks in the popular GLUE benchmark, small test sets mean that most attempted comparisons to state of the art models will not be adequately powered. Similarly, based on reasonable assumptions, we find that the most typical experimental design for human rating studies will be underpowered to detect small model differences, of the sort that are frequently studied. For machine translation, we find that typical test sets of 2000 sentences have approximately 75% power to detect differences of 1 BLEU point. To improve the situation going forward, we give an overview of best practices for power analysis in NLP and release a series of notebooks to assist with future power analyses.

NLP models often rely on superficial cues known as dataset biases to achieve impressive performance, and can fail on examples where these biases do not hold. Recent work sought to develop robust, unbiased models by filtering biased examples from training sets. In this work, we argue that such filtering can obscure the true capabilities of models to overcome biases, which might never be removed in full from the dataset. We suggest that in order to drive the development of models robust to subtle biases, dataset biases should be amplified in the training set. We introduce an evaluation framework defined by a bias-amplified training set and an anti-biased test set, both automatically extracted from existing datasets. Experiments across three notions of bias, four datasets and two models show that our framework is substantially more challenging for models than the original data splits, and even more challenging than hand-crafted challenge sets. Our evaluation framework can use any existing dataset, even those considered obsolete, to test model robustness. We hope our work will guide the development of robust models that do not rely on superficial biases and correlations. To this end, we publicly release our code and data.

Measuring the quality of responses generated by LLMs is a challenging task, particularly when it comes to evaluating whether the response is aligned with human preference. A novel approach involves using the LLM itself to make evaluation and stabilizing the results through multiple independent evaluations, similar to a single-layer narrow LLM network. This network consists of a fixed number of neurons, with each neuron being the same LLM. In this paper, we draw upon the extensive research on deep neural networks to explore whether deeper and wider networks can lead to fairer evaluations. Specifically, inspired by the observation that different neurons in a neural network are responsible for detecting different concepts, we first adaptively generate as many neuron roles as possible for each evaluation sample. Each perspective corresponds to the role of a specific LLM neuron in the first layer. In subsequent layers, we follow the idea that higher layers in deep networks are responsible for more comprehensive features, each layer receives representations from all neurons in the previous layer, integrating the locally learned evaluation information to obtain a more comprehensive evaluation result. Interestingly, this network design resembles the process of academic paper reviewing. To validate the effectiveness of our method, we construct the largest and most diverse English evaluation benchmark LLMEval^2 for LLM evaluators, comprising 15 tasks, 8 abilities, and 2,553 samples. Experimental results demonstrate that a wider network (involving many reviewers) with 2 layers (one round of discussion) performs the best, improving kappa correlation coefficient from 0.28 to 0.34. We also leverage WideDeep to aid in the assessment of Chinese LLMs, which has accelerated the evaluation time by 4.6 times, resulting in a 60% cost saving. WideDeep achieves a remarkable 93% agreement level among humans.

Large language models~(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs in different aspects. Despite that a number of high-quality benchmarks have been released, the concerns about the appropriate use of these benchmarks and the fair comparison of different models are increasingly growing. Considering these concerns, in this paper, we discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results. Specially, we focus on a special issue that would lead to inappropriate evaluation, \ie benchmark leakage, referring that the data related to evaluation sets is occasionally used for model training. This phenomenon now becomes more common since pre-training data is often prepared ahead of model test. We conduct extensive experiments to study the effect of benchmark leverage, and find that it can dramatically boost the evaluation results, which would finally lead to an unreliable assessment of model performance. To improve the use of existing evaluation benchmarks, we finally present several guidelines for both LLM developers and benchmark maintainers. We hope this work can draw attention to appropriate training and evaluation of LLMs.

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

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

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

We show that domain-general automatic evaluators can significantly improve the performance of agents for web navigation and device control. We experiment with multiple evaluation models that trade off between inference cost, modularity of design, and accuracy. We validate the performance of these models in several popular benchmarks for digital agents, finding between 74.4 and 92.9% agreement with oracle evaluation metrics. Finally, we use these evaluators to improve the performance of existing agents via fine-tuning and inference-time guidance. Without any additional supervision, we improve state-of-the-art performance by 29% on the popular benchmark WebArena, and achieve a 75% relative improvement in a challenging domain transfer scenario.

This paper introduces Patched Round-Trip Correctness (Patched RTC), a novel evaluation technique for Large Language Models (LLMs) applied to diverse software development tasks, particularly focusing on "outer loop" activities such as bug fixing, code review, and documentation updates. Patched RTC extends the original Round-Trip Correctness method to work with any LLM and downstream task, offering a self-evaluating framework that measures consistency and robustness of model responses without human intervention. The study demonstrates a correlation between Patched RTC scores and task-specific accuracy metrics, presenting it as an alternative to the LLM-as-Judge paradigm for open-domain task evaluation. We implement Patched RTC in an open-source framework called patchwork, allowing for transparent evaluation during inference across various patchflows. Experiments comparing GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models across different software development tasks reveal that Patched RTC effectively distinguishes model performance and task difficulty. The paper also explores the impact of consistency prompts on improving model accuracy, suggesting that Patched RTC can guide prompt refinement and model selection for complex software development workflows.

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.

Even though large language models are becoming increasingly capable, it is still unreasonable to expect them to excel at tasks that are under-represented on the Internet. Leveraging LLMs for specialized applications, particularly in niche programming languages and private domains, remains challenging and largely unsolved. In this work, we address this gap by presenting a comprehensive, open-source approach for adapting LLMs to the Q programming language, a popular tool in quantitative finance that is much less present on the Internet compared to Python, C, Java, and other ``mainstream" languages and is therefore not a strong suit of general-purpose AI models. We introduce a new Leetcode style evaluation dataset for Q, benchmark major frontier models on the dataset, then do pretraining, supervised fine tuning, and reinforcement learning to train a suite of reasoning and non-reasoning models based on the Qwen-2.5 series, spanning five parameter sizes (1.5B, 3B, 7B, 14B, 32B). Our best model achieves a pass@1 accuracy of 59 percent on our Q benchmark, surpassing the best-performing frontier model, Claude Opus-4 by 29.5 percent. Additionally, all models, even our 1.5B model, outperform GPT-4.1 on this task. In addition to releasing models, code, and data, we provide a detailed blueprint for dataset construction, model pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning. Our methodology is broadly applicable, and we discuss how these techniques can be extended to other tasks, including those where evaluation may rely on soft or subjective signals.

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.

Finetuning specialized generative evaluators has emerged as a popular paradigm to meet the increasing demand for scalable evaluation during both training and test-time. However, recent work has largely focused on applying new methodology, such as reinforcement learning (RL), to training evaluators, shying away from large-scale, data-driven development. In this work, we focus on data scaling, curating a set of 2.5M samples spanning five unique evaluation tasks (pairwise, step-level, reference-free and reference-based verification, and single rating) and multiple domains focused on reasoning evaluation. With our data, we train Foundational Automatic Reasoning Evaluators (FARE), a family of 8B and 20B (with 3.6B active) parameter evaluators, with a simple iterative rejection-sampling supervised finetuning (SFT) approach. FARE-8B challenges larger specialized RL-trained evaluators and FARE-20B sets the new standard for open-source evaluators, surpassing specialized 70B+ evaluators. Beyond static benchmarks, we evaluate FARE in real-world tasks: As inference-time rerankers, FARE-20B achieves near-oracle performance on MATH. As verifiers in RL training, FARE improves the downstream RL-trained model performance by up to 14.1% vs. string-matching verifiers. When initialized from FARE, a continually-finetuned FARE-Code outperforms gpt-oss-20B by 65% on evaluating test-case quality.

Conversational LLMs function as black box systems, leaving users guessing about why they see the output they do. This lack of transparency is potentially problematic, especially given concerns around bias and truthfulness. To address this issue, we present an end-to-end prototype-connecting interpretability techniques with user experience design-that seeks to make chatbots more transparent. We begin by showing evidence that a prominent open-source LLM has a "user model": examining the internal state of the system, we can extract data related to a user's age, gender, educational level, and socioeconomic status. Next, we describe the design of a dashboard that accompanies the chatbot interface, displaying this user model in real time. The dashboard can also be used to control the user model and the system's behavior. Finally, we discuss a study in which users conversed with the instrumented system. Our results suggest that users appreciate seeing internal states, which helped them expose biased behavior and increased their sense of control. Participants also made valuable suggestions that point to future directions for both design and machine learning research. The project page and video demo of our TalkTuner system are available at https://bit.ly/talktuner-project-page

Existing approaches for aligning large language models with human preferences face a trade-off that requires a separate reward model (RM) for on-policy learning. In this paper, we present a novel alignment framework, that (1) does on-policy learning and 2) is parameter efficient, as it does not require an additional RM for evaluating the samples for on-policy learning. To this end, we propose Judge-augmented Supervised Fine-Tuning (JSFT) to train a single model to act as both a policy and a judge. Specifically, we view the pairwise judgment task, choosing the better response from a response pair, as a special case of the instruction-following task. The resulting model can judge preferences of on-the-fly responses from current policy initialized from itself. Experimental results show the efficacy of , outperforming baselines in preference benchmarks. We also show that the rejecting sampling by itself can improve performance further without an additional evaluator.

To effectively optimize and personalize treatments, it is necessary to investigate the heterogeneity of treatment effects. With the wide range of users being treated over many online controlled experiments, the typical approach of manually investigating each dimension of heterogeneity becomes overly cumbersome and prone to subjective human biases. We need an efficient way to search through thousands of experiments with hundreds of target covariates and hundreds of breakdown dimensions. In this paper, we propose a systematic paradigm for detecting, surfacing and characterizing heterogeneous treatment effects. First, we detect if treatment effect variation is present in an experiment, prior to specifying any breakdowns. Second, we surface the most relevant dimensions for heterogeneity. Finally, we characterize the heterogeneity beyond just the conditional average treatment effects (CATE) by studying the conditional distributions of the estimated individual treatment effects. We show the effectiveness of our methods using simulated data and empirical studies.

We conduct a moderate-scale contamination-free (to some extent) evaluation of current large reasoning models (LRMs) with some preliminary findings. We also release ROME, our evaluation benchmark for vision language models intended to test reasoning from visual clues. We attach links to the benchmark, evaluation data, and other updates on this website: https://flageval-baai.github.io/LRM-Eval/

We present a generic framework for creating differentially private versions of any hypothesis test in a black-box way. We analyze the resulting tests analytically and experimentally. Most crucially, we show good practical performance for small data sets, showing that at epsilon = 1 we only need 5-6 times as much data as in the fully public setting. We compare our work to the one existing framework of this type, as well as to several individually-designed private hypothesis tests. Our framework is higher power than other generic solutions and at least competitive with (and often better than) individually-designed tests.

