Daily Papers

The capability of Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) to apply world knowledge across diverse tasks remains a critical, unresolved challenge. Existing benchmarks fall short, offering only siloed, single-task evaluations with limited diagnostic power. To bridge this gap, we propose AEGIS (i.e., Assessing Editing, Generation, Interpretation-Understanding for Super-intelligence), a comprehensive multi-task benchmark covering visual understanding, generation, editing, and interleaved generation. AEGIS comprises 1,050 challenging, manually-annotated questions spanning 21 topics (including STEM, humanities, daily life, etc.) and 6 reasoning types. To concretely evaluate the performance of UMMs in world knowledge scope without ambiguous metrics, we further propose Deterministic Checklist-based Evaluation (DCE), a protocol that replaces ambiguous prompt-based scoring with atomic ``Y/N'' judgments, to enhance evaluation reliability. Our extensive experiments reveal that most UMMs exhibit severe world knowledge deficits and that performance degrades significantly with complex reasoning. Additionally, simple plug-in reasoning modules can partially mitigate these vulnerabilities, highlighting a promising direction for future research. These results highlight the importance of world-knowledge-based reasoning as a critical frontier for UMMs.

Although measuring held-out accuracy has been the primary approach to evaluate generalization, it often overestimates the performance of NLP models, while alternative approaches for evaluating models either focus on individual tasks or on specific behaviors. Inspired by principles of behavioral testing in software engineering, we introduce CheckList, a task-agnostic methodology for testing NLP models. CheckList includes a matrix of general linguistic capabilities and test types that facilitate comprehensive test ideation, as well as a software tool to generate a large and diverse number of test cases quickly. We illustrate the utility of CheckList with tests for three tasks, identifying critical failures in both commercial and state-of-art models. In a user study, a team responsible for a commercial sentiment analysis model found new and actionable bugs in an extensively tested model. In another user study, NLP practitioners with CheckList created twice as many tests, and found almost three times as many bugs as users without it.

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

Evaluating 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 .

Automated text evaluation has long been a central issue in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Recently, the field has shifted toward using Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators-a trend known as the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. While promising and easily adaptable across tasks, this approach has seen limited exploration in multilingual contexts. Existing multilingual studies often rely on proprietary models or require extensive training data for fine-tuning, raising concerns about cost, time, and efficiency. In this paper, we propose Checklist Engineering based LLM-as-a-Judge (CE-Judge), a training-free framework that uses checklist intuition for multilingual evaluation with an open-source model. Experiments across multiple languages and three benchmark datasets, under both pointwise and pairwise settings, show that our method generally surpasses the baselines and performs on par with the GPT-4o model.

Language models must be adapted to understand and follow user instructions. Reinforcement learning is widely used to facilitate this -- typically using fixed criteria such as "helpfulness" and "harmfulness". In our work, we instead propose using flexible, instruction-specific criteria as a means of broadening the impact that reinforcement learning can have in eliciting instruction following. We propose "Reinforcement Learning from Checklist Feedback" (RLCF). From instructions, we extract checklists and evaluate how well responses satisfy each item - using both AI judges and specialized verifier programs - then combine these scores to compute rewards for RL. We compare RLCF with other alignment methods applied to a strong instruction following model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) on five widely-studied benchmarks -- RLCF is the only method to improve performance on every benchmark, including a 4-point boost in hard satisfaction rate on FollowBench, a 6-point increase on InFoBench, and a 3-point rise in win rate on Arena-Hard. These results establish checklist feedback as a key tool for improving language models' support of queries that express a multitude of needs.

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.

Deterministic inference is a comforting ideal in classical software: the same program on the same input should always produce the same output. As large language models move into real-world deployment, this ideal has been imported wholesale into inference stacks. Recent work from the Thinking Machines Lab has presented a detailed analysis of nondeterminism in LLM inference, showing how batch-invariant kernels and deterministic attention can enforce bitwise-identical outputs, positioning deterministic inference as a prerequisite for reproducibility and enterprise reliability. In this paper, we take the opposite stance. We argue that, for LLMs, deterministic inference kills. It kills the ability to model uncertainty, suppresses emergent abilities, collapses reasoning into a single brittle path, and weakens safety alignment by hiding tail risks. LLMs implement conditional distributions over outputs, not fixed functions. Collapsing these distributions to a single canonical completion may appear reassuring, but it systematically conceals properties central to artificial cognition. We instead advocate Stochastic CHAOS, treating distributional variability as a signal to be measured and controlled. Empirically, we show that deterministic inference is systematically misleading. Single-sample deterministic evaluation underestimates both capability and fragility, masking failure probability under paraphrases and noise. Phase-like transitions associated with emergent abilities disappear under greedy decoding. Multi-path reasoning degrades when forced onto deterministic backbones, reducing accuracy and diagnostic insight. Finally, deterministic evaluation underestimates safety risk by hiding rare but dangerous behaviors that appear only under multi-sample evaluation.

LLM agents struggle with regulatory audit replay: when asked to reproduce a flagged transaction decision with identical inputs, many deployments fail to return consistent results. We introduce the Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), a framework for measuring trajectory determinism, decision determinism, and evidence-conditioned faithfulness in tool-using agents deployed in financial services. Across 4,700+ agentic runs (7 models, 4 providers, 3 financial benchmarks with 50 cases each at T=0.0), we find that decision determinism and task accuracy are not detectably correlated (r = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.31], p = 0.63, n = 21 configurations): models can be deterministic without being accurate, and accurate without being deterministic. Because neither metric predicts the other in our sample, both must be measured independently, which is precisely what DFAH provides. Small models (7-20B) achieve near-perfect determinism through rigid pattern matching at the cost of accuracy (20-42%), while frontier models show moderate determinism (50-96%) with variable accuracy. No model achieves both perfect determinism and high accuracy, supporting DFAH's multi-dimensional measurement approach. We provide three financial benchmarks (compliance triage, portfolio constraints, and DataOps exceptions; 50 cases each) together with an open-source stress-test harness. Across these benchmarks and DFAH evaluation settings, Tier 1 models with schema-first architectures achieved determinism levels consistent with audit replay requirements.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatic evaluation with large language models, commonly known as LLM-as-a-judge, is now standard across reasoning and alignment tasks. Despite evaluating many samples in deployment, these evaluators typically (i) treat each case independently, missing the opportunity to accumulate experience, and (ii) rely on a single fixed prompt for all cases, neglecting the need for sample-specific evaluation criteria. We introduce Learning While Evaluating (LWE), a framework that allows evaluators to improve sequentially at inference time without requiring training or validation sets. LWE maintains an evolving meta-prompt that (i) produces sample-specific evaluation instructions and (ii) refines itself through self-generated feedback. Furthermore, we propose Selective LWE, which updates the meta-prompt only on self-inconsistent cases, focusing computation where it matters most. This selective approach retains the benefits of sequential learning while being far more cost-effective. Across two pairwise comparison benchmarks, Selective LWE outperforms strong baselines, empirically demonstrating that evaluators can improve during sequential testing with a simple selective update, learning most from the cases they struggle with.

