Daily Papers

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (LVLMs) have shown promise across many tasks, yet their scientific reasoning capabilities remain untested, particularly in multimodal settings. We present MMSciBench, a benchmark for evaluating mathematical and physical reasoning through text-only and text-image formats, with human-annotated difficulty levels, solutions with detailed explanations, and taxonomic mappings. Evaluation of state-of-the-art models reveals significant limitations, with even the best model achieving only 63.77\% accuracy and particularly struggling with visual reasoning tasks. Our analysis exposes critical gaps in complex reasoning and visual-textual integration, establishing MMSciBench as a rigorous standard for measuring progress in multimodal scientific understanding. The code for MMSciBench is open-sourced at GitHub, and the dataset is available at Hugging Face.

Math reasoning is becoming an ever increasing area of focus as we scale large language models. However, even the previously-toughest evals like MATH are now close to saturated by frontier models (90.0% for o1-mini and 86.5% for Gemini 1.5 Pro). We introduce HARP, Human Annotated Reasoning Problems (for Math), consisting of 5,409 problems from the US national math competitions (A(J)HSME, AMC, AIME, USA(J)MO). Of these, 4,780 have answers that are automatically check-able (with libraries such as SymPy). These problems range six difficulty levels, with frontier models performing relatively poorly on the hardest bracket of 197 problems (average accuracy 41.1% for o1-mini, and 9.6% for Gemini 1.5 Pro). Our dataset also features multiple choices (for 4,110 problems) and an average of two human-written, ground-truth solutions per problem, offering new avenues of research that we explore briefly. We report evaluations for many frontier models and share some interesting analyses, such as demonstrating that frontier models across families intrinsically scale their inference-time compute for more difficult problems. Finally, we open source all code used for dataset construction (including scraping) and all code for evaluation (including answer checking) to enable future research at: https://github.com/aadityasingh/HARP.

Rapid advances in multimodal models demand benchmarks that rigorously evaluate understanding and reasoning in safety-critical, dynamic real-world settings. We present AccidentBench, a large-scale benchmark that combines vehicle accident scenarios with Beyond domains, safety-critical settings in air and water that emphasize spatial and temporal reasoning (e.g., navigation, orientation, multi-vehicle motion). The benchmark contains approximately 2000 videos and over 19000 human-annotated question--answer pairs spanning multiple video lengths (short/medium/long) and difficulty levels (easy/medium/hard). Tasks systematically probe core capabilities: temporal, spatial, and intent understanding and reasoning. By unifying accident-centric traffic scenes with broader safety-critical scenarios in air and water, AccidentBench offers a comprehensive, physically grounded testbed for evaluating models under real-world variability. Evaluations of state-of-the-art models (e.g., Gemini-2.5 Pro and GPT-5) show that even the strongest models achieve only about 18% accuracy on the hardest tasks and longest videos, revealing substantial gaps in real-world temporal, spatial, and intent reasoning. AccidentBench is designed to expose these critical gaps and drive the development of multimodal models that are safer, more robust, and better aligned with real-world safety-critical challenges. The code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/SafeRL-Lab/AccidentBench

There is an unmet need to evaluate the language difficulty of short, conversational passages of text, particularly for training and filtering Large Language Models (LLMs). We introduce Ace-CEFR, a dataset of English conversational text passages expert-annotated with their corresponding level of text difficulty. We experiment with several models on Ace-CEFR, including Transformer-based models and LLMs. We show that models trained on Ace-CEFR can measure text difficulty more accurately than human experts and have latency appropriate to production environments. Finally, we release the Ace-CEFR dataset to the public for research and development.

Textual domain is a crucial property within the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community due to its effects on downstream model performance. The concept itself is, however, loosely defined and, in practice, refers to any non-typological property, such as genre, topic, medium or style of a document. We investigate the core notion of domains via human proficiency in identifying related intrinsic textual properties, specifically the concepts of genre (communicative purpose) and topic (subject matter). We publish our annotations in *TGeGUM*: A collection of 9.1k sentences from the GUM dataset (Zeldes, 2017) with single sentence and larger context (i.e., prose) annotations for one of 11 genres (source type), and its topic/subtopic as per the Dewey Decimal library classification system (Dewey, 1979), consisting of 10/100 hierarchical topics of increased granularity. Each instance is annotated by three annotators, for a total of 32.7k annotations, allowing us to examine the level of human disagreement and the relative difficulty of each annotation task. With a Fleiss' kappa of at most 0.53 on the sentence level and 0.66 at the prose level, it is evident that despite the ubiquity of domains in NLP, there is little human consensus on how to define them. By training classifiers to perform the same task, we find that this uncertainty also extends to NLP models.

Large language models exhibit a puzzling inconsistency: they solve complex problems yet frequently fail on seemingly simpler ones. We investigate whether LLMs internally encode problem difficulty in a way that aligns with human judgment, and whether this representation tracks generalization during reinforcement learning post-training. We train linear probes across layers and token positions on 60 models, evaluating on mathematical and coding subsets of Easy2HardBench. We find that human-labeled difficulty is strongly linearly decodable (AMC: rho approx 0.88) and exhibits clear model-size scaling, whereas LLM-derived difficulty is substantially weaker and scales poorly. Steering along the difficulty direction reveals that pushing models toward "easier" representations reduces hallucination and improves accuracy. During GRPO training on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B, the human-difficulty probe strengthens and positively correlates with test accuracy across training steps, while the LLM-difficulty probe degrades and negatively correlates with performance. These results suggest that human annotations provide a stable difficulty signal that RL amplifies, while automated difficulty estimates derived from model performance become misaligned precisely as models improve. We release probe code and evaluation scripts to facilitate replication.

Accurate estimation of item (question or task) difficulty is critical for educational assessment but suffers from the cold start problem. While Large Language Models demonstrate superhuman problem-solving capabilities, it remains an open question whether they can perceive the cognitive struggles of human learners. In this work, we present a large-scale empirical analysis of Human-AI Difficulty Alignment for over 20 models across diverse domains such as medical knowledge and mathematical reasoning. Our findings reveal a systematic misalignment where scaling up model size is not reliably helpful; instead of aligning with humans, models converge toward a shared machine consensus. We observe that high performance often impedes accurate difficulty estimation, as models struggle to simulate the capability limitations of students even when being explicitly prompted to adopt specific proficiency levels. Furthermore, we identify a critical lack of introspection, as models fail to predict their own limitations. These results suggest that general problem-solving capability does not imply an understanding of human cognitive struggles, highlighting the challenge of using current models for automated difficulty prediction.