The success of the reward model in distinguishing between responses with subtle safety differences depends critically on the high-quality preference dataset, which should capture the fine-grained nuances of harmful and harmless responses. This motivates the need to develop a dataset involving preference margins, which accurately quantify how harmless one response is compared to another. In this paper, we take the first step to propose an effective and cost-efficient framework to promote the margin-enhanced preference dataset development. Our framework, Legend, Leverages representation engineering to annotate preference datasets. It constructs the specific direction within the LLM's embedding space that represents safety. By leveraging this safety direction, Legend can then leverage the semantic distances of paired responses along this direction to annotate margins automatically. We experimentally demonstrate our effectiveness in both reward modeling and harmless alignment for LLMs. Legend also stands out for its efficiency, requiring only the inference time rather than additional training. This efficiency allows for easier implementation and scalability, making Legend particularly valuable for practical applications in aligning LLMs with safe conversations.

With the growing use of large language models(LLMs) as evaluators, their application has expanded to code evaluation tasks, where they assess the correctness of generated code without relying on reference implementations. While this offers scalability and flexibility, it also raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations? Functionally correct code often exhibits variations-such as differences in variable names, comments, or formatting-that should not influence its correctness. Yet, whether LLM judges can reliably handle these variations remains unclear. We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation and revealing their systematic impact on LLM judges. Across five programming languages and multiple LLMs, we empirically demonstrate that all tested LLM judges are susceptible to both positive and negative biases, resulting in inflated or unfairly low scores. Moreover, we observe that LLM judges remain vulnerable to these biases even when prompted to generate test cases before scoring, highlighting the need for more robust code evaluation methods.

We present the workflow of Online Iterative Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in this technical report, which is widely reported to outperform its offline counterpart by a large margin in the recent large language model (LLM) literature. However, existing open-source RLHF projects are still largely confined to the offline learning setting. In this technical report, we aim to fill in this gap and provide a detailed recipe that is easy to reproduce for online iterative RLHF. In particular, since online human feedback is usually infeasible for open-source communities with limited resources, we start by constructing preference models using a diverse set of open-source datasets and use the constructed proxy preference model to approximate human feedback. Then, we discuss the theoretical insights and algorithmic principles behind online iterative RLHF, followed by a detailed practical implementation. Our trained LLM, SFR-Iterative-DPO-LLaMA-3-8B-R, achieves impressive performance on LLM chatbot benchmarks, including AlpacaEval-2, Arena-Hard, and MT-Bench, as well as other academic benchmarks such as HumanEval and TruthfulQA. We have shown that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and iterative RLHF can obtain state-of-the-art performance with fully open-source datasets. Further, we have made our models, curated datasets, and comprehensive step-by-step code guidebooks publicly available. Please refer to https://github.com/RLHFlow/RLHF-Reward-Modeling and https://github.com/RLHFlow/Online-RLHF for more detailed information.

This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals that arise from corpus construction, case distribution, and confounding factors. To mitigate this, we use domain expertise to strategically identify statistically predictive but legally irrelevant information. We adopt adversarial training to prevent the system from relying on it. We evaluate our deconfounded models by employing interpretability techniques and comparing to expert annotations. Quantitative experiments and qualitative analysis show that our deconfounded model consistently aligns better with expert rationales than baselines trained for prediction only. We further contribute a set of reference expert annotations to the validation and testing partitions of an existing benchmark dataset of European Court of Human Rights cases.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have made significant progress in chart understanding. However, financial charts, characterized by complex temporal structures and domain-specific terminology, remain notably underexplored. We introduce FinChart-Bench, the first benchmark specifically focused on real-world financial charts. FinChart-Bench comprises 1,200 financial chart images collected from 2015 to 2024, each annotated with True/False (TF), Multiple Choice (MC), and Question Answering (QA) questions, totaling 7,016 questions. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art LVLMs on FinChart-Bench. Our evaluation reveals critical insights: (1) the performance gap between open-source and closed-source models is narrowing, (2) performance degradation occurs in upgraded models within families, (3) many models struggle with instruction following, (4) both advanced models show significant limitations in spatial reasoning abilities, and (5) current LVLMs are not reliable enough to serve as automated evaluators. These findings highlight important limitations in current LVLM capabilities for financial chart understanding. The FinChart-Bench dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Tizzzzy/FinChart-Bench.

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

Reward modelling from preference data is a crucial step in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values, requiring robust generalisation to novel prompt-response pairs. In this work, we propose to frame this problem in a causal paradigm, providing the rich toolbox of causality to identify the persistent challenges, such as causal misidentification, preference heterogeneity, and confounding due to user-specific factors. Inheriting from the literature of causal inference, we identify key assumptions necessary for reliable generalisation and contrast them with common data collection practices. We illustrate failure modes of naive reward models and demonstrate how causally-inspired approaches can improve model robustness. Finally, we outline desiderata for future research and practices, advocating targeted interventions to address inherent limitations of observational data.

Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub criteria drift: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears dependent on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined a priori), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.

Large language models (LLMs) hold immense promise to serve complex health information needs but also have the potential to introduce harm and exacerbate health disparities. Reliably evaluating equity-related model failures is a critical step toward developing systems that promote health equity. In this work, we present resources and methodologies for surfacing biases with potential to precipitate equity-related harms in long-form, LLM-generated answers to medical questions and then conduct an empirical case study with Med-PaLM 2, resulting in the largest human evaluation study in this area to date. Our contributions include a multifactorial framework for human assessment of LLM-generated answers for biases, and EquityMedQA, a collection of seven newly-released datasets comprising both manually-curated and LLM-generated questions enriched for adversarial queries. Both our human assessment framework and dataset design process are grounded in an iterative participatory approach and review of possible biases in Med-PaLM 2 answers to adversarial queries. Through our empirical study, we find that the use of a collection of datasets curated through a variety of methodologies, coupled with a thorough evaluation protocol that leverages multiple assessment rubric designs and diverse rater groups, surfaces biases that may be missed via narrower evaluation approaches. Our experience underscores the importance of using diverse assessment methodologies and involving raters of varying backgrounds and expertise. We emphasize that while our framework can identify specific forms of bias, it is not sufficient to holistically assess whether the deployment of an AI system promotes equitable health outcomes. We hope the broader community leverages and builds on these tools and methods towards realizing a shared goal of LLMs that promote accessible and equitable healthcare for all.

Controllable text generation systems often leverage control codes to direct various properties of the output like style and length. Inspired by recent work on causal inference for NLP, this paper reveals a previously overlooked flaw in these control code-based conditional text generation algorithms. Spurious correlations in the training data can lead models to incorrectly rely on parts of the input other than the control code for attribute selection, significantly undermining downstream generation quality and controllability. We demonstrate the severity of this issue with a series of case studies and then propose two simple techniques to reduce these correlations in training sets. The first technique is based on resampling the data according to an example's propensity towards each linguistic attribute (IPS). The second produces multiple counterfactual versions of each example and then uses an additional feedback mechanism to remove noisy examples (feedback aware self-training, FAST). We evaluate on 3 tasks -- news headline, meta review, and search ads generation -- and demonstrate that FAST can significantly improve the controllability and language quality of generated outputs when compared to state-of-the-art controllable text generation approaches.

As machine learning and algorithmic decision making systems are increasingly being leveraged in high-stakes human-in-the-loop settings, there is a pressing need to understand the rationale of their predictions. Researchers have responded to this need with explainable AI (XAI), but often proclaim interpretability axiomatically without evaluation. When these systems are evaluated, they are often tested through offline simulations with proxy metrics of interpretability (such as model complexity). We empirically evaluate the veracity of three common interpretability assumptions through a large scale human-subjects experiment with a simple "placebo explanation" control. We find that feature attribution explanations provide marginal utility in our task for a human decision maker and in certain cases result in worse decisions due to cognitive and contextual confounders. This result challenges the assumed universal benefit of applying these methods and we hope this work will underscore the importance of human evaluation in XAI research. Supplemental materials -- including anonymized data from the experiment, code to replicate the study, an interactive demo of the experiment, and the models used in the analysis -- can be found at: https://doi.pizza/challenging-xai.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

We present initial results of a forthcoming benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on white-collar tasks of economic value. We evaluate agents on real-world "messy" open-web research tasks of the type that are routine in finance and consulting. In doing so, we lay the groundwork for an LLM agent evaluation suite where good performance directly corresponds to a large economic and societal impact. We built and tested several agent architectures with o1-preview, GPT-4o, Claude-3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3.1 (405b), and GPT-4o-mini. On average, LLM agents powered by Claude-3.5 Sonnet and o1-preview substantially outperformed agents using GPT-4o, with agents based on Llama 3.1 (405b) and GPT-4o-mini lagging noticeably behind. Across LLMs, a ReAct architecture with the ability to delegate subtasks to subagents performed best. In addition to quantitative evaluations, we qualitatively assessed the performance of the LLM agents by inspecting their traces and reflecting on their observations. Our evaluation represents the first in-depth assessment of agents' abilities to conduct challenging, economically valuable analyst-style research on the real open web.

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

Progress in AI is often demonstrated by new models claiming improved performance on tasks measuring model capabilities. Evaluating language models in particular is challenging, as small changes to how a model is evaluated on a task can lead to large changes in measured performance. There is no common standard setup, so different models are evaluated on the same tasks in different ways, leading to claims about which models perform best not being reproducible. We propose OLMES, a completely documented, practical, open standard for reproducible LLM evaluations. In developing this standard, we identify and review the varying factors in evaluation practices adopted by the community - such as details of prompt formatting, choice of in-context examples, probability normalizations, and task formulation. In particular, OLMES supports meaningful comparisons between smaller base models that require the unnatural "cloze" formulation of multiple-choice questions against larger models that can utilize the original formulation. OLMES includes well-considered recommendations guided by results from existing literature as well as new experiments investigating open questions.