This paper introduces ExpertLongBench, an expert-level benchmark containing 11 tasks from 9 domains that reflect realistic expert workflows and applications. Beyond question answering, the application-driven tasks in ExpertLongBench demand long-form outputs that can exceed 5,000 tokens and strict adherence to domain-specific requirements. Notably, each task in ExpertLongBench includes a rubric, designed or validated by domain experts, to specify task requirements and guide output evaluation. Furthermore, we propose CLEAR, an evaluation framework that supports accurate evaluation of long-form model outputs in our benchmark. To achieve fine-grained, expert-aligned evaluation, CLEAR derives checklists from both model outputs and references by extracting information corresponding to items in the task-specific rubric. Checklist items for model outputs are then compared with corresponding items for reference outputs to assess their correctness, enabling grounded evaluation. We benchmark 11 large language models (LLMs) and analyze components in CLEAR, showing that (1) existing LLMs, with the top performer achieving only a 26.8% F1 score, require significant improvement for expert-level tasks; (2) models can generate content corresponding to the required aspects, though often not accurately; and (3) accurate checklist extraction and comparison in CLEAR can be achieved by open-weight models for more scalable and low-cost usage.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has catalyzed a paradigm shift in programming, giving rise to "vibe coding", where users can build complete projects and even control computers using natural language instructions. This paradigm has driven automated webpage development, but it introduces a new requirement about how to automatically verify whether the web functionalities are reliably implemented. Existing works struggle to adapt, relying on static visual similarity or predefined checklists that constrain their utility in open-ended environments. Furthermore, they overlook a vital aspect of software quality, namely latent logical constraints. To address these gaps, we introduce WebTestBench, a benchmark for evaluating end-to-end automated web testing. WebTestBench encompasses comprehensive dimensions across diverse web application categories. We decompose the testing process into two cascaded sub-tasks, checklist generation and defect detection, and propose WebTester, a baseline framework for this task. Evaluating popular LLMs with WebTester reveals severe challenges, including insufficient test completeness, detection bottlenecks, and long-horizon interaction unreliability. These findings expose a substantial gap between current computer-use agent capabilities and industrial-grade deployment demands. We hope that WebTestBench provides valuable insights and guidance for advancing end-to-end automated web testing. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/friedrichor/WebTestBench.

Evaluating LLMs is challenging, as benchmark scores often fail to capture models' real-world usefulness. Instead, users often rely on ``vibe-testing'': informal experience-based evaluation, such as comparing models on coding tasks related to their own workflow. While prevalent, vibe-testing is often too ad hoc and unstructured to analyze or reproduce at scale. In this work, we study how vibe-testing works in practice and then formalize it to support systematic analysis. We first analyze two empirical resources: (1) a survey of user evaluation practices, and (2) a collection of in-the-wild model comparison reports from blogs and social media. Based on these resources, we formalize vibe-testing as a two-part process: users personalize both what they test and how they judge responses. We then introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation pipeline that follows this formulation by generating personalized prompts and comparing model outputs using user-aware subjective criteria. In experiments on coding benchmarks, we find that combining personalized prompts and user-aware evaluation can change which model is preferred, reflecting the role of vibe-testing in practice. These findings suggest that formalized vibe-testing can serve as a useful approach for bridging benchmark scores and real-world experience.

Instruction-following is a foundational capability of large language models (LLMs), with its improvement hinging on scalable and accurate feedback from judge models. However, the reliability of current judge models in instruction-following remains underexplored due to several deficiencies of existing meta-evaluation benchmarks, such as their insufficient data coverage and oversimplified pairwise evaluation paradigms that misalign with model optimization scenarios. To this end, we propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following that covers diverse instruction and constraint types. For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses based on instruction-following quality. This design enables a listwise evaluation paradigm that assesses the capabilities of judge models to rank multiple responses, which is essential in guiding model alignment. Extensive experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models and demonstrate that our benchmark achieves a stronger positive correlation with downstream task performance compared to existing benchmarks. Our codes and data are available at https://github.com/thu-coai/IF-RewardBench.

Large language models (LLMs) combined with retrieval augmented generation have enabled the deployment of domain-specific chatbots, but these systems remain prone to generating unsupported or incorrect answers. Reliable evaluation is therefore critical, yet manual review is costly and existing frameworks often depend on curated test sets and static metrics, limiting scalability. We propose an end-to-end automatic evaluator designed to substantially reduce human effort. Our system generates Q\&A pairs directly from the underlying knowledge base, uses LLMs to judge chatbot responses against reference answers, and applies confidence-based filtering to highlight uncertain cases. Applied to a Vietnamese news dataset, the evaluator achieves high agreement with human judgments while significantly lowering review overhead. The framework is modular and language-agnostic, making it readily adaptable to diverse domains. This work introduces a practical, scalable solution for evaluating chatbots with minimal reliance on manual intervention.

We introduce SpreadsheetBench, a challenging spreadsheet manipulation benchmark exclusively derived from real-world scenarios, designed to immerse current large language models (LLMs) in the actual workflow of spreadsheet users. Unlike existing benchmarks that rely on synthesized queries and simplified spreadsheet files, SpreadsheetBench is built from 912 real questions gathered from online Excel forums, which reflect the intricate needs of users. The associated spreadsheets from the forums contain a variety of tabular data such as multiple tables, non-standard relational tables, and abundant non-textual elements. Furthermore, we propose a more reliable evaluation metric akin to online judge platforms, where multiple spreadsheet files are created as test cases for each instruction, ensuring the evaluation of robust solutions capable of handling spreadsheets with varying values. Our comprehensive evaluation of various LLMs under both single-round and multi-round inference settings reveals a substantial gap between the state-of-the-art (SOTA) models and human performance, highlighting the benchmark's difficulty.

Automated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to benchmark the robustness of safety against adversarial attacks. However, we show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming: diverse victim models exhibit distinct generation styles, attacks distort output patterns, and semantic ambiguity varies significantly across jailbreak scenarios. Through a comprehensive audit using 6642 human-verified labels, we reveal that the unpredictable interaction of these shifts often causes judge performance to degrade to near random chance. This stands in stark contrast to the high human agreement reported in prior work. Crucially, we find that many attacks inflate their success rates by exploiting judge insufficiencies rather than eliciting genuinely harmful content. To enable more reliable evaluation, we propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures. Data available at: https://github.com/SchwinnL/LLMJudgeReliability.

We present AutoBench, a fully automated and self-sustaining framework for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) through reciprocal peer assessment. This paper provides a rigorous scientific validation of the AutoBench methodology, originally developed as an open-source project by eZecute S.R.L.. Unlike static benchmarks that suffer from test-set contamination and limited adaptability, AutoBench dynamically generates novel evaluation tasks while models alternately serve as question generators, contestants, and judges across diverse domains. An iterative weighting mechanism amplifies the influence of consistently reliable evaluators, aggregating peer judgments into consensus-based rankings that reflect collective model agreement. Our experiments demonstrate strong correlations with established benchmarks including MMLU-Pro and GPQA (respectively 78\% and 63\%), validating this peer-driven evaluation paradigm. The multi-judge design significantly outperforms single-judge baselines, confirming that distributed evaluation produces more robust and human-consistent assessments. AutoBench offers a scalable, contamination-resistant alternative to static benchmarks for the continuous evaluation of evolving language models.

The extraction of a small number of relevant insights from vast amounts of data is a crucial component of data-driven decision-making. However, accomplishing this task requires considerable technical skills, domain expertise, and human labor. This study explores the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the discovery of insights in data, leveraging recent advances in reasoning and code generation techniques. We propose a new evaluation methodology based on a "capture the flag" principle, measuring the ability of such models to recognize meaningful and pertinent information (flags) in a dataset. We further propose two proof-of-concept agents, with different inner workings, and compare their ability to capture such flags in a real-world sales dataset. While the work reported here is preliminary, our results are sufficiently interesting to mandate future exploration by the community.

While LLM-Based agents, which use external tools to solve complex problems, have made significant progress, benchmarking their ability is challenging, thereby hindering a clear understanding of their limitations. In this paper, we propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. Our evaluation framework includes an evaluation dataset and two evaluation modes. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. The two evaluation modes assess LLMs' ability with and without human assistance. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.