Evaluating the real-world capabilities of AI systems requires grounding benchmark performance in human-interpretable measures of task difficulty. Existing approaches that rely on direct human task completion time annotations are costly, noisy, and difficult to scale across benchmarks. In this work, we propose BRIDGE, a unified psychometric framework that learns the latent difficulty scale from model responses and anchors it to human task completion time. Using a two-parameter logistic Item Response Theory model, we jointly estimate latent task difficulty and model capability from model performance data across multiple benchmarks. We demonstrate that latent task difficulty varies linearly with the logarithm of human completion time, allowing human task completion time to be inferred for new benchmarks from model performance alone. Leveraging this alignment, we forecast frontier model capabilities in terms of human task length and independently reproduce METR's exponential scaling results, with the 50% solvable task horizon doubling approximately every 6 months.

While generalization over tasks from easy to hard is crucial to profile language models (LLMs), the datasets with fine-grained difficulty annotations for each problem across a broad range of complexity are still blank. Aiming to address this limitation, we present Easy2Hard-Bench, a consistently formatted collection of 6 benchmark datasets spanning various domains, such as mathematics and programming problems, chess puzzles, and reasoning questions. Each problem within these datasets is annotated with numerical difficulty scores. To systematically estimate problem difficulties, we collect abundant performance data on attempts to each problem by humans in the real world or LLMs on the prominent leaderboard. Leveraging the rich performance data, we apply well-established difficulty ranking systems, such as Item Response Theory (IRT) and Glicko-2 models, to uniformly assign numerical difficulty scores to problems. Moreover, datasets in Easy2Hard-Bench distinguish themselves from previous collections by a higher proportion of challenging problems. Through extensive experiments with six state-of-the-art LLMs, we provide a comprehensive analysis of their performance and generalization capabilities across varying levels of difficulty, with the aim of inspiring future research in LLM generalization. The datasets are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/furonghuang-lab/Easy2Hard-Bench.

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

Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction. Existing methods often depend on costly human calibration or item-level textual representations, providing limited evidence about the cognitive processes that make items difficult. We argue that difficulty should be viewed not only as a property of item text, but also as an observable consequence of the problem-solving burden an item induces. Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) offer scalable process evidence through reasoning traces, but such evidence must be structured to support interpretable modeling. To this end, we introduce Epi2Diff (Episode to Difficulty), a framework that maps LRM reasoning traces into cognitively grounded episode sequences. These episodes group trace segments into functional problem-solving states, enabling difficulty to be modeled through reasoning scale, effort allocation, and state transitions. Epi2Diff extracts compact episode-dynamic features and combines them with semantic item representations for human difficulty prediction. Experiments on four real-world human difficulty datasets show that Epi2Diff consistently outperforms strong baselines, including fine-tuned small language models, LLM in-context learning, and supervised LLM adaptation. On SAT-derived classification benchmarks, Epi2Diff achieves an 8.1% average relative gain over supervised LLM fine-tuning baselines. Further analyses show that harder items induce more effortful, iterative, and implementation-centered episode dynamics, rather than merely longer responses. These results demonstrate that cognitive episodes in LRM reasoning traces provide a predictive and interpretable process representation for human item difficulty, offering a new lens for educational measurement with reasoning models.

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) generalize across different task difficulties, a key question for effective data curation and evaluation. Existing research is mixed regarding whether training on easier or harder data leads to better results, and whether those gains come on easier or harder test data. We address this question by conducting a systematic evaluation of LLMs' generalization across models, datasets, and fine-grained groups of example difficulty. We rank examples in six datasets using the outputs of thousands of different LLMs and Item Response Theory (IRT), a well-established difficulty metric in educational testing. Unlike prior work, our difficulty ratings are therefore determined solely by the abilities of many different LLMs, excluding human opinions of difficulty. With a more objective, larger-scale, and finer-grained analysis, we show that cross-difficulty generalization is often limited; training on either easy or hard data cannot achieve consistent improvements across the full range of difficulties. These results show the importance of having a range of difficulties in both training and evaluation data for LLMs, and that taking shortcuts with respect to difficulty is risky.

Large language models must satisfy hard orthographic constraints during controlled text generation, yet systematic cross-architecture evaluation remains limited. We evaluate 28 configurations spanning three model families (Qwen3, Claude Haiku-4.5, GPT-5-mini) on 58 word puzzles requiring character-level constraint satisfaction. Architectural differences produce substantially larger performance gaps (2.0-2.2x, F1=0.761 vs. 0.343) than parameter scaling within families (83% gain from eightfold scaling), suggesting that constraint satisfaction may require specialized architectural features or training objectives beyond standard language model scaling. Thinking budget sensitivity proves heterogeneous: high-capacity models show strong returns (+0.102 to +0.136 F1), while mid-sized variants saturate or degrade. These patterns are inconsistent with uniform compute benefits. Using difficulty ratings from 10,000 human solvers per puzzle, we establish modest but consistent calibration (r=0.24-0.38) across all families, yet identify systematic failures on common words with unusual orthography ("data", "poop", "loll": 86-95% human success, 89-96% model miss rate). These failures reveal over-reliance on distributional plausibility that penalizes orthographically atypical but constraint-valid patterns, suggesting architectural innovations may be required beyond simply scaling parameters or computational budgets.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has brought a critical need for high-quality human-labeled data, particularly for processes like human feedback and evaluation. A common practice is to label data via consensus annotation over crowdworker judgments. However, annotators' judgments for subjective tasks can differ in many ways: they may have different qualitative judgments about an example, and they may map those to a labeling scheme in different ways. We show that these nuances can be captured by natural language explanations, and propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using LLMs. Specifically, we feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. These scores should reflect the annotators' underlying assessments of the example. The rubric can be designed or modified after annotation, and include distinctions that may not have been known when the original error taxonomy was devised. We explore our technique in the context of rating system outputs for a document-grounded question answering task, where LLMs achieve near-human performance. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.

The pace of evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates new approaches for rigorous and comprehensive evaluation. Traditional human annotation is increasingly impracticable due to the complexities and costs involved in generating high-quality, challenging problems. In this work, we introduce CHASE, a unified framework to synthetically generate challenging problems using LLMs without human involvement. For a given task, our approach builds a hard problem in a bottom-up manner from simpler components. Moreover, our framework decomposes the generation process into independently verifiable sub-tasks, thereby ensuring a high level of quality and correctness. We implement CHASE to create evaluation benchmarks across three diverse domains: (1) document-based question answering, (2) repository-level code completion, and (3) math reasoning. The performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on these synthetic benchmarks lies in the range of 40-60% accuracy, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of our framework at generating challenging problems. We publicly release our benchmarks and code.