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

Large Language Model (LLM)-based applications are graduating from research prototypes to products serving millions of users, influencing how people write and consume information. A prominent example is the appearance of Answer Engines: LLM-based generative search engines supplanting traditional search engines. Answer engines not only retrieve relevant sources to a user query but synthesize answer summaries that cite the sources. To understand these systems' limitations, we first conducted a study with 21 participants, evaluating interactions with answer vs. traditional search engines and identifying 16 answer engine limitations. From these insights, we propose 16 answer engine design recommendations, linked to 8 metrics. An automated evaluation implementing our metrics on three popular engines (You.com, Perplexity.ai, BingChat) quantifies common limitations (e.g., frequent hallucination, inaccurate citation) and unique features (e.g., variation in answer confidence), with results mirroring user study insights. We release our Answer Engine Evaluation benchmark (AEE) to facilitate transparent evaluation of LLM-based applications.

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

In psychotherapy, therapeutic outcome assessment, or treatment outcome evaluation, is essential for enhancing mental health care by systematically evaluating therapeutic processes and outcomes. Existing large language model approaches often focus on therapist-centered, single-session evaluations, neglecting the client's subjective experience and longitudinal progress across multiple sessions. To address these limitations, we propose IPAEval, a client-Informed Psychological Assessment-based Evaluation framework that automates treatment outcome evaluations from the client's perspective using clinical interviews. IPAEval integrates cross-session client-contextual assessment and session-focused client-dynamics assessment to provide a comprehensive understanding of therapeutic progress. Experiments on our newly developed TheraPhase dataset demonstrate that IPAEval effectively tracks symptom severity and treatment outcomes over multiple sessions, outperforming previous single-session models and validating the benefits of items-aware reasoning mechanisms.

Recommender systems widely use implicit feedback such as click data because of its general availability. Although the presence of clicks signals the users' preference to some extent, the lack of such clicks does not necessarily indicate a negative response from the users, as it is possible that the users were not exposed to the items (positive-unlabeled problem). This leads to a difficulty in predicting the users' preferences from implicit feedback. Previous studies addressed the positive-unlabeled problem by uniformly upweighting the loss for the positive feedback data or estimating the confidence of each data having relevance information via the EM-algorithm. However, these methods failed to address the missing-not-at-random problem in which popular or frequently recommended items are more likely to be clicked than other items even if a user does not have a considerable interest in them. To overcome these limitations, we first define an ideal loss function to be optimized to realize recommendations that maximize the relevance and propose an unbiased estimator for the ideal loss. Subsequently, we analyze the variance of the proposed unbiased estimator and further propose a clipped estimator that includes the unbiased estimator as a special case. We demonstrate that the clipped estimator is expected to improve the performance of the recommender system, by considering the bias-variance trade-off. We conduct semi-synthetic and real-world experiments and demonstrate that the proposed method largely outperforms the baselines. In particular, the proposed method works better for rare items that are less frequently observed in the training data. The findings indicate that the proposed method can better achieve the objective of recommending items with the highest relevance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in natural language processing tasks, a paradigm known as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ). While effective in general domains, LaaJs pose significant challenges in domain-specific contexts, where annotated data is scarce and expert evaluation is costly. In such cases, meta-evaluation is often performed using metrics that have not been validated for the specific domain in which they are applied. As a result, it becomes difficult to determine which metrics effectively identify LaaJ quality, and further, what threshold indicates sufficient evaluator performance. In this work, we introduce LaaJMeter, a simulation-based framework for controlled meta-evaluation of LaaJs. LaaJMeter enables engineers to generate synthetic data representing virtual models and judges, allowing systematic analysis of evaluation metrics under realistic conditions. This helps practitioners validate and refine LaaJs for specific evaluation tasks: they can test whether their metrics correctly distinguish between better and worse (virtual) LaaJs, and estimate appropriate thresholds for evaluator adequacy. We demonstrate the utility of LaaJMeter in a code translation task involving a legacy programming language, showing how different metrics vary in sensitivity to evaluator quality. Our results highlight the limitations of common metrics and the importance of principled metric selection. LaaJMeter provides a scalable and extensible solution for assessing LaaJs in low-resource settings, contributing to the broader effort to ensure trustworthy and reproducible evaluation in NLP.

Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing, raising the risk that users will rely on these responses as if they were correct. Mitigating such overreliance is a key challenge. Through a think-aloud study in which participants use an LLM-infused application to answer objective questions, we identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance: explanations (supporting details for answers), inconsistencies in explanations, and sources. Through a large-scale, pre-registered, controlled experiment (N=308), we isolate and study the effects of these features on users' reliance, accuracy, and other measures. We find that the presence of explanations increases reliance on both correct and incorrect responses. However, we observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies. We discuss the implications of these findings for fostering appropriate reliance on LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

The LLM-as-judge paradigm is increasingly being adopted for automated evaluation of model outputs. While LLM judges have shown promise on constrained evaluation tasks, closed source LLMs display critical shortcomings when deployed in real world applications due to challenges of fine grained metrics and explainability, while task specific evaluation models lack cross-domain generalization. We introduce GLIDER, a powerful 3B evaluator LLM that can score any text input and associated context on arbitrary user defined criteria. GLIDER shows higher Pearson's correlation than GPT-4o on FLASK and greatly outperforms prior evaluation models, achieving comparable performance to LLMs 17x its size. GLIDER supports fine-grained scoring, multilingual reasoning, span highlighting and was trained on 685 domains and 183 criteria. Extensive qualitative analysis shows that GLIDER scores are highly correlated with human judgments, with 91.3% human agreement. We have open-sourced GLIDER to facilitate future research.

DeepResearch agents represent a transformative AI paradigm, conducting expert-level research through sophisticated reasoning and multi-tool integration. However, evaluating these systems remains critically challenging due to open-ended research scenarios and existing benchmarks that focus on isolated capabilities rather than holistic performance. Unlike traditional LLM tasks, DeepResearch systems must synthesize diverse sources, generate insights, and present coherent findings, which are capabilities that resist simple verification. To address this gap, we introduce DeepResearch-ReportEval, a comprehensive framework designed to assess DeepResearch systems through their most representative outputs: research reports. Our approach systematically measures three dimensions: quality, redundancy, and factuality, using an innovative LLM-as-a-Judge methodology achieving strong expert concordance. We contribute a standardized benchmark of 100 curated queries spanning 12 real-world categories, enabling systematic capability comparison. Our evaluation of four leading commercial systems reveals distinct design philosophies and performance trade-offs, establishing foundational insights as DeepResearch evolves from information assistants toward intelligent research partners. Source code and data are available at: https://github.com/HKUDS/DeepResearch-Eval.

There is an increasing imperative to anticipate and understand the performance and safety of generative AI systems in real-world deployment contexts. However, the current evaluation ecosystem is insufficient: Commonly used static benchmarks face validity challenges, and ad hoc case-by-case audits rarely scale. In this piece, we advocate for maturing an evaluation science for generative AI systems. While generative AI creates unique challenges for system safety engineering and measurement science, the field can draw valuable insights from the development of safety evaluation practices in other fields, including transportation, aerospace, and pharmaceutical engineering. In particular, we present three key lessons: Evaluation metrics must be applicable to real-world performance, metrics must be iteratively refined, and evaluation institutions and norms must be established. Applying these insights, we outline a concrete path toward a more rigorous approach for evaluating generative AI systems.

While the evaluation of explanations is an important step towards trustworthy models, it needs to be done carefully, and the employed metrics need to be well-understood. Specifically model randomization testing is often overestimated and regarded as a sole criterion for selecting or discarding certain explanation methods. To address shortcomings of this test, we start by observing an experimental gap in the ranking of explanation methods between randomization-based sanity checks [1] and model output faithfulness measures (e.g. [25]). We identify limitations of model-randomization-based sanity checks for the purpose of evaluating explanations. Firstly, we show that uninformative attribution maps created with zero pixel-wise covariance easily achieve high scores in this type of checks. Secondly, we show that top-down model randomization preserves scales of forward pass activations with high probability. That is, channels with large activations have a high probility to contribute strongly to the output, even after randomization of the network on top of them. Hence, explanations after randomization can only be expected to differ to a certain extent. This explains the observed experimental gap. In summary, these results demonstrate the inadequacy of model-randomization-based sanity checks as a criterion to rank attribution methods.

Evaluation of text generation to date has primarily focused on content created sequentially, rather than improvements on a piece of text. Writing, however, is naturally an iterative and incremental process that requires expertise in different modular skills such as fixing outdated information or making the style more consistent. Even so, comprehensive evaluation of a model's capacity to perform these skills and the ability to edit remains sparse. This work presents EditEval: An instruction-based, benchmark and evaluation suite that leverages high-quality existing and new datasets for automatic evaluation of editing capabilities such as making text more cohesive and paraphrasing. We evaluate several pre-trained models, which shows that InstructGPT and PEER perform the best, but that most baselines fall below the supervised SOTA, particularly when neutralizing and updating information. Our analysis also shows that commonly used metrics for editing tasks do not always correlate well, and that optimization for prompts with the highest performance does not necessarily entail the strongest robustness to different models. Through the release of this benchmark and a publicly available leaderboard challenge, we hope to unlock future research in developing models capable of iterative and more controllable editing.

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.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values and intents critically involves the use of human or AI feedback. While dense feedback annotations are expensive to acquire and integrate, sparse feedback presents a structural design choice between ratings (e.g., score Response A on a scale of 1-7) and rankings (e.g., is Response A better than Response B?). In this work, we analyze the effect of this design choice for the alignment and evaluation of LLMs. We uncover an inconsistency problem wherein the preferences inferred from ratings and rankings significantly disagree 60% for both human and AI annotators. Our subsequent analysis identifies various facets of annotator biases that explain this phenomena, such as human annotators would rate denser responses higher while preferring accuracy during pairwise judgments. To our surprise, we also observe that the choice of feedback protocol also has a significant effect on the evaluation of aligned LLMs. In particular, we find that LLMs that leverage rankings data for alignment (say model X) are preferred over those that leverage ratings data (say model Y), with a rank-based evaluation protocol (is X/Y's response better than reference response?) but not with a rating-based evaluation protocol (score Rank X/Y's response on a scale of 1-7). Our findings thus shed light on critical gaps in methods for evaluating the real-world utility of language models and their strong dependence on the feedback protocol used for alignment. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Hritikbansal/sparse_feedback.