Exceptional mathematical reasoning ability is one of the key features that demonstrate the power of large language models (LLMs). How to comprehensively define and evaluate the mathematical abilities of LLMs, and even reflect the user experience in real-world scenarios, has emerged as a critical issue. Current benchmarks predominantly concentrate on problem-solving capabilities, which presents a substantial risk of model overfitting and fails to accurately represent genuine mathematical reasoning abilities. In this paper, we argue that if a model really understands a problem, it should be robustly and readily applied across a diverse array of tasks. Motivated by this, we introduce MATHCHECK, a well-designed checklist for testing task generalization and reasoning robustness, as well as an automatic tool to generate checklists efficiently. MATHCHECK includes multiple mathematical reasoning tasks and robustness test types to facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of both mathematical reasoning ability and behavior testing. Utilizing MATHCHECK, we develop MATHCHECK-GSM and MATHCHECK-GEO to assess mathematical textual reasoning and multi-modal reasoning capabilities, respectively, serving as upgraded versions of benchmarks including GSM8k, GeoQA, UniGeo, and Geometry3K. We adopt MATHCHECK-GSM and MATHCHECK-GEO to evaluate over 20 LLMs and 11 MLLMs, assessing their comprehensive mathematical reasoning abilities. Our results demonstrate that while frontier LLMs like GPT-4o continue to excel in various abilities on the checklist, many other model families exhibit a significant decline. Further experiments indicate that, compared to traditional math benchmarks, MATHCHECK better reflects true mathematical abilities and represents mathematical intelligence more linearly, thereby supporting our design. On our MATHCHECK, we can easily conduct detailed behavior analysis to deeply investigate models.

We introduce REAL, a benchmark and framework for multi-turn agent evaluations on deterministic simulations of real-world websites. REAL comprises high-fidelity, deterministic replicas of 11 widely-used websites across domains such as e-commerce, travel, communication, and professional networking. We also release a benchmark consisting of 112 practical tasks that mirror everyday complex user interactions requiring both accurate information retrieval and state-changing actions. All interactions occur within this fully controlled setting, eliminating safety risks and enabling robust, reproducible evaluation of agent capability and reliability. Our novel evaluation framework combines programmatic checks of website state for action-based tasks with rubric-guided LLM-based judgments for information retrieval. The framework supports both open-source and proprietary agent systems through a flexible evaluation harness that accommodates black-box commands within browser environments, allowing research labs to test agentic systems without modification. Our empirical results show that frontier language models achieve at most a 41% success rate on REAL, highlighting critical gaps in autonomous web navigation and task completion capabilities. Our framework supports easy integration of new tasks, reproducible evaluation, and scalable post-training data generation, marking a significant step forward in evaluating and advancing agent capabilities.

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

Various benchmarks have been proposed to assess the performance of large language models (LLMs) in different coding scenarios. We refer to them as code-related benchmarks. However, there are no systematic guidelines by which such a benchmark should be developed to ensure its quality, reliability, and reproducibility. We propose How2Bench, which is comprised of a 55- 55-criteria checklist as a set of guidelines to govern the development of code-related benchmarks comprehensively. Using HOW2BENCH, we profiled 274 benchmarks released within the past decade and found concerning issues. Nearly 70% of the benchmarks did not take measures for data quality assurance; over 10% did not even open source or only partially open source. Many highly cited benchmarks have loopholes, including duplicated samples, incorrect reference codes/tests/prompts, and unremoved sensitive/confidential information. Finally, we conducted a human study involving 49 participants, which revealed significant gaps in awareness of the importance of data quality, reproducibility, and transparency.

Rubric-based evaluation has become a prevailing paradigm for evaluating instruction following in large language models (LLMs). Despite its widespread use, the reliability of these rubric-level evaluations remains unclear, calling for meta-evaluation. However, prior meta-evaluation efforts largely focus on the response level, failing to assess the fine-grained judgment accuracy that rubric-based evaluation relies on. To bridge this gap, we introduce RubricEval. Our benchmark features: (1) the first rubric-level meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction following, (2) diverse instructions and responses spanning multiple categories and model sources, and (3) a substantial set of 3,486 quality-controlled instances, along with Easy/Hard subsets that better differentiates judge performance. Our experiments reveal that rubric-level judging remains far from solved: even GPT-4o, a widely adopted judge in instruction-following benchmarks, achieves only 55.97% on Hard subset. Considering evaluation paradigm, rubric-level evaluation outperforms checklist-level, explicit reasoning improves accuracy, and both together reduce inter-judge variance. Through our established rubric taxonomy, we further identify common failure modes and offer actionable insights for reliable instruction-following evaluation.

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

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

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.

Tool-augmented large language models have advanced from single-turn question answering to deep research workflows that iteratively plan queries, invoke external tools, and synthesize information to address complex information needs. Evaluating such workflows presents a fundamental challenge: reliance on live APIs introduces non-determinism, as tool invocations may yield different results across runs due to temporal drift, rate limiting, and evolving backend states. This variance undermines reproducibility and invalidates cross-system comparisons. We present ScholarGym, a simulation environment for reproducible evaluation of deep research workflows on academic literature. The environment decouples workflow components into query planning, tool invocation, and relevance assessment, enabling fine-grained analysis of each stage under controlled conditions. Built on a static corpus of 570K papers with deterministic retrieval, ScholarGym provides 2,536 queries with expert-annotated ground truth. Experiments across diverse backbone models reveal how reasoning capabilities, planning strategies, and selection mechanisms interact over iterative refinement.

Slides serve as a critical medium for conveying information in presentation-oriented scenarios such as academia, education, and business. Despite their importance, creating high-quality slide decks remains time-consuming and cognitively demanding. Recent advances in generative models, such as Nano Banana Pro, have made automated slide generation increasingly feasible. However, existing evaluations of slide generation are often coarse-grained and rely on holistic judgments, making it difficult to accurately assess model capabilities or track meaningful advances in the field. In practice, the lack of fine-grained, verifiable evaluation criteria poses a critical bottleneck for both research and real-world deployment. In this paper, we propose PresentBench, a fine-grained, rubric-based benchmark for evaluating automated real-world slide generation. It contains 238 evaluation instances, each supplemented with background materials required for slide creation. Moreover, we manually design an average of 54.1 checklist items per instance, each formulated as a binary question, to enable fine-grained, instance-specific evaluation of the generated slide decks. Extensive experiments show that PresentBench provides more reliable evaluation results than existing methods, and exhibits significantly stronger alignment with human preferences. Furthermore, our benchmark reveals that NotebookLM significantly outperforms other slide generation methods, highlighting substantial recent progress in this domain.

Checkboxes are critical in real-world document processing where the presence or absence of ticks directly informs data extraction and decision-making processes. Yet, despite the strong performance of Large Vision and Language Models across a wide range of tasks, they struggle with interpreting checkable content. This challenge becomes particularly pressing in industries where a single overlooked checkbox may lead to costly regulatory or contractual oversights. To address this gap, we introduce the CheckboxQA dataset, a targeted resource designed to evaluate and improve model performance on checkbox-related tasks. It reveals the limitations of current models and serves as a valuable tool for advancing document comprehension systems, with significant implications for applications in sectors such as legal tech and finance. The dataset is publicly available at: https://github.com/Snowflake-Labs/CheckboxQA

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.