Open community-driven platforms like Chatbot Arena that collect user preference data from site visitors have gained a reputation as one of the most trustworthy publicly available benchmarks for LLM performance. While now standard, it is tricky to implement effective guardrails to collect high-quality annotations from humans. In this paper, we demonstrate that three sources of bad annotations, both malicious and otherwise, can corrupt the reliability of open leaderboard rankings. In particular, we show that only 10\% of poor quality votes by apathetic (site visitors not appropriately incentivized to give correct votes) or adversarial (bad actors seeking to inflate the ranking of a target model) annotators can change the rankings of models by up to 5 places on the leaderboard. Finally, we discuss open challenges in ensuring high-quality human annotations.

Comparing human and model performance offers a valuable perspective for understanding the strengths and limitations of embedding models, highlighting where they succeed and where they fail to capture meaning and nuance. However, such comparisons are rarely made, as human performance on embedding tasks is difficult to measure. To fill this gap, we introduce HUME: Human Evaluation Framework for Text Embeddings. While frameworks like MTEB provide broad model evaluation, they lack reliable estimates of human performance, limiting the interpretability of model scores. We measure human performance across 16 MTEB datasets spanning reranking, classification, clustering, and semantic textual similarity across linguistically diverse high- and low-resource languages. Humans achieve an average performance of 77.6% compared to 80.1% for the best embedding model, although variation is substantial: models reach near-ceiling performance on some datasets while struggling on others, suggesting dataset issues and revealing shortcomings in low-resource languages. We provide human performance baselines, insight into task difficulty patterns, and an extensible evaluation framework that enables a more meaningful interpretation of the model and informs the development of both models and benchmarks. Our code, dataset, and leaderboard are publicly available at https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/mteb.

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

Cognitive psychologists have documented that humans use cognitive heuristics, or mental shortcuts, to make quick decisions while expending less effort. While performing annotation work on crowdsourcing platforms, we hypothesize that such heuristic use among annotators cascades on to data quality and model robustness. In this work, we study cognitive heuristic use in the context of annotating multiple-choice reading comprehension datasets. We propose tracking annotator heuristic traces, where we tangibly measure low-effort annotation strategies that could indicate usage of various cognitive heuristics. We find evidence that annotators might be using multiple such heuristics, based on correlations with a battery of psychological tests. Importantly, heuristic use among annotators determines data quality along several dimensions: (1) known biased models, such as partial input models, more easily solve examples authored by annotators that rate highly on heuristic use, (2) models trained on annotators scoring highly on heuristic use don't generalize as well, and (3) heuristic-seeking annotators tend to create qualitatively less challenging examples. Our findings suggest that tracking heuristic usage among annotators can potentially help with collecting challenging datasets and diagnosing model biases.

In an educational setting, an estimate of the difficulty of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a commonly used strategy to assess learning progress, constitutes very useful information for both teachers and students. Since human assessment is costly from multiple points of view, automatic approaches to MCQ item difficulty estimation are investigated, yielding however mixed success until now. Our approach to this problem takes a different angle from previous work: asking various Large Language Models to tackle the questions included in two different MCQ datasets, we leverage model uncertainty to estimate item difficulty. By using both model uncertainty features as well as textual features in a Random Forest regressor, we show that uncertainty features contribute substantially to difficulty prediction, where difficulty is inversely proportional to the number of students who can correctly answer a question. In addition to showing the value of our approach, we also observe that our model achieves state-of-the-art results on the BEA publicly available dataset.

Running LLMs with extended reasoning on every problem is expensive, but determining which inputs actually require additional compute remains challenging. We investigate whether their own likelihood of success is recoverable from their internal representations before generation, and if this signal can guide more efficient inference. We train linear probes on pre-generation activations to predict policy-specific success on math and coding tasks, substantially outperforming surface features such as question length and TF-IDF. Using E2H-AMC, which provides both human and model performance on identical problems, we show that models encode a model-specific notion of difficulty that is distinct from human difficulty, and that this distinction increases with extended reasoning. Leveraging these probes, we demonstrate that routing queries across a pool of models can exceed the best-performing model whilst reducing inference cost by up to 70\% on MATH, showing that internal representations enable practical efficiency gains even when they diverge from human intuitions about difficulty. Our code is available at: https://github.com/KabakaWilliam/llms_know_difficulty

Current AI alignment methodologies rely on human-provided demonstrations or judgments, and the learned capabilities of AI systems would be upper-bounded by human capabilities as a result. This raises a challenging research question: How can we keep improving the systems when their capabilities have surpassed the levels of humans? This paper answers this question in the context of tackling hard reasoning tasks (e.g., level 4-5 MATH problems) via learning from human annotations on easier tasks (e.g., level 1-3 MATH problems), which we term as easy-to-hard generalization. Our key insight is that an evaluator (reward model) trained on supervisions for easier tasks can be effectively used for scoring candidate solutions of harder tasks and hence facilitating easy-to-hard generalization over different levels of tasks. Based on this insight, we propose a novel approach to scalable alignment, which firstly trains the process-supervised reward models on easy problems (e.g., level 1-3), and then uses them to evaluate the performance of policy models on hard problems. We show that such easy-to-hard generalization from evaluators can enable easy-to-hard generalizations in generators either through re-ranking or reinforcement learning (RL). Notably, our process-supervised 7b RL model achieves an accuracy of 34.0\% on MATH500, despite only using human supervision on easy problems. Our approach suggests a promising path toward AI systems that advance beyond the frontier of human supervision.

Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.

Human evaluation is increasingly critical for assessing large language models, capturing linguistic nuances, and reflecting user preferences more accurately than traditional automated metrics. However, the resource-intensive nature of this type of annotation process poses significant challenges. The key question driving our work: "is it feasible to minimize human-in-the-loop feedback by prioritizing data instances which most effectively distinguish between models?" We evaluate several metric-based methods and find that these metrics enhance the efficiency of human evaluations by minimizing the number of required annotations, thus saving time and cost, while ensuring a robust performance evaluation. We show that our method is effective across widely used model families, reducing instances of indecisive (or "tie") outcomes by up to 54% compared to a random sample when focusing on the top-20 percentile of prioritized instances. This potential reduction in required human effort positions our approach as a valuable strategy in future large language model evaluations.