Existing datasets that contain boolean questions, such as BoolQ and TYDI QA , provide the user with a YES/NO response to the question. However, a one word response is not sufficient for an explainable system. We promote explainability by releasing a new set of annotations marking the evidence in existing TyDi QA and BoolQ datasets. We show that our annotations can be used to train a model that extracts improved evidence spans compared to models that rely on existing resources. We confirm our findings with a user study which shows that our extracted evidence spans enhance the user experience. We also provide further insight into the challenges of answering boolean questions, such as passages containing conflicting YES and NO answers, and varying degrees of relevance of the predicted evidence.

Large language models are trained on vast amounts of internet data, prompting concerns and speculation that they have memorized public benchmarks. Going from speculation to proof of contamination is challenging, as the pretraining data used by proprietary models are often not publicly accessible. We show that it is possible to provide provable guarantees of test set contamination in language models without access to pretraining data or model weights. Our approach leverages the fact that when there is no data contamination, all orderings of an exchangeable benchmark should be equally likely. In contrast, the tendency for language models to memorize example order means that a contaminated language model will find certain canonical orderings to be much more likely than others. Our test flags potential contamination whenever the likelihood of a canonically ordered benchmark dataset is significantly higher than the likelihood after shuffling the examples. We demonstrate that our procedure is sensitive enough to reliably prove test set contamination in challenging situations, including models as small as 1.4 billion parameters, on small test sets of only 1000 examples, and datasets that appear only a few times in the pretraining corpus. Using our test, we audit five popular publicly accessible language models for test set contamination and find little evidence for pervasive contamination.

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

Learning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models. There are several distinct approaches for preference fine-tuning, including supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), and contrastive learning. Different methods come with different implementation tradeoffs and performance differences, and existing empirical findings present different conclusions, for instance, some results show that online RL is quite important to attain good fine-tuning results, while others find (offline) contrastive or even purely supervised methods sufficient. This raises a natural question: what kind of approaches are important for fine-tuning with preference data and why? In this paper, we answer this question by performing a rigorous analysis of a number of fine-tuning techniques on didactic and full-scale LLM problems. Our main finding is that, in general, approaches that use on-policy sampling or attempt to push down the likelihood on certain responses (i.e., employ a "negative gradient") outperform offline and maximum likelihood objectives. We conceptualize our insights and unify methods that use on-policy sampling or negative gradient under a notion of mode-seeking objectives for categorical distributions. Mode-seeking objectives are able to alter probability mass on specific bins of a categorical distribution at a fast rate compared to maximum likelihood, allowing them to relocate masses across bins more effectively. Our analysis prescribes actionable insights for preference fine-tuning of LLMs and informs how data should be collected for maximal improvement.

As a relative quality comparison of model responses, human and Large Language Model (LLM) preferences serve as common alignment goals in model fine-tuning and criteria in evaluation. Yet, these preferences merely reflect broad tendencies, resulting in less explainable and controllable models with potential safety risks. In this work, we dissect the preferences of human and 32 different LLMs to understand their quantitative composition, using annotations from real-world user-model conversations for a fine-grained, scenario-wise analysis. We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. On the contrary, advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. Additionally, LLMs of similar sizes tend to exhibit similar preferences, regardless of their training methods, and fine-tuning for alignment does not significantly alter the preferences of pretrained-only LLMs. Finally, we show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated. In both training-free and training-based settings, aligning a model with the preferences of judges boosts scores, while injecting the least preferred properties lowers them. This results in notable score shifts: up to 0.59 on MT-Bench (1-10 scale) and 31.94 on AlpacaEval 2.0 (0-100 scale), highlighting the significant impact of this strategic adaptation. Interactive Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/GAIR/Preference-Dissection-Visualization Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/GAIR/preference-dissection Code: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/Preference-Dissection

Providing high-quality feedback is crucial for student success but is constrained by time, cost, and limited data availability. We introduce Synthetic Educational Feedback Loops (SEFL), a novel framework designed to deliver immediate, on-demand feedback at scale without relying on extensive, real-world student data. In SEFL, two large language models (LLMs) operate in teacher--student roles to simulate assignment completion and formative feedback, generating abundant synthetic pairs of student work and corresponding critiques. We then fine-tune smaller, more computationally efficient LLMs on these synthetic pairs, enabling them to replicate key features of high-quality, goal-oriented feedback. Unlike personalized tutoring approaches that offer multi-turn, individualized instruction, SEFL specifically focuses on replicating the teacher-->student feedback loop for diverse assignments. Through both LLM-as-a-judge and human evaluations, we demonstrate that SEFL-tuned models outperform their non-tuned counterparts in feedback quality, clarity, and timeliness. These findings reveal SEFL's potential to transform feedback processes for higher education and beyond, offering an ethical and scalable alternative to conventional manual feedback cycles.

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

Instruction tuning has been widely adopted to ensure large language models (LLMs) follow user instructions effectively. The resulting instruction-following capabilities of LLMs heavily rely on the instruction datasets used for tuning. Recently, synthetic instruction datasets have emerged as an economically viable solution to provide LLMs diverse and high-quality instructions. However, existing approaches typically assume that larger or stronger models are stronger teachers for instruction tuning, and hence simply adopt these models as response generators to the synthetic instructions. In this paper, we challenge this commonly-adopted assumption. Our extensive experiments across five base models and twenty response generators reveal that larger and stronger models are not necessarily stronger teachers of smaller models. We refer to this phenomenon as the Larger Models' Paradox. We observe that existing metrics cannot precisely predict the effectiveness of response generators since they ignore the compatibility between teachers and base models being fine-tuned. We thus develop a novel metric, named as Compatibility-Adjusted Reward (CAR) to measure the effectiveness of response generators. Our experiments across five base models demonstrate that CAR outperforms almost all baselines.

With significant efforts in recent studies, LLM-as-a-Judge has become a cost-effective alternative to human evaluation for assessing the text generation quality in a wide range of tasks. However, there still remains a reliability gap between LLM-as-a-Judge and human evaluation. One important reason is the lack of guided oracles in the evaluation process. Motivated by the role of reference pervasively used in classic text evaluation, we introduce RevisEval, a novel text generation evaluation paradigm via the response-adapted references. RevisEval is driven by the key observation that an ideal reference should maintain the necessary relevance to the response to be evaluated. Specifically, RevisEval leverages the text revision capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to adaptively revise the response, then treat the revised text as the reference (response-adapted reference) for the subsequent evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RevisEval outperforms traditional reference-free and reference-based evaluation paradigms that use LLM-as-a-Judge across NLG tasks and open-ended instruction-following tasks. More importantly, our response-adapted references can further boost the classical text metrics, e.g., BLEU and BERTScore, compared to traditional references and even rival the LLM-as-a-Judge. A detailed analysis is also conducted to confirm RevisEval's effectiveness in bias reduction, the impact of inference cost, and reference relevance.

Off-policy evaluation (OPE) is a method for estimating the return of a target policy using some pre-collected observational data generated by a potentially different behavior policy. In some cases, there may be unmeasured variables that can confound the action-reward or action-next-state relationships, rendering many existing OPE approaches ineffective. This paper develops an instrumental variable (IV)-based method for consistent OPE in confounded Markov decision processes (MDPs). Similar to single-stage decision making, we show that IV enables us to correctly identify the target policy's value in infinite horizon settings as well. Furthermore, we propose an efficient and robust value estimator and illustrate its effectiveness through extensive simulations and analysis of real data from a world-leading short-video platform.

Offline reinforcement learning (RL) methodologies enforce constraints on the policy to adhere closely to the behavior policy, thereby stabilizing value learning and mitigating the selection of out-of-distribution (OOD) actions during test time. Conventional approaches apply identical constraints for both value learning and test time inference. However, our findings indicate that the constraints suitable for value estimation may in fact be excessively restrictive for action selection during test time. To address this issue, we propose a Mildly Constrained Evaluation Policy (MCEP) for test time inference with a more constrained target policy for value estimation. Since the target policy has been adopted in various prior approaches, MCEP can be seamlessly integrated with them as a plug-in. We instantiate MCEP based on TD3-BC [Fujimoto and Gu, 2021] and AWAC [Nair et al., 2020] algorithms. The empirical results on MuJoCo locomotion tasks show that the MCEP significantly outperforms the target policy and achieves competitive results to state-of-the-art offline RL methods. The codes are open-sourced at https://github.com/egg-west/MCEP.git.

Despite recent advances in text-to-3D generative methods, there is a notable absence of reliable evaluation metrics. Existing metrics usually focus on a single criterion each, such as how well the asset aligned with the input text. These metrics lack the flexibility to generalize to different evaluation criteria and might not align well with human preferences. Conducting user preference studies is an alternative that offers both adaptability and human-aligned results. User studies, however, can be very expensive to scale. This paper presents an automatic, versatile, and human-aligned evaluation metric for text-to-3D generative models. To this end, we first develop a prompt generator using GPT-4V to generate evaluating prompts, which serve as input to compare text-to-3D models. We further design a method instructing GPT-4V to compare two 3D assets according to user-defined criteria. Finally, we use these pairwise comparison results to assign these models Elo ratings. Experimental results suggest our metric strongly align with human preference across different evaluation criteria.

Recent advances in generative vision-language models (VLMs) have exciting potential implications for AI in radiology, yet VLMs are also known to produce hallucinations, nonsensical text, and other unwanted behaviors that can waste clinicians' time and cause patient harm. Drawing on recent work on direct preference optimization (DPO), we propose a simple method for modifying the behavior of pretrained VLMs performing radiology report generation by suppressing unwanted types of generations. We apply our method to the prevention of hallucinations of prior exams, addressing a long-established problem behavior in models performing chest X-ray report generation. Across our experiments, we find that DPO fine-tuning achieves a 3.2-4.8x reduction in lines hallucinating prior exams while maintaining model performance on clinical accuracy metrics. Our work is, to the best of our knowledge, the first work to apply DPO to medical VLMs, providing a data- and compute- efficient way to suppress problem behaviors while maintaining overall clinical accuracy.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have emerged to tackle the challenges of Visual Question Answering (VQA), sparking a new research focus on conducting objective evaluations of these models. Existing evaluation methods face limitations due to the significant human workload required to design Q&A pairs for visual images, which inherently restricts the scale and scope of evaluations. Although automated MLLM-as-judge approaches attempt to reduce the human workload through automatic evaluations, they often introduce biases. To address these problems, we propose an Unsupervised Peer review MLLM Evaluation framework. It utilizes only image data, allowing models to automatically generate questions and conduct peer review assessments of answers from other models, effectively alleviating the reliance on human workload. Additionally, we introduce the vision-language scoring system to mitigate the bias issues, which focuses on three aspects: (i) response correctness; (ii) visual understanding and reasoning; and (iii) image-text correlation. Experimental results demonstrate that UPME achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.944 with human evaluations on the MMstar dataset and 0.814 on the ScienceQA dataset, indicating that our framework closely aligns with human-designed benchmarks and inherent human preferences.