The advances of large foundation models necessitate wide-coverage, low-cost, and zero-contamination benchmarks. Despite continuous exploration of language model evaluations, comprehensive studies on the evaluation of Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) remain limited. In this work, we introduce LMMS-EVAL, a unified and standardized multimodal benchmark framework with over 50 tasks and more than 10 models to promote transparent and reproducible evaluations. Although LMMS-EVAL offers comprehensive coverage, we find it still falls short in achieving low cost and zero contamination. To approach this evaluation trilemma, we further introduce LMMS-EVAL LITE, a pruned evaluation toolkit that emphasizes both coverage and efficiency. Additionally, we present Multimodal LIVEBENCH that utilizes continuously updating news and online forums to assess models' generalization abilities in the wild, featuring a low-cost and zero-contamination evaluation approach. In summary, our work highlights the importance of considering the evaluation trilemma and provides practical solutions to navigate the trade-offs in evaluating large multi-modal models, paving the way for more effective and reliable benchmarking of LMMs. We opensource our codebase and maintain leaderboard of LIVEBENCH at https://github.com/EvolvingLMMs-Lab/lmms-eval and https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmms-lab/LiveBench.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utility in real-world applications, exhibiting impressive capabilities in natural language processing and understanding. Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs as they can provide a comprehensive assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. However, current evaluation methods often overlook the inherent randomness of LLMs by employing deterministic generation strategies or relying on a single random sample, resulting in unaccounted sampling variance and unreliable benchmark score estimates. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical statistical model that provides a more comprehensive representation of the benchmarking process by incorporating both benchmark characteristics and LLM randomness. We show that leveraging multiple generations improves the accuracy of estimating the benchmark score and reduces variance. Multiple generations also allow us to define mathbb Pleft(correctright), a prompt-level difficulty score based on correct ratios, providing fine-grained insights into individual prompts. Additionally, we create a data map that visualizes difficulty and semantics of prompts, enabling error detection and quality control in benchmark construction.

Evaluating large language models at scale remains a practical bottleneck for many organizations. While existing evaluation frameworks work well for thousands of examples, they struggle when datasets grow to hundreds of thousands or millions of samples. This scale is common when assessing model behavior across diverse domains or conducting comprehensive regression testing. We present Spark-LLM-Eval, a distributed evaluation framework built natively on Apache Spark. The system treats evaluation as a data-parallel problem, partitioningexamplesacrossexecutorsandaggregatingresultswithproperstatistical accounting. Beyond raw throughput, we emphasize statistical rigor: every reported metric includes bootstrap confidence intervals, and model comparisons come with appropriate significance tests (paired t-tests, McNemar's test, or Wilcoxon signed-rank, depending on the metric type). The framework also addresses the cost problem inherent in LLM evaluation through content-addressable response caching backed by Delta Lake, which allows iterating on metric definitions without re-running inference. We describe the system architecture, the statistical methodology, and report benchmark results showing linear scaling with cluster size. The framework and all evaluation code are available as open source.

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as automated judges for evaluating generated text, their outputs are often costly, and highly sensitive to prompt design, language, and aggregation strategies, severely, which limits reproducibility. To address these challenges, we propose \textit{OmniScore}, a family of complementary, deterministic learned metrics developed using small size (<1B) parameter models. OmniScore approximates LLM-judge behavior while preserving the low latency and consistency of traditional model-based scoring. We trained the models large-scale synthetic supervision (sim564k instances, in 107 languages) and evaluated using 8,617 manually annotated instances. The OmniScore family supports reliable, multi-dimensional scores across a variety of settings, including reference-based, source-grounded, and hybrid evaluations. We evaluate these models across question answering (QA), translation, and summarization in 6 languages. Our results demonstrate that lightweight, deterministic learned metrics provide a highly practical and scalable alternative to frontier LLMs. Our models and datasets can be found at https://huggingface.co/collections/QCRI/omniscore

LLM-as-a-Judge has revolutionized AI evaluation by leveraging large language models for scalable assessments. However, as evaluands become increasingly complex, specialized, and multi-step, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge has become constrained by inherent biases, shallow single-pass reasoning, and the inability to verify assessments against real-world observations. This has catalyzed the transition to Agent-as-a-Judge, where agentic judges employ planning, tool-augmented verification, multi-agent collaboration, and persistent memory to enable more robust, verifiable, and nuanced evaluations. Despite the rapid proliferation of agentic evaluation systems, the field lacks a unified framework to navigate this shifting landscape. To bridge this gap, we present the first comprehensive survey tracing this evolution. Specifically, we identify key dimensions that characterize this paradigm shift and establish a developmental taxonomy. We organize core methodologies and survey applications across general and professional domains. Furthermore, we analyze frontier challenges and identify promising research directions, ultimately providing a clear roadmap for the next generation of agentic evaluation.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled agentic systems that translate natural language intent into executable scientific visualization (SciVis) tasks. Despite rapid progress, the community lacks a principled and reproducible benchmark for evaluating these emerging SciVis agents in realistic, multi-step analysis settings. We present SciVisAgentBench, a comprehensive and extensible benchmark for evaluating scientific data analysis and visualization agents. Our benchmark is grounded in a structured taxonomy spanning four dimensions: application domain, data type, complexity level, and visualization operation. It currently comprises 108 expert-crafted cases covering diverse SciVis scenarios. To enable reliable assessment, we introduce a multimodal outcome-centric evaluation pipeline that combines LLM-based judging with deterministic evaluators, including image-based metrics, code checkers, rule-based verifiers, and case-specific evaluators. We also conduct a validity study with 12 SciVis experts to examine the agreement between human and LLM judges. Using this framework, we evaluate representative SciVis agents and general-purpose coding agents to establish initial baselines and reveal capability gaps. SciVisAgentBench is designed as a living benchmark to support systematic comparison, diagnose failure modes, and drive progress in agentic SciVis. The benchmark is available at https://scivisagentbench.github.io/.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on final-answer correctness is the dominant paradigm. This approach, however, provides a coarse signal for model improvement and overlooks the quality of the underlying reasoning process. We argue that a more granular evaluation of reasoning offers a more effective path to building robust models. We decompose reasoning quality into two dimensions: relevance and coherence. Relevance measures if a step is grounded in the problem; coherence measures if it follows logically from prior steps. To measure these aspects reliably, we introduce causal stepwise evaluation (CaSE). This method assesses each reasoning step using only its preceding context, which avoids hindsight bias. We validate CaSE against human judgments on our new expert-annotated benchmarks, MRa-GSM8K and MRa-MATH. More importantly, we show that curating training data with CaSE-evaluated relevance and coherence directly improves final task performance. Our work provides a scalable framework for analyzing, debugging, and improving LLM reasoning, demonstrating the practical value of moving beyond validity checks.

Automated code review (CR) is a key application for Large Language Models (LLMs), but progress is hampered by a "reality gap": existing benchmarks evaluate models on isolated sub-tasks using simplified, context-poor data. This fails to reflect the holistic context-rich nature of real-world CR. To bridge this gap, we introduce CodeFuse-CR-Bench, the first comprehensiveness-aware benchmark for repository-level CR evaluation. CodeFuse-CR-Bench comprises 601 high-quality instances from 70 Python projects covering nine Pull-Request (PR) problem domains, where each instance provides rich, multi-faceted context including the associated issue, PR details, and repository state, enabling end-to-end evaluation. Beyond superficial metrics, we also propose a novel evaluation framework that combines rule-based checks for location and syntax with model-based judgments of review quality. We present the first large-scale assessment of state-of-the-art LLMs on this comprehensive CR task. Our results establish crucial baselines and reveal that (1) no single LLM dominates all aspects of CR; (2) Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves the highest comprehensive performance; and (3) different LLMs exhibit varying robustness to redundant context. These findings highlight the necessity of holistic, multi-dimensional evaluation and provide actionable insights for advancing truly intelligent yet practical CR assistants.

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.

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)

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

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

Evaluating the performance of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) models has become increasingly challenging, as large language model (LLM)-based GEC systems often produce corrections that diverge from provided gold references. This discrepancy undermines the reliability of traditional reference-based evaluation metrics. In this study, we propose a novel evaluation framework for GEC models, DSGram, integrating Semantic Coherence, Edit Level, and Fluency, and utilizing a dynamic weighting mechanism. Our framework employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in conjunction with large language models to ascertain the relative importance of various evaluation criteria. Additionally, we develop a dataset incorporating human annotations and LLM-simulated sentences to validate our algorithms and fine-tune more cost-effective models. Experimental results indicate that our proposed approach enhances the effectiveness of GEC model evaluations.