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

As text generated by large language models proliferates, it becomes vital to understand how humans engage with such text, and whether or not they are able to detect when the text they are reading did not originate with a human writer. Prior work on human detection of generated text focuses on the case where an entire passage is either human-written or machine-generated. In this paper, we study a more realistic setting where text begins as human-written and transitions to being generated by state-of-the-art neural language models. We show that, while annotators often struggle at this task, there is substantial variance in annotator skill and that given proper incentives, annotators can improve at this task over time. Furthermore, we conduct a detailed comparison study and analyze how a variety of variables (model size, decoding strategy, fine-tuning, prompt genre, etc.) affect human detection performance. Finally, we collect error annotations from our participants and use them to show that certain textual genres influence models to make different types of errors and that certain sentence-level features correlate highly with annotator selection. We release the RoFT dataset: a collection of over 21,000 human annotations paired with error classifications to encourage future work in human detection and evaluation of generated text.

We present a novel dataset aimed at advancing danger analysis and assessment by addressing the challenge of quantifying danger in video content and identifying how human-like a Large Language Model (LLM) evaluator is for the same. This is achieved by compiling a collection of 100 YouTube videos featuring various events. Each video is annotated by human participants who provided danger ratings on a scale from 0 (no danger to humans) to 10 (life-threatening), with precise timestamps indicating moments of heightened danger. Additionally, we leverage LLMs to independently assess the danger levels in these videos using video summaries. We introduce Mean Squared Error (MSE) scores for multimodal meta-evaluation of the alignment between human and LLM danger assessments. Our dataset not only contributes a new resource for danger assessment in video content but also demonstrates the potential of LLMs in achieving human-like evaluations.

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

Estimating the difficulty of input questions as perceived by large language models (LLMs) is essential for accurate performance evaluation and adaptive inference. Existing methods typically rely on repeated response sampling, auxiliary models, or fine-tuning the target model itself, which may incur substantial computational costs or compromise generality. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for difficulty estimation that leverages only the hidden representations produced by the target LLM. We model the token-level generation process as a Markov chain and define a value function to estimate the expected output quality given any hidden state. This allows for efficient and accurate difficulty estimation based solely on the initial hidden state, without generating any output tokens. Extensive experiments across both textual and multimodal tasks demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms existing baselines in difficulty estimation. Moreover, we apply our difficulty estimates to guide adaptive reasoning strategies, including Self-Consistency, Best-of-N, and Self-Refine, achieving higher inference efficiency with fewer generated tokens.

While text-to-image (T2I) generative models have become ubiquitous, they do not necessarily generate images that align with a given prompt. While previous work has evaluated T2I alignment by proposing metrics, benchmarks, and templates for collecting human judgements, the quality of these components is not systematically measured. Human-rated prompt sets are generally small and the reliability of the ratings -- and thereby the prompt set used to compare models -- is not evaluated. We address this gap by performing an extensive study evaluating auto-eval metrics and human templates. We provide three main contributions: (1) We introduce a comprehensive skills-based benchmark that can discriminate models across different human templates. This skills-based benchmark categorises prompts into sub-skills, allowing a practitioner to pinpoint not only which skills are challenging, but at what level of complexity a skill becomes challenging. (2) We gather human ratings across four templates and four T2I models for a total of >100K annotations. This allows us to understand where differences arise due to inherent ambiguity in the prompt and where they arise due to differences in metric and model quality. (3) Finally, we introduce a new QA-based auto-eval metric that is better correlated with human ratings than existing metrics for our new dataset, across different human templates, and on TIFA160.

This article presents the creation of an Estonian-language dataset for document-level subjectivity, analyzes the resulting annotations, and reports an initial experiment of automatic subjectivity analysis using a large language model (LLM). The dataset comprises of 1,000 documents-300 journalistic articles and 700 randomly selected web texts-each rated for subjectivity on a continuous scale from 0 (fully objective) to 100 (fully subjective) by four annotators. As the inter-annotator correlations were moderate, with some texts receiving scores at the opposite ends of the scale, a subset of texts with the most divergent scores was re-annotated, with the inter-annotator correlation improving. In addition to human annotations, the dataset includes scores generated by GPT-5 as an experiment on annotation automation. These scores were similar to human annotators, however several differences emerged, suggesting that while LLM based automatic subjectivity scoring is feasible, it is not an interchangeable alternative to human annotation, and its suitability depends on the intended application.

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

Reasoning models have demonstrated impressive performance on difficult tasks that traditional language models struggle at. However, many are plagued with the problem of overthinking--generating large amounts of unnecessary tokens which don't improve accuracy on a question. We introduce approximate measures of problem-level difficulty and demonstrate that a clear relationship between problem difficulty and optimal token spend exists, and evaluate how well calibrated a variety of reasoning models are in terms of efficiently allocating the optimal token count. We find that in general, reasoning models are poorly calibrated, particularly on easy problems. To evaluate calibration on easy questions we introduce DUMB500, a dataset of extremely easy math, reasoning, code, and task problems, and jointly evaluate reasoning model on these simple examples and extremely difficult examples from existing frontier benchmarks on the same task domain. Finally, we introduce THOUGHTTERMINATOR, a training-free black box decoding technique that significantly improves reasoning model calibration.

Learning from human feedback has enabled the alignment of language models (LMs) with human preferences. However, directly collecting human preferences can be expensive, time-consuming, and can have high variance. An appealing alternative is to distill preferences from LMs as a source of synthetic annotations as they are more consistent, cheaper, and scale better than human annotation; however, they are also prone to biases and errors. In this work, we introduce a routing framework that combines inputs from humans and LMs to achieve better annotation quality, while reducing the total cost of human annotation. The crux of our approach is to identify preference instances that will benefit from human annotations. We formulate this as an optimization problem: given a preference dataset and an evaluation metric, we train a performance prediction model to predict a reward model's performance on an arbitrary combination of human and LM annotations and employ a routing strategy that selects a combination that maximizes predicted performance. We train the performance prediction model on MultiPref, a new preference dataset with 10K instances paired with human and LM labels. We show that the selected hybrid mixture of LM and direct human preferences using our routing framework achieves better reward model performance compared to using either one exclusively. We simulate selective human preference collection on three other datasets and show that our method generalizes well to all three. We analyze features from the routing model to identify characteristics of instances that can benefit from human feedback, e.g., prompts with a moderate safety concern or moderate intent complexity. We release the dataset, annotation platform, and source code used in this study to foster more efficient and accurate preference collection in the future.