There is a multitude of novel generative models for open-domain conversational systems; however, there is no systematic evaluation of different systems. Systematic comparisons require consistency in experimental design, evaluation sets, conversational systems and their outputs, and statistical analysis. We lay out a protocol for the evaluation of conversational models using head-to-head pairwise comparison. We analyze ten recent models that claim state-of-the-art performance using a paired head-to-head performance (win-loss-tie) on five evaluation datasets. Our findings show that DialoGPT and Blender are superior systems using Bradley-Terry model and TrueSkill ranking methods. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of our protocol to evaluate conversational agents and evaluation sets. Finally, we make all code and evaluations publicly available for researchers to compare their model to other state-of-the-art dialog models.

Probing with sparse autoencoders is a promising approach for uncovering interpretable features in large language models (LLMs). However, the lack of automated evaluation methods has hindered their broader adoption and development. In this work, we introduce CE-Bench, a novel and lightweight contrastive evaluation benchmark for sparse autoencoders, built on a curated dataset of contrastive story pairs. We conduct comprehensive ablation studies to validate the effectiveness of our approach. Our results show that CE-Bench reliably measures the interpretability of sparse autoencoders and aligns well with existing benchmarks, all without requiring an external LLM. The official implementation and evaluation dataset are open-sourced under the MIT License.

Self-evaluation using large language models (LLMs) has proven valuable not only in benchmarking but also methods like reward modeling, constitutional AI, and self-refinement. But new biases are introduced due to the same LLM acting as both the evaluator and the evaluatee. One such bias is self-preference, where an LLM evaluator scores its own outputs higher than others' while human annotators consider them of equal quality. But do LLMs actually recognize their own outputs when they give those texts higher scores, or is it just a coincidence? In this paper, we investigate if self-recognition capability contributes to self-preference. We discover that, out of the box, LLMs such as GPT-4 and Llama 2 have non-trivial accuracy at distinguishing themselves from other LLMs and humans. By fine-tuning LLMs, we discover a linear correlation between self-recognition capability and the strength of self-preference bias; using controlled experiments, we show that the causal explanation resists straightforward confounders. We discuss how self-recognition can interfere with unbiased evaluations and AI safety more generally.

Methods for making high-quality recommendations often rely on learning latent representations from interaction data. These methods, while performant, do not provide ready mechanisms for users to control the recommendation they receive. Our work tackles this problem by proposing LACE, a novel concept value bottleneck model for controllable text recommendations. LACE represents each user with a succinct set of human-readable concepts through retrieval given user-interacted documents and learns personalized representations of the concepts based on user documents. This concept based user profile is then leveraged to make recommendations. The design of our model affords control over the recommendations through a number of intuitive interactions with a transparent user profile. We first establish the quality of recommendations obtained from LACE in an offline evaluation on three recommendation tasks spanning six datasets in warm-start, cold-start, and zero-shot setups. Next, we validate the controllability of LACE under simulated user interactions. Finally, we implement LACE in an interactive controllable recommender system and conduct a user study to demonstrate that users are able to improve the quality of recommendations they receive through interactions with an editable user profile.

As language models (LMs) scale, they develop many novel behaviors, good and bad, exacerbating the need to evaluate how they behave. Prior work creates evaluations with crowdwork (which is time-consuming and expensive) or existing data sources (which are not always available). Here, we automatically generate evaluations with LMs. We explore approaches with varying amounts of human effort, from instructing LMs to write yes/no questions to making complex Winogender schemas with multiple stages of LM-based generation and filtering. Crowdworkers rate the examples as highly relevant and agree with 90-100% of labels, sometimes more so than corresponding human-written datasets. We generate 154 datasets and discover new cases of inverse scaling where LMs get worse with size. Larger LMs repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer ("sycophancy") and express greater desire to pursue concerning goals like resource acquisition and goal preservation. We also find some of the first examples of inverse scaling in RL from Human Feedback (RLHF), where more RLHF makes LMs worse. For example, RLHF makes LMs express stronger political views (on gun rights and immigration) and a greater desire to avoid shut down. Overall, LM-written evaluations are high-quality and let us quickly discover many novel LM behaviors.

Progress in large language models is constrained by an evaluation bottleneck: build a benchmark, evaluate models and settings, then iterate. We therefore ask a simple question: can we forecast outcomes before running any experiments? We study text-only performance forecasting: estimating a model's score from a redacted task description and intended configuration, with no access to dataset instances. To support systematic study, we curate PRECOG, a corpus of redacted description-performance pairs spanning diverse tasks, domains, and metrics. Experiments show the task is challenging but feasible: models equipped with a retrieval module that excludes source papers achieve moderate prediction performance with well-calibrated uncertainty, reaching mean absolute error as low as 8.7 on the Accuracy subset at high-confidence thresholds. Our analysis indicates that stronger reasoning models engage in diverse, iterative querying, whereas current open-source models lag and often skip retrieval or gather evidence with limited diversity. We further test a zero-leakage setting, forecasting on newly released datasets or experiments before their papers are indexed, where GPT-5 with built-in web search still attains nontrivial prediction accuracy. Overall, our corpus and analyses offer an initial step toward open-ended anticipatory evaluation, supporting difficulty estimation and smarter experiment prioritization.

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.

In this time when biased information, deep fakes, and propaganda proliferate, the accessibility of reliable data sources is more important than ever. National statistical institutes provide curated data that contain quantitative information on a wide range of topics. However, that information is typically spread across many tables and the plain numbers may be arduous to process. Hence, this open data may be practically inaccessible. We ask the question "Are current Generative AI models capable of facilitating the identification of the right data and the fully-automatic creation of charts to provide information in visual form, corresponding to user queries?". We present a structured evaluation of recent large language models' (LLMs) capabilities to generate charts from complex data in response to user queries. Working with diverse public data from Statistics Netherlands, we assessed multiple LLMs on their ability to identify relevant data tables, perform necessary manipulations, and generate appropriate visualizations autonomously. We propose a new evaluation framework spanning three dimensions: data retrieval & pre-processing, code quality, and visual representation. Results indicate that locating and processing the correct data represents the most significant challenge. Additionally, LLMs rarely implement visualization best practices without explicit guidance. When supplemented with information about effective chart design, models showed marked improvement in representation scores. Furthermore, an agentic approach with iterative self-evaluation led to excellent performance across all evaluation dimensions. These findings suggest that LLMs' effectiveness for automated chart generation can be enhanced through appropriate scaffolding and feedback mechanisms, and that systems can already reach the necessary accuracy across the three evaluation dimensions.

Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we identify 27 private LLM variants tested by Meta in the lead-up to the Llama-4 release. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. Providers like Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena, respectively. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data. We show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on our conservative estimates. Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field

Can the rapid advances in code generation, function calling, and data analysis using large language models (LLMs) help automate the search and verification of hypotheses purely from a set of provided datasets? To evaluate this question, we present DiscoveryBench, the first comprehensive benchmark that formalizes the multi-step process of data-driven discovery. The benchmark is designed to systematically assess current model capabilities in discovery tasks and provide a useful resource for improving them. Our benchmark contains 264 tasks collected across 6 diverse domains, such as sociology and engineering, by manually deriving discovery workflows from published papers to approximate the real-world challenges faced by researchers, where each task is defined by a dataset, its metadata, and a discovery goal in natural language. We additionally provide 903 synthetic tasks to conduct controlled evaluations across task complexity. Furthermore, our structured formalism of data-driven discovery enables a facet-based evaluation that provides useful insights into different failure modes. We evaluate several popular LLM-based reasoning frameworks using both open and closed LLMs as baselines on DiscoveryBench and find that even the best system scores only 25%. Our benchmark, thus, illustrates the challenges in autonomous data-driven discovery and serves as a valuable resource for the community to make progress.

The training data for many Large Language Models (LLMs) is contaminated with test data. This means that public benchmarks used to assess LLMs are compromised, suggesting a performance gap between benchmark scores and actual capabilities. Ideally, a private holdout set could be used to accurately verify scores. Unfortunately, such datasets do not exist for most benchmarks, and post-hoc construction of sufficiently similar datasets is non-trivial. To address these issues, we introduce a systematic methodology for (i) retrospectively constructing a holdout dataset for a target dataset, (ii) demonstrating the statistical indistinguishability of this retro-holdout dataset, and (iii) comparing LLMs on the two datasets to quantify the performance gap due to the dataset's public availability. Applying these methods to TruthfulQA, we construct and release Retro-Misconceptions, on which we evaluate twenty LLMs and find that some have inflated scores by as much as 16 percentage points. Our results demonstrate that public benchmark scores do not always accurately assess model properties, and underscore the importance of improved data practices in the field.

Hallucinations in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) -- where the model generates content inconsistent with the input image -- pose significant risks in real-world applications, from misinformation in visual question answering to unsafe errors in decision-making. Existing benchmarks primarily test recognition accuracy, i.e., evaluating whether models can select the correct answer among distractors. This overlooks an equally critical capability for trustworthy AI: recognizing when none of the provided options are correct, a behavior reflecting epistemic humility. We present HumbleBench, a new hallucination benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' ability to reject plausible but incorrect answers across three hallucination types: object, relation, and attribute. Built from a panoptic scene graph dataset, we leverage fine-grained scene graph annotations to extract ground-truth entities and relations, and prompt GPT-4-Turbo to generate multiple-choice questions, followed by a rigorous manual filtering process. Each question includes a "None of the above" option, requiring models not only to recognize correct visual information but also to identify when no provided answer is valid. We evaluate a variety of state-of-the-art MLLMs -- including both general-purpose and specialized reasoning models -- on HumbleBench and share valuable findings and insights with the community. By incorporating explicit false-option rejection, HumbleBench fills a key gap in current evaluation suites, providing a more realistic measure of MLLM reliability in safety-critical settings. Our code and dataset are released publicly and can be accessed at https://github.com/maifoundations/HumbleBench.