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) expands, the demand for reliable evaluations increases. Existing LLM evaluation benchmarks primarily rely on static datasets, making it challenging to assess model performance in dynamic interactions with users. Moreover, these benchmarks often depend on specific background knowledge, complicating the measurement of a model's logical reasoning capabilities. Other dynamic evaluation methods based on strong models or manual efforts may introduce biases and incur high costs and time demands, hindering large-scale application. To address these issues, we propose TurtleBench. TurtleBench collects real user guesses from our online Turtle Soup Puzzle platform that we developed. This approach allows for the relatively dynamic generation of evaluation datasets, mitigating the risk of model cheating while aligning assessments more closely with genuine user needs for reasoning capabilities, thus enhancing the reliability of evaluations. TurtleBench includes 1,532 user guesses along with the correctness of guesses after annotation. Using this dataset, we thoroughly evaluated nine of the most advanced LLMs available today. Notably, the OpenAI o1 series models did not achieve leading results in these evaluations. We propose several hypotheses for further research, such as "the latent reasoning of o1 utilizes trivial Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques" and "increasing CoT length not only provides reasoning benefits but also incurs noise costs."

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring robust safety measures is paramount. To meet this crucial need, we propose SALAD-Bench, a safety benchmark specifically designed for evaluating LLMs, attack, and defense methods. Distinguished by its breadth, SALAD-Bench transcends conventional benchmarks through its large scale, rich diversity, intricate taxonomy spanning three levels, and versatile functionalities.SALAD-Bench is crafted with a meticulous array of questions, from standard queries to complex ones enriched with attack, defense modifications and multiple-choice. To effectively manage the inherent complexity, we introduce an innovative evaluators: the LLM-based MD-Judge for QA pairs with a particular focus on attack-enhanced queries, ensuring a seamless, and reliable evaluation. Above components extend SALAD-Bench from standard LLM safety evaluation to both LLM attack and defense methods evaluation, ensuring the joint-purpose utility. Our extensive experiments shed light on the resilience of LLMs against emerging threats and the efficacy of contemporary defense tactics. Data and evaluator are released under https://github.com/OpenSafetyLab/SALAD-BENCH. Warning: this paper includes examples that may be offensive or harmful.

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.

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.

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

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has shown promising practical results. However, their low interpretability often leads to errors in unforeseen circumstances, limiting their utility. Many works have focused on creating comprehensive evaluation systems, but previous benchmarks have primarily assessed problem-solving abilities while neglecting the response's uncertainty, which may result in unreliability. Recent methods for measuring LLM reliability are resource-intensive and unable to test black-box models. To address this, we propose UBENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM reliability. UBENCH includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. Experimental results show that UBENCH has achieved state-of-the-art performance, while its single-sampling method significantly saves computational resources compared to baseline methods that require multiple samplings. Additionally, based on UBENCH, we evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding, closely followed by GPT-4. We also explore the impact of Chain-of-Thought prompts, role-playing prompts, option order, and temperature on LLM reliability, analyzing the varying effects on different LLMs.

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check. Vibe check is tied to real-world human preference and goes beyond functionality: the solution should feel right, read cleanly, preserve intent, and remain correct. However, current code evaluation remains anchored to pass@k and captures only functional correctness, overlooking the non-functional instructions that users routinely apply. In this paper, we hypothesize that instruction following is the missing piece underlying vibe check that represents human preference in coding besides functional correctness. To quantify models' code instruction following capabilities with measurable signals, we present VeriCode, a taxonomy of 30 verifiable code instructions together with corresponding deterministic verifiers. We use the taxonomy to augment established evaluation suites, resulting in Vibe Checker, a testbed to assess both code instruction following and functional correctness. Upon evaluating 31 leading LLMs, we show that even the strongest models struggle to comply with multiple instructions and exhibit clear functional regression. Most importantly, a composite score of functional correctness and instruction following correlates the best with human preference, with the latter emerging as the primary differentiator on real-world programming tasks. Our work identifies core factors of the vibe check, providing a concrete path for benchmarking and developing models that better align with user preferences in coding.

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

Comprehensive evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) is an open research problem. Existing evaluations rely on deterministic point estimates generated via greedy decoding. However, we find that deterministic evaluations fail to capture the whole output distribution of a model, yielding inaccurate estimations of model capabilities. This is particularly problematic in critical contexts such as unlearning and alignment, where precise model evaluations are crucial. To remedy this, we introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework for LLMs. Namely, we propose novel metrics with high probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model. Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment. Our experimental analysis reveals that deterministic evaluations falsely indicate successful unlearning and alignment, whereas our probabilistic evaluations better capture model capabilities. We show how to overcome challenges associated with probabilistic outputs in a case study on unlearning by introducing (1) a novel loss based on entropy optimization, and (2) adaptive temperature scaling. We demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances unlearning in probabilistic settings on recent benchmarks. Overall, our proposed shift from point estimates to probabilistic evaluations of output distributions represents an important step toward comprehensive evaluations of LLMs. Code available at https://www.cs.cit.tum.de/daml/probabilistic-unlearning/.

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

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

While slow-thinking large language models (LLMs) exhibit reflection-like reasoning, commonly referred to as the "aha moment:, their ability to generate informative critiques and refine prior solutions remains limited. In this paper, we introduce Double-Checker, a principled framework designed to enhance the reasoning capabilities of slow-thinking LLMs by fostering explicit self-critique and iterative refinement of their previous solutions. By fine-tuning on our curated 1,730 self-critical instances, Double-Checker empowers long-CoT LLMs to iteratively critique and refine their outputs during inference until they evaluate their solutions as correct under self-generated critiques. We validate the efficacy of Double-Checker across a comprehensive suite of reasoning benchmarks, demonstrating that iterative self-critique significantly enhances the reasoning capabilities of long-CoT LLMs. Notably, our Double-Checker increases the pass@1 performance on challenging AIME benchmarks from 4.4% to 18.2% compared to the original long-CoT LLMs. These results highlight a promising direction for developing more trustworthy and effective LLMs capable of structured self-critique. Our codes and data are available at https://github.com/XinXU-USTC/DoubleChecker

Among the most important properties of algorithms investigated in computer science are soundness, completeness, and complexity. These properties, however, are rarely analyzed for the vast collection of recently proposed methods for planning with large language models. In this work, we alleviate this gap. We analyse these properties of using LLMs for planning and highlight that recent trends abandon both soundness and completeness for the sake of inefficiency. We propose a significantly more efficient approach that can, at the same time, maintain both soundness and completeness. We exemplify on four representative search problems, comparing to the LLM-based solutions from the literature that attempt to solve these problems. We show that by using LLMs to produce the code for the search components we can solve the entire datasets with 100\% accuracy with only a few calls to the LLM. We argue for a responsible use of compute resources; urging research community to investigate sound and complete LLM-based approaches that uphold efficiency.

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

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.

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 this paper, we offer a guide for researchers on evaluating reasoning in language models, building the case that reasoning should be assessed through evidence of adaptive, multi-step search rather than final-answer accuracy alone. Under an evaluation-oriented definition, reasoning requires selecting intermediate steps and halting according to input-dependent conditions, which we formalize as a search-like procedure. We show that single forward passes in scalable architectures are structurally limited in their ability to realize such variable-depth computation, motivating intermediate decoding and externalized reasoning traces as appropriate evaluation interfaces. Central to our argument is that final-answer accuracy alone is an insufficient measure of reasoning, because it provides little ability to diagnose or debug the underlying processes that produce individual solutions in frontier models. We therefore argue for a shift toward process-based evaluation, in which reasoning is assessed through the faithfulness and validity of intermediate reasoning traces as first-class evaluation targets.