In this paper, we examine linguistic puzzles used in high school linguistics competitions, focusing on two common formats: Rosetta Stone and Match-Up. We propose a systematic procedure for converting existing Rosetta Stone puzzles into corresponding Match-Up counterparts. Because linguistic puzzle creation is complex and time-consuming, our method provides an efficient way to accelerate the generation of new puzzles. We evaluate the resulting Rosetta Stone-Match-Up pairs with both human participants and large language models (LLMs). Our results show that both expert human solvers and LLMs display an all-or-nothing pattern on Match-Up puzzles, either solving them completely or failing entirely. This work contributes a new dataset of paired puzzles and provides a detailed evaluation of puzzle difficulty across formats, offering insights into both human and machine linguistic reasoning.

Natural language understanding (NLU) is a task that enables machines to understand human language. Some tasks, such as stance detection and sentiment analysis, are closely related to individual subjective perspectives, thus termed individual-level NLU. Previously, these tasks are often simplified to text-level NLU tasks, ignoring individual factors. This not only makes inference difficult and unexplainable but often results in a large number of label errors when creating datasets. To address the above limitations, we propose a new NLU annotation guideline based on individual-level factors. Specifically, we incorporate other posts by the same individual and then annotate individual subjective perspectives after considering all individual posts. We use this guideline to expand and re-annotate the stance detection and topic-based sentiment analysis datasets. We find that error rates in the samples were as high as 31.7\% and 23.3\%. We further use large language models to conduct experiments on the re-annotation datasets and find that the large language models perform well on both datasets after adding individual factors. Both GPT-4o and Llama3-70B can achieve an accuracy greater than 87\% on the re-annotation datasets. We also verify the effectiveness of individual factors through ablation studies. We call on future researchers to add individual factors when creating such datasets. Our re-annotation dataset can be found at https://github.com/24yearsoldstudent/Individual-NLU

As interactive LLM-based applications are created and refined, model developers need to evaluate the quality of generated text along many possible axes. For simpler systems, human evaluation may be practical, but in complicated systems like conversational chatbots, the amount of generated text can overwhelm human annotation resources. Model developers have begun to rely heavily on auto-evaluation, where LLMs are also used to judge generation quality. However, existing LLM-as-a-judge benchmarks largely focus on simple Q\&A tasks that do not match the complexity of multi-turn conversations. We introduce RankJudge, a benchmark generator for evaluating LLM-as-a-judge on multi-turn conversations grounded in reference documents. RankJudge creates pairs of conversations where one conversation has a single flaw injected into one turn. This construction allows paired conversations to be labeled unambiguously as better or worse, and precisely isolates failure categories to individual turns, enabling a strict joint correctness criterion for judging. We implement RankJudge across the domains of machine learning, biomedicine, and finance, evaluate 21 frontier LLM judges, and rank those judges via the Bradley-Terry model. Our formulation also allows ranking each conversation pair with difficulty ratings, which we use to dynamically curate the evaluation slice to reduce label noise, as confirmed via human annotation. We find that judge rankings are stable under partial observability, coarser correctness criteria, and an alternative random-walk rating algorithm.

Evaluating the quality of search, ranking and RAG systems traditionally requires a significant number of human relevance annotations. In recent times, several deployed systems have explored the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated judges for this task while their inherent biases prevent direct use for metric estimation. We present a statistical framework extending Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that combines minimal human annotations with LLM judgments to produce reliable estimates of metrics which require sub-instance annotations. Our method requires as few as 100 human-annotated queries and 10,000 unlabeled examples, reducing annotation requirements significantly compared to traditional approaches. We formulate our proposed framework (PRECISE) for inference of relevance uplift for an LLM-based query reformulation application, extending PPI to sub-instance annotations at the query-document level. By reformulating the metric-integration space, we reduced the computational complexity from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K), where |C| represents corpus size (in order of millions). Detailed experiments across prominent retrieval datasets demonstrate that our method reduces the variance of estimates for the business-critical Precision@K metric, while effectively correcting for LLM bias in low-resource settings.

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

Determining when people are struggling allows for a finer-grained understanding of actions that complements conventional action classification and error detection. Struggle detection, as defined in this paper, is a distinct and important task that can be identified without explicit step or activity knowledge. We introduce the first struggle dataset with three real-world problem-solving activities that are labelled by both expert and crowd-source annotators. Video segments were scored w.r.t. their level of struggle using a forced choice 4-point scale. This dataset contains 5.1 hours of video from 73 participants. We conducted a series of experiments to identify the most suitable modelling approaches for struggle determination. Additionally, we compared various deep learning models, establishing baseline results for struggle classification, struggle regression, and struggle label distribution learning. Our results indicate that struggle detection in video can achieve up to 88.24% accuracy in binary classification, while detecting the level of struggle in a four-way classification setting performs lower, with an overall accuracy of 52.45%. Our work is motivated toward a more comprehensive understanding of action in video and potentially the improvement of assistive systems that analyse struggle and can better support users during manual activities.

Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown indications of mathematical reasoning ability. However it has not been clear how they would fare on more challenging competition-level problems. And while self-generated verbalizations of intermediate reasoning steps (i.e., chain-of-thought prompting) have been shown to be helpful, whether LLMs can make use of helpful side information such as problem-specific hints has not been investigated before. In this paper, we propose a challenging benchmark dataset for enabling such analyses. The Concept and Hint-Annotated Math Problems (CHAMP) consists of high school math competition problems, annotated with concepts, or general math facts, and hints, or problem-specific tricks. These annotations allow us to explore the effects of additional information, such as relevant hints, misleading concepts, or related problems. This benchmark is difficult, with the best model only scoring 58.1% in standard settings. With concepts and hints, performance sometimes improves, indicating that some models can make use of such side information. We further annotate model-generated solutions for their correctness. Using this corpus, we find that models often arrive at the correct final answer through wrong reasoning steps. In addition, we test whether models are able to verify these solutions, and find that most models struggle. The dataset and code are available on the project website.

Recent benchmark studies have claimed that AI has approached or even surpassed human-level performances on various cognitive tasks. However, this position paper argues that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities. We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks. We support our claims by conducting a human evaluation study on ten existing AI benchmarks, suggesting significant biases and flaws in task and label designs. To address these limitations, we propose five concrete recommendations for developing future benchmarks that will enable more rigorous and meaningful evaluations of human-like cognitive capacities in AI with various implications for such AI applications.