AI-driven discovery can greatly reduce design time and enhance new therapeutics' effectiveness. Models using simulators explore broad design spaces but risk violating implicit constraints due to a lack of experimental priors. For example, in a new analysis we performed on a diverse set of models on the GuacaMol benchmark using supervised classifiers, over 60\% of molecules proposed had high probability of being mutagenic. In this work, we introduce \ourdataset, a dataset of priors for design problems extracted from literature describing compounds used in lab settings. It is constructed with LLM pipelines for discovering therapeutic entities in relevant paragraphs and summarizing information in concise fair-use facts. \ourdataset~ consists of 32.3 million pairs of natural language facts, and appropriate entity representations (i.e. SMILES or refseq IDs). To demonstrate the potential of the data, we train LLM, CLIP, and LLava architectures to reason jointly about text and design targets and evaluate on tasks from the Therapeutic Data Commons (TDC). \ourdataset~is highly effective for creating models with strong priors: in supervised prediction problems that use our data as pretraining, our best models with 15M learnable parameters outperform larger 2B TxGemma on both regression and classification TDC tasks, and perform comparably to 9B models on average. Models built with \ourdataset~can be used as constraints while optimizing for novel molecules in GuacaMol, resulting in proposals that are safer and nearly as effective. We release our dataset at https://huggingface.co/datasets/medexanon/Medex{huggingface.co/datasets/medexanon/Medex}, and will provide expanded versions as available literature grows.

Detecting stereotypes and biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) can enhance fairness and reduce adverse impacts on individuals or groups when these LLMs are applied. However, the majority of existing methods focus on measuring the model's preference towards sentences containing biases and stereotypes within datasets, which lacks interpretability and cannot detect implicit biases and stereotypes in the real world. To address this gap, this paper introduces a four-stage framework to directly evaluate stereotypes and biases in the generated content of LLMs, including direct inquiry testing, serial or adapted story testing, implicit association testing, and unknown situation testing. Additionally, the paper proposes multi-dimensional evaluation metrics and explainable zero-shot prompts for automated evaluation. Using the education sector as a case study, we constructed the Edu-FairBench based on the four-stage framework, which encompasses 12,632 open-ended questions covering nine sensitive factors and 26 educational scenarios. Experimental results reveal varying degrees of stereotypes and biases in five LLMs evaluated on Edu-FairBench. Moreover, the results of our proposed automated evaluation method have shown a high correlation with human annotations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

Despite widespread deployment of Large Language Models, systematic evaluation of instruction-following capabilities remains challenging. While comprehensive benchmarks exist, focused assessments that quickly diagnose specific instruction adherence patterns are valuable. As newer models may be trained on existing benchmarks, novel evaluation approaches are needed to assess genuine capabilities rather than memorized performance. This paper presents a streamlined evaluation framework using twenty carefully designed prompts to assess LLM instruction-following across diverse task categories. We demonstrate this framework through a large-scale empirical study conducted on October 14, 2025, testing 256 verified working models from 331 available via OpenRouter. To ensure methodological rigor and prevent selection bias, we first verified each model's basic functionality before inclusion. Unlike large-scale benchmarks requiring extensive computational resources, our approach offers a practical diagnostic tool researchers and practitioners can readily apply. Our methodology builds upon verifiable instructions while introducing a compact test suite balancing comprehensiveness with efficiency. Each prompt targets distinct aspects of instruction following, including format compliance, content constraints, logical sequencing, and multi-step task execution. We evaluate models from major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Mistral) and emerging implementations (Qwen, DeepSeek, community models), providing comparative performance analysis. Our findings reveal consistent failure modes and identify specific instruction types posing particular challenges. This work contributes both a practical evaluation tool and one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses of instruction-following capabilities across the contemporary LLM landscape.

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

Alignment is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains like education, healthcare, governance, and law, their behavior must reliably reflect human-aligned values and safety constraints. Yet current evaluations rely heavily on behavioral proxies such as refusal rates, G-Eval scores, and toxicity classifiers, all of which have critical blind spots. Aligned models are often vulnerable to jailbreaking, stochasticity of generation, and alignment faking. To address this issue, we introduce the Alignment Quality Index (AQI). This novel geometric and prompt-invariant metric empirically assesses LLM alignment by analyzing the separation of safe and unsafe activations in latent space. By combining measures such as the Davies-Bouldin Score (DBS), Dunn Index (DI), Xie-Beni Index (XBI), and Calinski-Harabasz Index (CHI) across various formulations, AQI captures clustering quality to detect hidden misalignments and jailbreak risks, even when outputs appear compliant. AQI also serves as an early warning signal for alignment faking, offering a robust, decoding invariant tool for behavior agnostic safety auditing. Additionally, we propose the LITMUS dataset to facilitate robust evaluation under these challenging conditions. Empirical tests on LITMUS across different models trained under DPO, GRPO, and RLHF conditions demonstrate AQI's correlation with external judges and ability to reveal vulnerabilities missed by refusal metrics. We make our implementation publicly available to foster future research in this area.

We present Music Arena, an open platform for scalable human preference evaluation of text-to-music (TTM) models. Soliciting human preferences via listening studies is the gold standard for evaluation in TTM, but these studies are expensive to conduct and difficult to compare, as study protocols may differ across systems. Moreover, human preferences might help researchers align their TTM systems or improve automatic evaluation metrics, but an open and renewable source of preferences does not currently exist. We aim to fill these gaps by offering *live* evaluation for TTM. In Music Arena, real-world users input text prompts of their choosing and compare outputs from two TTM systems, and their preferences are used to compile a leaderboard. While Music Arena follows recent evaluation trends in other AI domains, we also design it with key features tailored to music: an LLM-based routing system to navigate the heterogeneous type signatures of TTM systems, and the collection of *detailed* preferences including listening data and natural language feedback. We also propose a rolling data release policy with user privacy guarantees, providing a renewable source of preference data and increasing platform transparency. Through its standardized evaluation protocol, transparent data access policies, and music-specific features, Music Arena not only addresses key challenges in the TTM ecosystem but also demonstrates how live evaluation can be thoughtfully adapted to unique characteristics of specific AI domains. Music Arena is available at: https://music-arena.org

The advent of Deep Research agents has substantially reduced the time required for conducting extensive research tasks. However, these tasks inherently demand rigorous standards of factual accuracy and comprehensiveness, necessitating thorough evaluation before widespread adoption. In this paper, we propose ReportBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the content quality of research reports generated by large language models (LLMs). Our evaluation focuses on two critical dimensions: (1) the quality and relevance of cited literature, and (2) the faithfulness and veracity of the statements within the generated reports. ReportBench leverages high-quality published survey papers available on arXiv as gold-standard references, from which we apply reverse prompt engineering to derive domain-specific prompts and establish a comprehensive evaluation corpus. Furthermore, we develop an agent-based automated framework within ReportBench that systematically analyzes generated reports by extracting citations and statements, checking the faithfulness of cited content against original sources, and validating non-cited claims using web-based resources. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that commercial Deep Research agents such as those developed by OpenAI and Google consistently generate more comprehensive and reliable reports than standalone LLMs augmented with search or browsing tools. However, there remains substantial room for improvement in terms of the breadth and depth of research coverage, as well as factual consistency. The complete code and data will be released at the following link: https://github.com/ByteDance-BandAI/ReportBench

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEvalPro, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEvalPro comprises 2,138 question triplets, totaling 6,414 distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEvalPro is more challenging (the best LMM lags behind human performance by 31.73%, compared to an average gap of 8.03% in previous benchmarks) and more trustworthy (the best LLM trails the best LMM by 23.09%, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just 14.64%). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can comply with harmful instructions, raising serious safety concerns despite their impressive capabilities. Recent work has leveraged probing-based approaches to study the separability of malicious and benign inputs in LLMs' internal representations, and researchers have proposed using such probing methods for safety detection. We systematically re-examine this paradigm. Motivated by poor out-of-distribution performance, we hypothesize that probes learn superficial patterns rather than semantic harmfulness. Through controlled experiments, we confirm this hypothesis and identify the specific patterns learned: instructional patterns and trigger words. Our investigation follows a systematic approach, progressing from demonstrating comparable performance of simple n-gram methods, to controlled experiments with semantically cleaned datasets, to detailed analysis of pattern dependencies. These results reveal a false sense of security around current probing-based approaches and highlight the need to redesign both models and evaluation protocols, for which we provide further discussions in the hope of suggesting responsible further research in this direction. We have open-sourced the project at https://github.com/WangCheng0116/Why-Probe-Fails.

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

Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categories: what can be evaluated in a base system independent of context and what can be evaluated in a societal context. Importantly, this refers to base systems that have no predetermined application or deployment context, including a model itself, as well as system components, such as training data. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to listed generative modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what can be evaluated in a broader societal context, each with its own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm.

Currently many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate the perception ability of the Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). However, most benchmarks conduct questions by selecting images from existing datasets, resulting in the potential data leakage. Besides, these benchmarks merely focus on evaluating LVLMs on the realistic style images and clean scenarios, leaving the multi-stylized images and noisy scenarios unexplored. In response to these challenges, we propose a dynamic and scalable benchmark named Dysca for evaluating LVLMs by leveraging synthesis images. Specifically, we leverage Stable Diffusion and design a rule-based method to dynamically generate novel images, questions and the corresponding answers. We consider 51 kinds of image styles and evaluate the perception capability in 20 subtasks. Moreover, we conduct evaluations under 4 scenarios (i.e., Clean, Corruption, Print Attacking and Adversarial Attacking) and 3 question types (i.e., Multi-choices, True-or-false and Free-form). Thanks to the generative paradigm, Dysca serves as a scalable benchmark for easily adding new subtasks and scenarios. A total of 8 advanced open-source LVLMs with 10 checkpoints are evaluated on Dysca, revealing the drawbacks of current LVLMs. The benchmark is released in https://github.com/Benchmark-Dysca/Dysca.

This study investigates GPT-4's assessment of its performance in healthcare applications. A simple prompting technique was used to prompt the LLM with questions taken from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questionnaire and it was tasked to evaluate its confidence score before posing the question and after asking the question. The questionnaire was categorized into two groups-questions with feedback (WF) and questions with no feedback(NF) post-question. The model was asked to provide absolute and relative confidence scores before and after each question. The experimental findings were analyzed using statistical tools to study the variability of confidence in WF and NF groups. Additionally, a sequential analysis was conducted to observe the performance variation for the WF and NF groups. Results indicate that feedback influences relative confidence but doesn't consistently increase or decrease it. Understanding the performance of LLM is paramount in exploring its utility in sensitive areas like healthcare. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the reliability of AI, particularly of LLMs like GPT-4, within healthcare, offering insights into how feedback mechanisms might be optimized to enhance AI-assisted medical education and decision support.