Automatic evaluation benchmarks such as MT-Bench, Arena-Hard, and Auto-Arena are seeing growing adoption for the evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing research has primarily focused on approximating human-based model rankings using limited data and LLM-as-a-Judge. However, the fundamental premise of these studies, which attempts to replicate human rankings, is flawed. Specifically, these benchmarks typically offer only overall scores, limiting their utility to leaderboard rankings, rather than providing feedback that can guide model optimization and support model profiling. Therefore, we advocate for an evaluation paradigm shift from approximating human-based model rankings to providing feedback with analytical value. To this end, we introduce Feedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results, thereby enabling thorough identification of a model's specific strengths and weaknesses. Such feedback not only supports the targeted optimization of the model but also enhances the understanding of its behavior. Feedbacker comprises three key components: an extensible tree-based query taxonomy builder, an automated query synthesis scheme, and a suite of visualization and analysis tools. Furthermore, we propose a novel LLM-as-a-Judge method: PC2 (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) pointwise evaluation. This method derives evaluation criteria by pre-comparing the differences between several auxiliary responses, achieving the accuracy of pairwise evaluation while maintaining the time complexity of pointwise evaluation. Finally, leveraging the evaluation results of 17 mainstream LLMs, we demonstrate the usage of Feedbacker and highlight its effectiveness and potential. Our homepage project is available at https://liudan193.github.io/Feedbacker.

Modern AI systems rely on vector embeddings stored and searched using floating-point arithmetic. While effective for approximate similarity search, this design introduces fundamental non-determinism: identical models, inputs, and code can produce different memory states and retrieval results across hardware architectures (e.g., x86 vs. ARM). This prevents replayability and safe deployment, leading to silent data divergence that prevents post-hoc verification and compromises audit trails in regulated sectors. We present Valori, a deterministic AI memory substrate that replaces floating-point memory operations with fixed-point arithmetic (Q16.16) and models memory as a replayable state machine. Valori guarantees bit-identical memory states, snapshots, and search results across platforms. We demonstrate that non-determinism arises before indexing or retrieval and show how Valori enforces determinism at the memory boundary. Our results suggest that deterministic memory is a necessary primitive for trustworthy AI systems. The reference implementation is open-source and available at https://github.com/varshith-Git/Valori-Kernel (archived at https://zenodo.org/records/18022660).

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

As LLMs evolve on a daily basis, there is an urgent need for a trustworthy evaluation method that can provide robust evaluation results in a timely fashion. Currently, as static benchmarks are prone to contamination concerns, users tend to trust human voting platforms, such as Chatbot Arena. However, human annotations require extensive manual efforts. To provide an automatic, robust, and trustworthy evaluation framework, we innovatively propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents. Firstly, an examiner LLM devises queries. Then, a pair of candidate LLMs engage in a multi-round peer-battle around the query, during which the LLM's true performance gaps become visible. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collectively discuss and determine the winner, which alleviates bias and promotes fairness. In our extensive experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences, providing a promising alternative to human evaluation platforms.

The use of LLMs as automated judges ("LLM-as-a-judge") is now widespread, yet standard judges suffer from a multitude of reliability issues. To address these challenges, we introduce Verdict, an open-source library for scaling judge-time compute to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of automated evaluators. Verdict leverages the composition of modular reasoning units (such as verification, debate, and aggregation) and increased inference-time compute to improve LLM judge quality. Across a variety of challenging tasks such as content moderation, fact-checking, and hallucination detection, Verdict judges achieves performance competitive with orders-of-magnitude larger fine-tuned judges, prompted judges, and reasoning models. Our framework establishes a foundation for scalable, interpretable, and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for both researchers and practitioners.

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.

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

Evaluations (Evals) are a deployment bottleneck for real-world AI applications: public benchmarks rarely match a team's users, context, or policies, and human review is often tedious to scale. Motivated by our work with AI applications in the public sector, this project addresses recurring evaluation challenges encountered when applications must satisfy local policy and governance requirements. We present Kaleidoscope, an integrated workflow for contextual functional evaluation that links persona-based test generation, contextualized rubrics, and human review for reliability-gated automated scoring. Generated test cases are scored against application-specific rubrics; human annotations provide reviewable labels; and LLM judges automate scoring only when their agreement with those labels meets a configured threshold. Kaleidoscope is therefore a practical, inspectable, iterative workflow for product teams. We report early evidence from a three-week pilot across four organizational use cases and custom-rubric judge experiments on 108 annotated Q\&A pairs spanning four domains and 14 evaluation dimensions. The results highlight useful features for end-to-end reliable, automated scoring.

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the required components and structure of effective reasoning traces remain understudied. Consequently, previous approaches often (1) constrain reasoning traces to hand-designed components, such as a list of criteria, reference answers, or verification questions and (2) structure them such that planning is intertwined with the reasoning for evaluation. In this work, we propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge that first generates an unconstrained evaluation plan, followed by its execution, and then the final judgment. In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimizes over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions, leading to better final verdicts. Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench (with a score of 93.9), despite being trained on fewer amount of, and synthetically generated, preference pairs. Additional experiments on other benchmarks like RM-Bench, JudgeBench, and FollowBenchEval further highlight the utility of both planning and reasoning for building robust LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning models.

Instruction following is a fundamental ability of Large Language Models (LLMs), requiring their generated outputs to follow multiple constraints imposed in input instructions. Numerous studies have attempted to enhance this ability through preference optimization or reinforcement learning based on reward signals from LLM-as-a-Judge. However, existing evaluation models for instruction following still possess many deficiencies, such as substantial costs and unreliable assessments. To this end, we propose IF-CRITIC, an LLM critic that can provide efficient and reliable assessments of constraint following in the instructions. We first develop a checklist generator to decompose instructions and generate constraint checklists. With the assistance of the checklists, we collect high-quality critique training data through a multi-stage critique filtering mechanism and employ a constraint-level preference optimization method to train IF-CRITIC. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the evaluation performance of IF-CRITIC can beat strong LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, including Deepseek-R1 and o4-mini. With the scalable reward signals provided by IF-CRITIC, LLMs can achieve substantial performance gains in instruction-following optimization under lower computational overhead compared to strong LLM critic baselines.

Structured financial audit verification is difficult for language-model agents because correctness depends on structured evidence rather than text alone. A model must link reported facts to taxonomy concepts, traverse calculation or dimensional relations, and recompute expected values before applying an audit rule. We propose AuditFlow, a graph-grounded multi-agent framework that separates adaptive search from deterministic verification. AuditFlow builds a symbolic environment from a static US-GAAP taxonomy graph and a dynamic XBRL filing graph, and exposes it through typed tools for fact retrieval, taxonomy traversal, numerical checking, and rule evaluation. Two junior auditors inspect each case from regulatory and evidentiary views, while a senior auditor resolves disagreements and can request further investigation. The final reports are fused through evidential aggregation to produce an audit verdict, expected value, evidence trail, and trustworthiness score. On a FinAuditing-derived FinMR sample, AuditFlow reaches 82.09% joint audit accuracy under GPT-5.5, outperforming the strongest baseline by 14.93 points. Removing deterministic checks drops accuracy to 17.91%, showing that the symbolic environment performs the verification step that the model cannot reliably replace.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score c(φ) = p(φ) + p(lnotφ) quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a deterministic elicitation protocol via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction (E[v_{neg}]{=}0.025) but only 7.4% coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches 79.4% coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 (ρ{=}0.97). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.