How can we train models to perform well on hard test data when hard training data is by definition difficult to label correctly? This question has been termed the scalable oversight problem and has drawn increasing attention as language models have continually improved. In this paper, we present the surprising conclusion that current language models often generalize relatively well from easy to hard data, even performing as well as "oracle" models trained on hard data. We demonstrate this kind of easy-to-hard generalization using simple training methods like in-context learning, linear classifier heads, and QLoRA for seven different measures of datapoint hardness, including six empirically diverse human hardness measures (like grade level) and one model-based measure (loss-based). Furthermore, we show that even if one cares most about model performance on hard data, it can be better to collect and train on easy data rather than hard data, since hard data is generally noisier and costlier to collect. Our experiments use open models up to 70b in size and four publicly available question-answering datasets with questions ranging in difficulty from 3rd grade science questions to college level STEM questions and general-knowledge trivia. We conclude that easy-to-hard generalization in LMs is surprisingly strong for the tasks studied, suggesting the scalable oversight problem may be easier than previously thought. Our code is available at https://github.com/allenai/easy-to-hard-generalization

The impressive performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) has consistently surpassed numerous human-designed benchmarks, presenting new challenges in assessing the shortcomings of LLMs. Designing tasks and finding LLMs' limitations are becoming increasingly important. In this paper, we investigate the question of whether an LLM can discover its own limitations from the errors it makes. To this end, we propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances and incorporate human feedback on them to refine these patterns for generating more challenging data, iteratively. We end up with 8 diverse patterns, such as text manipulation and questions with assumptions. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses. The SC-G4 serves as a challenging benchmark that allows for a detailed assessment of LLMs' abilities. Our results show that only 44.96\% of instances in SC-G4 can be answered correctly by GPT-4. Interestingly, our pilot study indicates that these error patterns also challenge other LLMs, such as Claude-3 and Llama-3, and cannot be fully resolved through fine-tuning. Our work takes the first step to demonstrate that LLMs can autonomously identify their inherent flaws and provide insights for future dynamic and automatic evaluation.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to align with user preferences is challenging due to the high cost of quality human annotations in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and the generalizability limitations of AI Feedback. To address these challenges, we propose RLTHF, a human-AI hybrid framework that combines LLM-based initial alignment with selective human annotations to achieve full-human annotation alignment with minimal effort. RLTHF identifies hard-to-annotate samples mislabeled by LLMs using a reward model's reward distribution and iteratively enhances alignment by integrating strategic human corrections while leveraging LLM's correctly labeled samples. Evaluations on HH-RLHF and TL;DR datasets show that RLTHF reaches full-human annotation-level alignment with only 6-7% of the human annotation effort. Furthermore, models trained on RLTHF's curated datasets for downstream tasks outperform those trained on fully human-annotated datasets, underscoring the effectiveness of RLTHF's strategic data curation.

When training data are collected from human annotators, the design of the annotation instrument, the instructions given to annotators, the characteristics of the annotators, and their interactions can impact training data. This study demonstrates that design choices made when creating an annotation instrument also impact the models trained on the resulting annotations. We introduce the term annotation sensitivity to refer to the impact of annotation data collection methods on the annotations themselves and on downstream model performance and predictions. We collect annotations of hate speech and offensive language in five experimental conditions of an annotation instrument, randomly assigning annotators to conditions. We then fine-tune BERT models on each of the five resulting datasets and evaluate model performance on a holdout portion of each condition. We find considerable differences between the conditions for 1) the share of hate speech/offensive language annotations, 2) model performance, 3) model predictions, and 4) model learning curves. Our results emphasize the crucial role played by the annotation instrument which has received little attention in the machine learning literature. We call for additional research into how and why the instrument impacts the annotations to inform the development of best practices in instrument design.

LLMs have shown promise in replicating human-like behavior in crowdsourcing tasks that were previously thought to be exclusive to human abilities. However, current efforts focus mainly on simple atomic tasks. We explore whether LLMs can replicate more complex crowdsourcing pipelines. We find that modern LLMs can simulate some of crowdworkers' abilities in these "human computation algorithms," but the level of success is variable and influenced by requesters' understanding of LLM capabilities, the specific skills required for sub-tasks, and the optimal interaction modality for performing these sub-tasks. We reflect on human and LLMs' different sensitivities to instructions, stress the importance of enabling human-facing safeguards for LLMs, and discuss the potential of training humans and LLMs with complementary skill sets. Crucially, we show that replicating crowdsourcing pipelines offers a valuable platform to investigate (1) the relative strengths of LLMs on different tasks (by cross-comparing their performances on sub-tasks) and (2) LLMs' potential in complex tasks, where they can complete part of the tasks while leaving others to humans.

Evaluating production-level retrieval systems at scale is a crucial yet challenging task due to the limited availability of a large pool of well-trained human annotators. Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to address this scaling issue and offer a viable alternative to humans for the bulk of annotation tasks. In this paper, we propose a framework for assessing the product search engines in a large-scale e-commerce setting, leveraging Multimodal LLMs for (i) generating tailored annotation guidelines for individual queries, and (ii) conducting the subsequent annotation task. Our method, validated through deployment on a large e-commerce platform, demonstrates comparable quality to human annotations, significantly reduces time and cost, facilitates rapid problem discovery, and provides an effective solution for production-level quality control at scale.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate how specific users respond to a given context, enabling more user-centric applications that rely on user feedback. However, existing user simulators mostly imitate surface-level patterns and language styles, which fail to reflect the underlying states of real users (e.g., beliefs and emotions). To address these limitations, we propose a novel training framework, HumanLM, which builds user simulators that accurately reflect real users. Our key insight is that, in addition to generating responses, the model should generate natural-language latent states that align with ground-truth responses through reinforcement learning. These latent states correspond to a set of psychologically grounded state dimensions that drive how real users respond. HumanLM further synthesizes these aligned latent states into responses that accurately represent real users. For extensive evaluation, we develop Humanual, a comprehensive benchmark for simulating real users based on public data. Humanual consists of six large-scale datasets with 26k users and 216k responses in total, spanning diverse tasks such as generating user responses to daily life issues, political blogs, and chat sessions with LLM assistants. Across datasets, HumanLM significantly outperforms alternative approaches, achieving an average relative improvement of 16.3% in alignment scores from an LLM judge. In a real-time simulation study with 111 participants, HumanLM achieves the highest similarity to real user responses and competitive human-likeness scores.