In this study, we tackle a growing concern around the safety and ethical use of large language models (LLMs). Despite their potential, these models can be tricked into producing harmful or unethical content through various sophisticated methods, including 'jailbreaking' techniques and targeted manipulation. Our work zeroes in on a specific issue: to what extent LLMs can be led astray by asking them to generate responses that are instruction-centric such as a pseudocode, a program or a software snippet as opposed to vanilla text. To investigate this question, we introduce TechHazardQA, a dataset containing complex queries which should be answered in both text and instruction-centric formats (e.g., pseudocodes), aimed at identifying triggers for unethical responses. We query a series of LLMs -- Llama-2-13b, Llama-2-7b, Mistral-V2 and Mistral 8X7B -- and ask them to generate both text and instruction-centric responses. For evaluation we report the harmfulness score metric as well as judgements from GPT-4 and humans. Overall, we observe that asking LLMs to produce instruction-centric responses enhances the unethical response generation by ~2-38% across the models. As an additional objective, we investigate the impact of model editing using the ROME technique, which further increases the propensity for generating undesirable content. In particular, asking edited LLMs to generate instruction-centric responses further increases the unethical response generation by ~3-16% across the different models.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery, with a growing number of works proposing research agents that autonomously generate and validate new ideas. Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas, let alone perform the entire research process. We address this by establishing an experimental design that evaluates research idea generation while controlling for confounders and performs the first head-to-head comparison between expert NLP researchers and an LLM ideation agent. By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility. Studying our agent baselines closely, we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation. Finally, we acknowledge that human judgements of novelty can be difficult, even by experts, and propose an end-to-end study design which recruits researchers to execute these ideas into full projects, enabling us to study whether these novelty and feasibility judgements result in meaningful differences in research outcome.

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs as a reference-free metric for open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho and MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose the (1) peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments, respectively. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.

Iterative preference learning, though yielding superior performances, requires online annotated preference labels. In this work, we study strategies to select worth-annotating response pairs for cost-efficient annotation while achieving competitive or even better performances compared with the random selection baseline for iterative preference learning. Built on assumptions regarding uncertainty and distribution shifts, we propose a comparative view to rank the implicit reward margins as predicted by DPO to select the response pairs that yield more benefits. Through extensive experiments, we show that annotating those response pairs with small margins is generally better than large or random, under both single- and multi-iteration scenarios. Besides, our empirical results suggest allocating more annotation budgets in the earlier iterations rather than later across multiple iterations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a notable capacity for adopting personas and engaging in role-playing. However, evaluating this ability presents significant challenges, as human assessments are resource-intensive and automated evaluations can be biased. To address this, we introduce Role-Playing Eval (RPEval), a novel benchmark designed to assess LLM role-playing capabilities across four key dimensions: emotional understanding, decision-making, moral alignment, and in-character consistency. This article details the construction of RPEval and presents baseline evaluations. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/yelboudouri/RPEval

We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answers, and then to evaluate the probability "P(True)" that their answers are correct. We find encouraging performance, calibration, and scaling for P(True) on a diverse array of tasks. Performance at self-evaluation further improves when we allow models to consider many of their own samples before predicting the validity of one specific possibility. Next, we investigate whether models can be trained to predict "P(IK)", the probability that "I know" the answer to a question, without reference to any particular proposed answer. Models perform well at predicting P(IK) and partially generalize across tasks, though they struggle with calibration of P(IK) on new tasks. The predicted P(IK) probabilities also increase appropriately in the presence of relevant source materials in the context, and in the presence of hints towards the solution of mathematical word problems. We hope these observations lay the groundwork for training more honest models, and for investigating how honesty generalizes to cases where models are trained on objectives other than the imitation of human writing.

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.

Recently, using a powerful proprietary Large Language Model (LLM) (e.g., GPT-4) as an evaluator for long-form responses has become the de facto standard. However, for practitioners with large-scale evaluation tasks and custom criteria in consideration (e.g., child-readability), using proprietary LLMs as an evaluator is unreliable due to the closed-source nature, uncontrolled versioning, and prohibitive costs. In this work, we propose Prometheus, a fully open-source LLM that is on par with GPT-4's evaluation capabilities when the appropriate reference materials (reference answer, score rubric) are accompanied. We first construct the Feedback Collection, a new dataset that consists of 1K fine-grained score rubrics, 20K instructions, and 100K responses and language feedback generated by GPT-4. Using the Feedback Collection, we train Prometheus, a 13B evaluator LLM that can assess any given long-form text based on customized score rubric provided by the user. Experimental results show that Prometheus scores a Pearson correlation of 0.897 with human evaluators when evaluating with 45 customized score rubrics, which is on par with GPT-4 (0.882), and greatly outperforms ChatGPT (0.392). Furthermore, measuring correlation with GPT-4 with 1222 customized score rubrics across four benchmarks (MT Bench, Vicuna Bench, Feedback Bench, Flask Eval) shows similar trends, bolstering Prometheus's capability as an evaluator LLM. Lastly, Prometheus achieves the highest accuracy on two human preference benchmarks (HHH Alignment & MT Bench Human Judgment) compared to open-sourced reward models explicitly trained on human preference datasets, highlighting its potential as an universal reward model. We open-source our code, dataset, and model at https://github.com/kaistAI/Prometheus.

This paper presents synthetic Preference Optimization (PO) datasets generated using multi-agent workflows and evaluates the effectiveness and potential of these workflows in the dataset generation process. PO dataset generation requires two modules: (1) response evaluation, and (2) response generation. In the response evaluation module, the responses from Large Language Models (LLMs) are evaluated and ranked - a task typically carried out by human annotators that we automate using LLMs. We assess the response evaluation module in a 2 step process. In step 1, we assess LLMs as evaluators using three distinct prompting strategies. In step 2, we apply the winning prompting strategy to compare the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge, LLMs-as-a-Jury, and LLM Debate. In each step, we use inter-rater agreement using Cohen's Kappa between human annotators and LLMs. For the response generation module, we compare different configurations for the LLM Feedback Loop using the identified LLM evaluator configuration. We use the win rate (the fraction of times a generation framework is selected as the best by an LLM evaluator) to determine the best multi-agent configuration for generation. After identifying the best configurations for both modules, we use models from the GPT, Gemma, and Llama families to generate our PO datasets using the above pipeline. We generate two types of PO datasets, one to improve the generation capabilities of individual LLM and the other to improve the multi-agent workflow. Our evaluation shows that GPT-4o-as-a-Judge is more consistent across datasets when the candidate responses do not include responses from the GPT family. Additionally, we find that the LLM Feedback Loop, with Llama as the generator and Gemma as the reviewer, achieves a notable 71.8% and 73.8% win rate over single-agent Llama and Gemma, respectively.

The public availability of collections containing user preferences is of vital importance for performing offline evaluations in the field of recommender systems. However, the number of rating datasets is limited because of the costs required for their creation and the fear of violating the privacy of the users by sharing them. For this reason, numerous research attempts investigated the creation of synthetic collections of ratings using generative approaches. Nevertheless, these datasets are usually not reliable enough for conducting an evaluation campaign. In this paper, we propose a method for creating synthetic datasets with a configurable number of users that mimic the characteristics of already existing ones. We empirically validated the proposed approach by exploiting the synthetic datasets for evaluating different recommenders and by comparing the results with the ones obtained using real datasets.

By simply composing prompts, developers can prototype novel generative applications with Large Language Models (LLMs). To refine prototypes into products, however, developers must iteratively revise prompts by evaluating outputs to diagnose weaknesses. Formative interviews (N=8) revealed that developers invest significant effort in manually evaluating outputs as they assess context-specific and subjective criteria. We present EvalLM, an interactive system for iteratively refining prompts by evaluating multiple outputs on user-defined criteria. By describing criteria in natural language, users can employ the system's LLM-based evaluator to get an overview of where prompts excel or fail, and improve these based on the evaluator's feedback. A comparative study (N=12) showed that EvalLM, when compared to manual evaluation, helped participants compose more diverse criteria, examine twice as many outputs, and reach satisfactory prompts with 59% fewer revisions. Beyond prompts, our work can be extended to augment model evaluation and alignment in specific application contexts.

We introduce Vibe-Eval: a new open benchmark and framework for evaluating multimodal chat models. Vibe-Eval consists of 269 visual understanding prompts, including 100 of hard difficulty, complete with gold-standard responses authored by experts. Vibe-Eval is open-ended and challenging with dual objectives: (i) vibe checking multimodal chat models for day-to-day tasks and (ii) rigorously testing and probing the capabilities of present frontier models. Notably, our hard set contains >50% questions that all frontier models answer incorrectly. We explore the nuances of designing, evaluating, and ranking models on ultra challenging prompts. We also discuss trade-offs between human and automatic evaluation, and show that automatic model evaluation using Reka Core roughly correlates to human judgment. We offer free API access for the purpose of lightweight evaluation and plan to conduct formal human evaluations for public models that perform well on the Vibe-Eval's automatic scores. We release the evaluation code and data, see https://github.com/reka-ai/reka-vibe-eval

In science and medicine, model interpretations may be reported as discoveries of natural phenomena or used to guide patient treatments. In such high-stakes tasks, false discoveries may lead investigators astray. These applications would therefore benefit from control over the finite-sample error rate of interpretations. We reframe black box model interpretability as a multiple hypothesis testing problem. The task is to discover "important" features by testing whether the model prediction is significantly different from what would be expected if the features were replaced with uninformative counterfactuals. We propose two testing methods: one that provably controls the false discovery rate but which is not yet feasible for large-scale applications, and an approximate testing method which can be applied to real-world data sets. In simulation, both tests have high power relative to existing interpretability methods. When applied to state-of-the-art vision and language models, the framework selects features that intuitively explain model predictions. The resulting explanations have the additional advantage that they are themselves easy to interpret.

Alignment techniques for LLMs rely on optimizing preference-based objectives -- where these preferences are typically elicited as ordinal, binary choices between responses. Recent work has focused on improving label quality or mitigating particular biases, but we identify a more fundamental limitation: these methods collect the wrong kind of data. We prove an impossibility result: no algorithm relying solely on ordinal comparisons can systematically recover the most preferred model. Intuitively, ordinal data lacks the information needed to resolve tradeoffs -- e.g., fixing a factual error on one prompt versus improving style on another. We show that selecting the optimal model requires recovering preferences over models (rather than just responses), which can only be identified given cardinal feedback about response quality. To address this, we collect and publicly release a dataset of 25,000 cardinal judgments using willingness-to-pay elicitations, a well-established tool from experimental economics. Empirically, we find that incorporating cardinal feedback into preference fine-tuning allows models to prioritize high-impact improvements and outperform ordinal-only methods on downstream benchmarks, such as Arena-Hard.