The emergence of LLM-based agents represents a paradigm shift in AI, enabling autonomous systems to plan, reason, use tools, and maintain memory while interacting with dynamic environments. This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of evaluation methodologies for these increasingly capable agents. We systematically analyze evaluation benchmarks and frameworks across four critical dimensions: (1) fundamental agent capabilities, including planning, tool use, self-reflection, and memory; (2) application-specific benchmarks for web, software engineering, scientific, and conversational agents; (3) benchmarks for generalist agents; and (4) frameworks for evaluating agents. Our analysis reveals emerging trends, including a shift toward more realistic, challenging evaluations with continuously updated benchmarks. We also identify critical gaps that future research must address-particularly in assessing cost-efficiency, safety, and robustness, and in developing fine-grained, and scalable evaluation methods. This survey maps the rapidly evolving landscape of agent evaluation, reveals the emerging trends in the field, identifies current limitations, and proposes directions for future research.

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm promises scalable rubric-based evaluation, yet aligning frozen black-box models with human standards remains a challenge due to inherent generation stochasticity. We reframe judge alignment as a criteria transfer problem and isolate three recurrent failure modes: rubric instability caused by prompt sensitivity, unverifiable reasoning that lacks auditable evidence, and scale misalignment with human grading boundaries. To address these issues, we introduce RULERS (Rubric Unification, Locking, and Evidence-anchored Robust Scoring), a compiler-executor framework that transforms natural language rubrics into executable specifications. RULERS operates by compiling criteria into versioned immutable bundles, enforcing structured decoding with deterministic evidence verification, and applying lightweight Wasserstein-based post-hoc calibration, all without updating model parameters. Extensive experiments on essay and summarization benchmarks demonstrate that RULERS significantly outperforms representative baselines in human agreement, maintains strong stability against adversarial rubric perturbations, and enables smaller models to rival larger proprietary judges. Overall, our results suggest that reliable LLM judging requires executable rubrics, verifiable evidence, and calibrated scales rather than prompt phrasing alone. Code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

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.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) demands robust, unbiased, and scalable evaluation methods. However, human annotations are costly to scale, model-based evaluations are susceptible to stylistic biases, and target-answer-based benchmarks are vulnerable to data contamination and cheating. To address these limitations, we propose StructTest, a novel benchmark that evaluates LLMs on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs, providing an unbiased, cost-effective, and difficult-to-cheat evaluation framework. Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets. By testing structured outputs across diverse domains including Summarization, Code, HTML, and Math, and evaluating 17 popular LLMs, we demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o, establishing it as a robust proxy for measuring reasoning capabilities. We believe StructTest offers a critical and complementary approach to achieving objective and comprehensive model evaluation.

Autoformalization plays a crucial role in formal mathematical reasoning by enabling the automatic translation of natural language statements into formal languages. While recent advances using large language models (LLMs) have shown promising results, methods for automatically evaluating autoformalization remain underexplored. As one moves to more complex domains (e.g., advanced mathematics), human evaluation requires significant time and domain expertise, especially as the complexity of the underlying statements and background knowledge increases. LLM-as-a-judge presents a promising approach for automating such evaluation. However, existing methods typically employ coarse-grained and generic evaluation criteria, which limit their effectiveness for advanced formal mathematical reasoning, where quality hinges on nuanced, multi-granular dimensions. In this work, we take a step toward addressing this gap by introducing a systematic, automatic method to evaluate autoformalization tasks. The proposed method is based on an epistemically and formally grounded ensemble (EFG) of LLM judges, defined on criteria encompassing logical preservation (LP), mathematical consistency (MC), formal validity (FV), and formal quality (FQ), resulting in a transparent assessment that accounts for different contributing factors. We validate the proposed framework to serve as a proxy for autoformalization assessment within the domain of formal mathematics. Overall, our experiments demonstrate that the EFG ensemble of LLM judges is a suitable emerging proxy for evaluation, more strongly correlating with human assessments than a coarse-grained model, especially when assessing formal qualities. These findings suggest that LLM-as-judges, especially when guided by a well-defined set of atomic properties, could offer a scalable, interpretable, and reliable support for evaluating formal mathematical reasoning.

Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism, typically focusing on a single output per example. This limits our understanding of LLM performance variability in real-world applications. Our study addresses this issue by exploring key questions about the performance differences between greedy decoding and sampling, identifying benchmarks' consistency regarding non-determinism, and examining unique model behaviors. Through extensive experiments, we observe that greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks. We also observe consistent performance across different LLM sizes and alignment methods, noting that alignment can reduce sampling variance. Moreover, our best-of-N sampling approach demonstrates that smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo, highlighting the untapped potential of smaller LLMs. This research shows the importance of considering non-determinism in LLM evaluations and provides insights for future LLM development and evaluation.

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.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine is crucial because medical applications require high accuracy with little room for error. Current medical benchmarks have three main types: medical exam-based, comprehensive medical, and specialized assessments. However, these benchmarks have limitations in question design (mostly multiple-choice), data sources (often not derived from real clinical scenarios), and evaluation methods (poor assessment of complex reasoning). To address these issues, we present LLMEval-Med, a new benchmark covering five core medical areas, including 2,996 questions created from real-world electronic health records and expert-designed clinical scenarios. We also design an automated evaluation pipeline, incorporating expert-developed checklists into our LLM-as-Judge framework. Furthermore, our methodology validates machine scoring through human-machine agreement analysis, dynamically refining checklists and prompts based on expert feedback to ensure reliability. We evaluate 13 LLMs across three categories (specialized medical models, open-source models, and closed-source models) on LLMEval-Med, providing valuable insights for the safe and effective deployment of LLMs in medical domains. The dataset is released in https://github.com/llmeval/LLMEval-Med.

Language models can distinguish between testing and deployment phases -- a capability known as evaluation awareness. This has significant safety and policy implications, potentially undermining the reliability of evaluations that are central to AI governance frameworks and voluntary industry commitments. In this paper, we study evaluation awareness in Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct. We show that linear probes can separate real-world evaluation and deployment prompts, suggesting that current models internally represent this distinction. We also find that current safety evaluations are correctly classified by the probes, suggesting that they already appear artificial or inauthentic to models. Our findings underscore the importance of ensuring trustworthy evaluations and understanding deceptive capabilities. More broadly, our work showcases how model internals may be leveraged to support blackbox methods in safety audits, especially for future models more competent at evaluation awareness and deception.

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.

Since the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) popularized by the release of GPT-3 and ChatGPT, LLMs have shown remarkable promise in programming-related tasks. While code generation using LLMs has become a popular field of research, code evaluation using LLMs remains under-explored. In this paper, we focus on LLM-based code evaluation and attempt to fill in the existing gaps. We propose multi-agentic novel approaches using question-specific rubrics tailored to the problem statement, arguing that these perform better for logical assessment than the existing approaches that use question-agnostic rubrics. To address the lack of suitable evaluation datasets, we introduce two datasets: a Data Structures and Algorithms dataset containing 150 student submissions from a popular Data Structures and Algorithms practice website, and an Object Oriented Programming dataset comprising 80 student submissions from undergraduate computer science courses. In addition to using standard metrics (Spearman Correlation, Cohen's Kappa), we additionally propose a new metric called as Leniency, which quantifies evaluation strictness relative to expert assessment. Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that question-specific rubrics significantly enhance logical assessment of code in educational settings, providing better feedback aligned with instructional goals beyond mere syntactic correctness.

Evaluation is the baton for the development of large language models. Current evaluations typically employ a single-item assessment paradigm for each atomic test objective, which struggles to discern whether a model genuinely possesses the required capabilities or merely memorizes/guesses the answers to specific questions. To this end, we propose a novel evaluation framework referred to as StructEval. Starting from an atomic test objective, StructEval deepens and broadens the evaluation by conducting a structured assessment across multiple cognitive levels and critical concepts, and therefore offers a comprehensive, robust and consistent evaluation for LLMs. Experiments on three widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that StructEval serves as a reliable tool for resisting the risk of data contamination and reducing the interference of potential biases, thereby providing more reliable and consistent conclusions regarding model capabilities. Our framework also sheds light on the design of future principled and trustworthy LLM evaluation protocols.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in code generation. However, how to reliably evaluate code generated by LLMs remains an unresolved problem. This paper presents CodeJudge, a code evaluation framework that leverages LLMs to evaluate the semantic correctness of generated code without the need for test cases. We investigate different ways to guide the LLM in performing "slow thinking" to arrive at an in-depth and reliable evaluation. We experimented with four LLMs as evaluators on four code generation datasets and five programming languages. The results show that CodeJudge significantly outperformed existing methods in most settings. Furthermore, compared with a SOTA GPT-3.5-based code evaluation method, CodeJudge achieved better results even when using a much smaller model, Llama-3-8B-Instruct. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub https://github.com/VichyTong/CodeJudge.