Motivated by the remarkable progress of large language models (LLMs) in objective tasks like mathematics and coding, there is growing interest in their potential to simulate human behavior--a capability with profound implications for transforming social science research and customer-centric business insights. However, LLMs often lack a nuanced understanding of human cognition and behavior, limiting their effectiveness in social simulation and personalized applications. We posit that this limitation stems from a fundamental misalignment: standard LLM pretraining on vast, uncontextualized web data does not capture the continuous, situated context of an individual's decisions, thoughts, and behaviors over time. To bridge this gap, we introduce HumanLLM, a foundation model designed for personalized understanding and simulation of individuals. We first construct the Cognitive Genome Dataset, a large-scale corpus curated from real-world user data on platforms like Reddit, Twitter, Blogger, and Amazon. Through a rigorous, multi-stage pipeline involving data filtering, synthesis, and quality control, we automatically extract over 5.5 million user logs to distill rich profiles, behaviors, and thinking patterns. We then formulate diverse learning tasks and perform supervised fine-tuning to empower the model to predict a wide range of individualized human behaviors, thoughts, and experiences. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that HumanLLM achieves superior performance in predicting user actions and inner thoughts, more accurately mimics user writing styles and preferences, and generates more authentic user profiles compared to base models. Furthermore, HumanLLM shows significant gains on out-of-domain social intelligence benchmarks, indicating enhanced generalization.

The ability to determine when a person struggles during skill acquisition is crucial for both optimizing human learning and enabling the development of effective assistive systems. As skills develop, the type and frequency of struggles tend to change, and understanding this evolution is key to determining the user's current stage of learning. However, existing manipulation datasets have not focused on how struggle evolves over time. In this work, we collect a dataset for struggle determination, featuring 61.68 hours of video recordings, 2,793 videos, and 5,385 annotated temporal struggle segments collected from 76 participants. The dataset includes 18 tasks grouped into four diverse activities -- tying knots, origami, tangram puzzles, and shuffling cards, representing different task variations. In addition, participants repeated the same task five times to capture their evolution of skill. We define the struggle determination problem as a temporal action localization task, focusing on identifying and precisely localizing struggle segments with start and end times. Experimental results show that Temporal Action Localization models can successfully learn to detect struggle cues, even when evaluated on unseen tasks or activities. The models attain an overall average mAP of 34.56% when generalizing across tasks and 19.24% across activities, indicating that struggle is a transferable concept across various skill-based tasks while still posing challenges for further improvement in struggle detection. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/FELIXFENG2019/EvoStruggle.

Disagreement in natural language annotation has mostly been studied from a perspective of biases introduced by the annotators and the annotation frameworks. Here, we propose to analyze another source of bias: task design bias, which has a particularly strong impact on crowdsourced linguistic annotations where natural language is used to elicit the interpretation of laymen annotators. For this purpose we look at implicit discourse relation annotation, a task that has repeatedly been shown to be difficult due to the relations' ambiguity. We compare the annotations of 1,200 discourse relations obtained using two distinct annotation tasks and quantify the biases of both methods across four different domains. Both methods are natural language annotation tasks designed for crowdsourcing. We show that the task design can push annotators towards certain relations and that some discourse relations senses can be better elicited with one or the other annotation approach. We also conclude that this type of bias should be taken into account when training and testing models.

Generalized Category Discovery (GCD) is a practical and challenging open-world task that aims to recognize both known and novel categories in unlabeled data using limited labeled data from known categories. Due to the lack of supervision, previous GCD methods face significant challenges, such as difficulty in rectifying errors for confusing instances, and inability to effectively uncover and leverage the semantic meanings of discovered clusters. Therefore, additional annotations are usually required for real-world applicability. However, human annotation is extremely costly and inefficient. To address these issues, we propose GLEAN, a unified framework for generalized category discovery that actively learns from diverse and quality-enhanced LLM feedback. Our approach leverages three different types of LLM feedback to: (1) improve instance-level contrastive features, (2) generate category descriptions, and (3) align uncertain instances with LLM-selected category descriptions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior performance of \MethodName over state-of-the-art models across diverse datasets, metrics, and supervision settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/amazon-science/Glean.

As the field progresses toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), there is a pressing need for more comprehensive and insightful evaluation frameworks that go beyond aggregate performance metrics. This paper introduces a unified rating system that jointly models the difficulty of individual test cases and the competency of AI models (or humans) across vision, language, and action domains. Unlike existing metrics that focus solely on models, our approach allows for fine-grained, difficulty-aware evaluations through competitive interactions between models and tasks, capturing both the long-tail distribution of real-world challenges and the competency gap between current models and full task mastery. We validate the generalizability and robustness of our system through extensive experiments on multiple established datasets and models across distinct AGI domains. The resulting rating distributions offer novel perspectives and interpretable insights into task difficulty, model progression, and the outstanding challenges that remain on the path to achieving full AGI task mastery.

In Machine Translation (MT) evaluation, metric performance is assessed based on agreement with human judgments. In recent years, automatic metrics have demonstrated increasingly high levels of agreement with humans. To gain a clearer understanding of metric performance and establish an upper bound, we incorporate human baselines in the MT meta-evaluation, that is, the assessment of MT metrics' capabilities. Our results show that human annotators are not consistently superior to automatic metrics, with state-of-the-art metrics often ranking on par with or higher than human baselines. Despite these findings suggesting human parity, we discuss several reasons for caution. Finally, we explore the broader implications of our results for the research field, asking: Can we still reliably measure improvements in MT evaluation? With this work, we aim to shed light on the limits of our ability to measure progress in the field, fostering discussion on an issue that we believe is crucial to the entire MT evaluation community.

Estimating the difficulty of multiple-choice questions would be great help for educators who must spend substantial time creating and piloting stimuli for their tests, and for learners who want to practice. Supervised approaches to difficulty estimation have yielded to date mixed results. In this contribution we leverage an aspect of generative large models which might be seen as a weakness when answering questions, namely their uncertainty, and exploit it towards exploring correlations between two different metrics of uncertainty, and the actual student response distribution. While we observe some present but weak correlations, we also discover that the models' behaviour is different in the case of correct vs wrong answers, and that correlations differ substantially according to the different question types which are included in our fine-grained, previously unused dataset of 451 questions from a Biopsychology course. In discussing our findings, we also suggest potential avenues to further leverage model uncertainty as an additional proxy for item difficulty.