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

Despite the critical role of reward models (RMs) in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), current state-of-the-art open RMs perform poorly on most existing evaluation benchmarks, failing to capture the spectrum of nuanced and sophisticated human preferences. Even approaches that incorporate advanced training techniques have not yielded meaningful performance improvements. We hypothesize that this brittleness stems primarily from limitations in preference datasets, which are often narrowly scoped, synthetically labeled, or lack rigorous quality control. To address these challenges, we present a large-scale preference dataset comprising 40 million preference pairs, named SynPref-40M. To enable data curation at scale, we design a human-AI synergistic two-stage pipeline that leverages the complementary strengths of human annotation quality and AI scalability. In this pipeline, humans provide verified annotations, while large language models perform automatic curation based on human guidance. Training on this preference mixture, we introduce Skywork-Reward-V2, a suite of eight reward models ranging from 0.6B to 8B parameters, trained on a carefully curated subset of 26 million preference pairs from SynPref-40M. We demonstrate that Skywork-Reward-V2 is versatile across a wide range of capabilities, including alignment with human preferences, objective correctness, safety, resistance to stylistic biases, and best-of-N scaling, achieving state-of-the-art performance across seven major reward model benchmarks. Ablation studies confirm that the effectiveness of our approach stems not only from data scale but also from high-quality curation. The Skywork-Reward-V2 series represents substantial progress in open reward models, highlighting the untapped potential of existing preference datasets and demonstrating how human-AI curation synergy can unlock significantly higher data quality.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is considered to be a promising approach to alleviate the hallucination issue of large language models (LLMs), and it has received widespread attention from researchers recently. Due to the limitation in the semantic understanding of retrieval models, the success of RAG heavily lies on the ability of LLMs to identify passages with utility. Recent efforts have explored the ability of LLMs to assess the relevance of passages in retrieval, but there has been limited work on evaluating the utility of passages in supporting question answering. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive study about the capabilities of LLMs in utility evaluation for open-domain QA. Specifically, we introduce a benchmarking procedure and collection of candidate passages with different characteristics, facilitating a series of experiments with five representative LLMs. Our experiments reveal that: (i) well-instructed LLMs can distinguish between relevance and utility, and that LLMs are highly receptive to newly generated counterfactual passages. Moreover, (ii) we scrutinize key factors that affect utility judgments in the instruction design. And finally, (iii) to verify the efficacy of utility judgments in practical retrieval augmentation applications, we delve into LLMs' QA capabilities using the evidence judged with utility and direct dense retrieval results. (iv) We propose a k-sampling, listwise approach to reduce the dependency of LLMs on the sequence of input passages, thereby facilitating subsequent answer generation. We believe that the way we formalize and study the problem along with our findings contributes to a critical assessment of retrieval-augmented LLMs. Our code and benchmark can be found at https://github.com/ict-bigdatalab/utility_judgments.

Deep research systems represent an emerging class of agentic information retrieval methods that generate comprehensive and well-supported reports to complex queries. However, most existing frameworks rely on dynamic commercial search APIs, which pose reproducibility and transparency challenges in addition to their cost. To address these limitations, we introduce DeepResearchGym, an open-source sandbox that combines a reproducible search API with a rigorous evaluation protocol for benchmarking deep research systems. The API indexes large-scale public web corpora, namely ClueWeb22 and FineWeb, using a state-of-the-art dense retriever and approximate nearest neighbor search via DiskANN. It achieves lower latency than popular commercial APIs while ensuring stable document rankings across runs, and is freely available for research use. To evaluate deep research systems' outputs, we extend the Researchy Questions benchmark with automatic metrics through LLM-as-a-judge assessments to measure alignment with users' information needs, retrieval faithfulness, and report quality. Experimental results show that systems integrated with DeepResearchGym achieve performance comparable to those using commercial APIs, with performance rankings remaining consistent across evaluation metrics. A human evaluation study further confirms that our automatic protocol aligns with human preferences, validating the framework's ability to help support controlled assessment of deep research systems. Our code and API documentation are available at https://www.deepresearchgym.ai.

Learning from human preference data has emerged as the dominant paradigm for fine-tuning large language models (LLMs). The two most common families of techniques -- online reinforcement learning (RL) such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and offline contrastive methods such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) -- were positioned as equivalent in prior work due to the fact that both have to start from the same offline preference dataset. To further expand our theoretical understanding of the similarities and differences between online and offline techniques for preference fine-tuning, we conduct a rigorous analysis through the lens of dataset coverage, a concept that captures how the training data covers the test distribution and is widely used in RL. We prove that a global coverage condition is both necessary and sufficient for offline contrastive methods to converge to the optimal policy, but a weaker partial coverage condition suffices for online RL methods. This separation provides one explanation of why online RL methods can perform better than offline methods, especially when the offline preference data is not diverse enough. Finally, motivated by our preceding theoretical observations, we derive a hybrid preference optimization (HyPO) algorithm that uses offline data for contrastive-based preference optimization and online data for KL regularization. Theoretically and empirically, we demonstrate that HyPO is more performant than its pure offline counterpart DPO, while still preserving its computation and memory efficiency.

The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) underscores the pressing need for evaluation methods. Existing works primarily rely on external evaluators, focusing on training and prompting strategies. However, a crucial aspect - model-aware glass-box features - is overlooked. In this study, we explore the utility of glass-box features under the scenario of self-evaluation, namely applying an LLM to evaluate its own output. We investigate various glass-box feature groups and discovered that the softmax distribution serves as a reliable indicator for quality evaluation. Furthermore, we propose two strategies to enhance the evaluation by incorporating features derived from references. Experimental results on public benchmarks validate the feasibility of self-evaluation of LLMs using glass-box features.

Literature reviews are an essential component of scientific research, but they remain time-intensive and challenging to write, especially due to the recent influx of research papers. This paper explores the zero-shot abilities of recent Large Language Models (LLMs) in assisting with the writing of literature reviews based on an abstract. We decompose the task into two components: 1. Retrieving related works given a query abstract, and 2. Writing a literature review based on the retrieved results. We analyze how effective LLMs are for both components. For retrieval, we introduce a novel two-step search strategy that first uses an LLM to extract meaningful keywords from the abstract of a paper and then retrieves potentially relevant papers by querying an external knowledge base. Additionally, we study a prompting-based re-ranking mechanism with attribution and show that re-ranking doubles the normalized recall compared to naive search methods, while providing insights into the LLM's decision-making process. In the generation phase, we propose a two-step approach that first outlines a plan for the review and then executes steps in the plan to generate the actual review. To evaluate different LLM-based literature review methods, we create test sets from arXiv papers using a protocol designed for rolling use with newly released LLMs to avoid test set contamination in zero-shot evaluations. We release this evaluation protocol to promote additional research and development in this regard. Our empirical results suggest that LLMs show promising potential for writing literature reviews when the task is decomposed into smaller components of retrieval and planning. Our project page including a demonstration system and toolkit can be accessed here: https://litllm.github.io.

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

Information tasks such as writing surveys or analytical reports require complex search and reasoning, and have recently been grouped under the umbrella of deep research -- a term also adopted by recent models targeting these capabilities. Despite growing interest, the scope of the deep research task remains underdefined and its distinction from other reasoning-intensive problems is poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a formal characterization of the deep research (DR) task and introduce a benchmark to evaluate the performance of DR systems. We argue that the core defining feature of deep research is not the production of lengthy report-style outputs, but rather the high fan-out over concepts required during the search process, i.e., broad and reasoning-intensive exploration. To enable objective evaluation, we define DR using an intermediate output representation that encodes key claims uncovered during search-separating the reasoning challenge from surface-level report generation. Based on this formulation, we propose a diverse, challenging benchmark LiveDRBench with 100 challenging tasks over scientific topics (e.g., datasets, materials discovery, prior art search) and public interest events (e.g., flight incidents, movie awards). Across state-of-the-art DR systems, F1 score ranges between 0.02 and 0.72 for any sub-category. OpenAI's model performs the best with an overall F1 score of 0.55. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals the distribution over the number of referenced sources, branching, and backtracking events executed by current DR systems, motivating future directions for improving their search mechanisms and grounding capabilities. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/microsoft/LiveDRBench.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in diverse user facing applications, aligning them with real user preferences becomes essential. Existing methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) rely on expert annotators trained on manually defined guidelines, whose judgments may not reflect the priorities of everyday users. We introduce Reinforcement Learning from User Feedback (RLUF), a framework for aligning LLMs directly to implicit signals from users in production. RLUF addresses key challenges of user feedback: user feedback is often binary (e.g., emoji reactions), sparse, and occasionally adversarial. We train a reward model, P[Love], to predict the likelihood that an LLM response will receive a Love Reaction, a lightweight form of positive user feedback, and integrate P[Love] into a multi-objective policy optimization framework alongside helpfulness and safety objectives. In large-scale experiments, we show that P[Love] is predictive of increased positive feedback and serves as a reliable offline evaluator of future user behavior. Policy optimization using P[Love] significantly raises observed positive-feedback rates, including a 28% increase in Love Reactions during live A/B tests. However, optimizing for positive reactions introduces reward hacking challenges, requiring careful balancing of objectives. By directly leveraging implicit signals from users, RLUF offers a path to aligning LLMs with real-world user preferences at scale.

While dialogue remains an important end-goal of natural language research, the difficulty of evaluation is an oft-quoted reason why it remains troublesome to make real progress towards its solution. Evaluation difficulties are actually two-fold: not only do automatic metrics not correlate well with human judgments, but also human judgments themselves are in fact difficult to measure. The two most used human judgment tests, single-turn pairwise evaluation and multi-turn Likert scores, both have serious flaws as we discuss in this work. We instead provide a novel procedure involving comparing two full dialogues, where a human judge is asked to pay attention to only one speaker within each, and make a pairwise judgment. The questions themselves are optimized to maximize the robustness of judgments across different annotators, resulting in better tests. We also show how these tests work in self-play model chat setups, resulting in faster, cheaper tests. We hope these tests become the de facto standard, and will release open-source code to that end.