The critique capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for reasoning abilities, which can provide necessary suggestions (e.g., detailed analysis and constructive feedback). Therefore, how to evaluate the critique capacity of LLMs has drawn great attention and several critique benchmarks have been proposed. However, existing critique benchmarks usually have the following limitations: (1). Focusing on diverse reasoning tasks in general domains and insufficient evaluation on code tasks (e.g., only covering code generation task), where the difficulty of queries is relatively easy (e.g., the code queries of CriticBench are from Humaneval and MBPP). (2). Lacking comprehensive evaluation from different dimensions. To address these limitations, we introduce a holistic code critique benchmark for LLMs called CodeCriticBench. Specifically, our CodeCriticBench includes two mainstream code tasks (i.e., code generation and code QA) with different difficulties. Besides, the evaluation protocols include basic critique evaluation and advanced critique evaluation for different characteristics, where fine-grained evaluation checklists are well-designed for advanced settings. Finally, we conduct extensive experimental results of existing LLMs, which show the effectiveness of CodeCriticBench.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in autonomous information retrieval and report generation, showing great potential to assist humans in complex research tasks. Current evaluation frameworks primarily rely on LLM-generated references or LLM-derived evaluation dimensions. While these approaches offer scalability, they often lack the reliability of expert-verified content and struggle to provide objective, fine-grained assessments of critical dimensions. To bridge this gap, we introduce Wiki Live Challenge (WLC), a live benchmark that leverages the newest Wikipedia Good Articles (GAs) as expert-level references. Wikipedia's strict standards for neutrality, comprehensiveness, and verifiability serve as a great challenge for DRAs, with GAs representing the pinnacle of which. We curate a dataset of 100 recent Good Articles and propose Wiki Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising a fine-grained evaluation method with 39 criteria for writing quality and rigorous metrics for factual verifiability. Extensive experiments on various DRA systems demonstrate a significant gap between current DRAs and human expert-level Wikipedia articles, validating the effectiveness of WLC in advancing agent research. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/WangShao2000/Wiki_Live_Challenge

Effective evaluation of multi-hop tool use is critical for analyzing the understanding, reasoning, and function-calling capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, progress has been hindered by a lack of reliable evaluation datasets. To address this, we present ToolHop, a dataset comprising 995 user queries and 3,912 associated tools, specifically designed for rigorous evaluation of multi-hop tool use. ToolHop ensures diverse queries, meaningful interdependencies, locally executable tools, detailed feedback, and verifiable answers through a novel query-driven data construction approach that includes tool creation, document refinement, and code generation. We evaluate 14 LLMs across five model families (i.e., LLaMA3.1, Qwen2.5, Gemini1.5, Claude3.5, and GPT), uncovering significant challenges in handling multi-hop tool-use scenarios. The leading model, GPT-4o, achieves an accuracy of 49.04%, underscoring substantial room for improvement. Further analysis reveals variations in tool-use strategies for various families, offering actionable insights to guide the development of more effective approaches. Code and data can be found in https://huggingface.co/bytedance-research/ToolHop.

Evaluating LLMs with a single prompt has proven unreliable, with small changes leading to significant performance differences. However, generating the prompt variations needed for a more robust multi-prompt evaluation is challenging, limiting its adoption in practice. To address this, we introduce PromptSuite, a framework that enables the automatic generation of various prompts. PromptSuite is flexible - working out of the box on a wide range of tasks and benchmarks. It follows a modular prompt design, allowing controlled perturbations to each component, and is extensible, supporting the addition of new components and perturbation types. Through a series of case studies, we show that PromptSuite provides meaningful variations to support strong evaluation practices. It is available through both a Python API: https://github.com/eliyahabba/PromptSuite, and a user-friendly web interface: https://promptsuite.streamlit.app/

Multi-agent systems powered by large language models (LLMs) are transforming enterprise automation, yet systematic evaluation methodologies for assessing tool-use reliability remain underdeveloped. We introduce a comprehensive diagnostic framework that leverages big data analytics to evaluate procedural reliability in intelligent agent systems, addressing critical needs for SME-centric deployment in privacy-sensitive environments. Our approach features a 12-category error taxonomy capturing failure modes across tool initialization, parameter handling, execution, and result interpretation. Through systematic evaluation of 1,980 deterministic test instances spanning both open-weight models (Qwen2.5 series, Functionary) and proprietary alternatives (GPT-4, Claude 3.5/3.7) across diverse edge hardware configurations, we identify actionable reliability thresholds for production deployment. Our analysis reveals that procedural reliability, particularly tool initialization failures, constitutes the primary bottleneck for smaller models, while qwen2.5:32b achieves flawless performance matching GPT-4.1. The framework demonstrates that mid-sized models (qwen2.5:14b) offer practical accuracy-efficiency trade-offs on commodity hardware (96.6\% success rate, 7.3 s latency), enabling cost-effective intelligent agent deployment for resource-constrained organizations. This work establishes foundational infrastructure for systematic reliability evaluation of tool-augmented multi-agent AI systems.

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

Evaluating whether text-to-image models follow explicit spatial instructions is difficult to automate. Object detectors may miss targets or return multiple plausible detections, and simple geometric tests can become ambiguous in borderline cases. Spatial evaluation is naturally a selective prediction problem, the checker may abstain when evidence is weak and report confidence so that results can be interpreted as a risk coverage tradeoff rather than a single score. We introduce SpatialBench-UC, a small, reproducible benchmark for pairwise spatial relations. The benchmark contains 200 prompts (50 object pairs times 4 relations) grouped into 100 counterfactual pairs obtained by swapping object roles. We release a benchmark package, versioned prompts, pinned configs, per-sample checker outputs, and report tables, enabling reproducible and auditable comparisons across models. We also include a lightweight human audit used to calibrate the checker's abstention margin and confidence threshold. We evaluate three baselines, Stable Diffusion 1.5, SD 1.5 BoxDiff, and SD 1.4 GLIGEN. The checker reports pass rate and coverage as well as conditional pass rates on decided samples. The results show that grounding methods substantially improve both pass rate and coverage, while abstention remains a dominant factor due mainly to missing detections.

Automatic evaluation methods based on large language models (LLMs) are emerging as the standard tool for assessing the instruction-following abilities of LLM-based agents. The most common method in this paradigm, pairwise comparisons with a baseline model, critically depends on the assumption of transitive preferences. However, the validity of this assumption remains largely unexplored. In this study, we investigate the presence of non-transitivity within the AlpacaEval framework and analyze its effects on model rankings. We find that LLM judges exhibit non-transitive preferences, leading to rankings that are sensitive to the choice of the baseline model. To mitigate this issue, we show that round-robin tournaments combined with Bradley-Terry models of preference can produce more reliable rankings. Notably, our method increases both the Spearman correlation and the Kendall correlation with Chatbot Arena (95.0% -> 96.4% and 82.1% -> 86.3% respectively). To address the computational cost of round-robin tournaments, we propose Swiss-Wise Iterative Matchmaking (Swim) tournaments, using a dynamic matching strategy to capture the benefits of round-robin tournaments while maintaining computational efficiency.

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.