Multimodal Review Helpfulness Prediction (MRHP) is an essential task in recommender systems, particularly in E-commerce platforms. Determining the helpfulness of user-generated reviews enhances user experience and improves consumer decision-making. However, existing datasets focus predominantly on English and Indonesian, resulting in a lack of linguistic diversity, especially for low-resource languages such as Vietnamese. In this paper, we introduce ViMRHP (Vietnamese Multimodal Review Helpfulness Prediction), a large-scale benchmark dataset for MRHP task in Vietnamese. This dataset covers four domains, including 2K products with 46K reviews. Meanwhile, a large-scale dataset requires considerable time and cost. To optimize the annotation process, we leverage AI to assist annotators in constructing the ViMRHP dataset. With AI assistance, annotation time is reduced (90 to 120 seconds per task down to 20 to 40 seconds per task) while maintaining data quality and lowering overall costs by approximately 65%. However, AI-generated annotations still have limitations in complex annotation tasks, which we further examine through a detailed performance analysis. In our experiment on ViMRHP, we evaluate baseline models on human-verified and AI-generated annotations to assess their quality differences. The ViMRHP dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/trng28/ViMRHP

Retrieval models typically rely on costly human-labeled query-document relevance annotations for training and evaluation. To reduce this cost and leverage the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in relevance judgments, we aim to explore whether LLM-generated annotations can effectively replace human annotations in training retrieval models. Retrieval usually emphasizes relevance, which indicates "topic-relatedness" of a document to a query, while in RAG, the value of a document (or utility) depends on how it contributes to answer generation. Recognizing this mismatch, some researchers use LLM performance on downstream tasks with documents as labels, but this approach requires manual answers for specific tasks, leading to high costs and limited generalization. In another line of work, prompting LLMs to select useful documents as RAG references eliminates the need for human annotation and is not task-specific. If we leverage LLMs' utility judgments to annotate retrieval data, we may retain cross-task generalization without human annotation in large-scale corpora. Therefore, we investigate utility-focused annotation via LLMs for large-scale retriever training data across both in-domain and out-of-domain settings on the retrieval and RAG tasks. To reduce the impact of low-quality positives labeled by LLMs, we design a novel loss function, i.e., Disj-InfoNCE. Our experiments reveal that: (1) Retrievers trained on utility-focused annotations significantly outperform those trained on human annotations in the out-of-domain setting on both tasks, demonstrating superior generalization capabilities. (2) LLM annotation does not replace human annotation in the in-domain setting. However, incorporating just 20% human-annotated data enables retrievers trained with utility-focused annotations to match the performance of models trained entirely with human annotations.

As NLP evaluation shifts from static benchmarks to multi-turn interactive settings, LLM-based simulators have become widely used as user proxies, serving two roles: generating user turns and providing evaluation signals. Yet, these simulations are frequently assumed to be faithful to real human behaviors, often without rigorous verification. We formalize the Sim2Real gap in user simulation and present the first study running the full τ-bench protocol with real humans (451 participants, 165 tasks), benchmarking 31 LLM simulators across proprietary, open-source, and specialized families using the User-Sim Index (USI), a metric we introduce to quantify how well LLM simulators resemble real user interactive behaviors and feedback. Behaviorally, LLM simulators are excessively cooperative, stylistically uniform, and lack realistic frustration or ambiguity, creating an "easy mode" that inflates agent success rates above the human baseline. In evaluations, real humans provide nuanced judgments across eight quality dimensions while simulated users produce uniformly more positive feedback; rule-based rewards are failing to capture rich feedback signals generated by human users. Overall, higher general model capability does not necessarily yield more faithful user simulation. These findings highlight the importance of human validation when using LLM-based user simulators in the agent development cycle and motivate improved models for user simulation.

Language models excel at following instructions but often struggle with the collaborative aspects of conversation that humans naturally employ. This limitation in grounding -- the process by which conversation participants establish mutual understanding -- can lead to outcomes ranging from frustrated users to serious consequences in high-stakes scenarios. To systematically study grounding challenges in human-LLM interactions, we analyze logs from three human-assistant datasets: WildChat, MultiWOZ, and Bing Chat. We develop a taxonomy of grounding acts and build models to annotate and forecast grounding behavior. Our findings reveal significant differences in human-human and human-LLM grounding: LLMs were three times less likely to initiate clarification and sixteen times less likely to provide follow-up requests than humans. Additionally, early grounding failures predicted later interaction breakdowns. Building on these insights, we introduce RIFTS: a benchmark derived from publicly available LLM interaction data containing situations where LLMs fail to initiate grounding. We note that current frontier models perform poorly on RIFTS, highlighting the need to reconsider how we train and prompt LLMs for human interaction. To this end, we develop a preliminary intervention that mitigates grounding failures.

Research on AI-generated text detection has presented a number of approaches to discern human from AI prose, some of which achieving high in-distribution performance. However, real-world applicability has stalled because their outputs are misaligned with the needs of users, such as professors, who are presented with a numeric score that has no attached explanation. We tackle this issue with a novel architecture, TELL, that bakes explainability from the ground-up. While our system still offers a numerical score like other detectors for comparability, TELL takes a fundamentally different approach where we aim to show the user the "tells" by which the model believes a text is AI or human-written, to empower the user to decide who wrote a text using their own judgment and understanding of the context of the writing and its alleged author. We train TELL on a custom SFT dataset of domain-specific authorship annotations, and further refine the system using GRPO with curriculum learning to improve performance. We achieve competitive performance with state-of-the-art detectors (AUROC 0.927) while natively providing annotations that explain the basis for the detector's decision. We further evaluate the quality of our explanations using a dataset of human annotations and report a high (mean 72.3%) win-rate on annotation concreteness, falsifiability, coherence, plausibility and grounding, allowing users to critically think and decide for themselves. Our work thus reframes the problem of AI-generated text detection in a human-centric perspective and paves the way for a new family of detectors that focus on native explainability.

We study the problem of controlling the difficulty level of text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) for contexts where end-users are not fully proficient, such as language learners. Using a novel framework, we evaluate the effectiveness of several key approaches for this task, including few-shot prompting, supervised finetuning, and reinforcement learning (RL), utilising both GPT-4 and open source alternatives like LLama2-7B and Mistral-7B. Our findings reveal a large performance gap between GPT-4 and the open source models when using prompt-based strategies. However, we show how to bridge this gap with a careful combination of finetuning and RL alignment. Our best model, CALM (CEFR-Aligned Language Model), surpasses the performance of GPT-4 and other strategies, at only a fraction of the cost. We further validate the quality of our results through a small-scale human study.

While recent research increasingly emphasizes the value of human-LLM collaboration in competitive programming and proposes numerous empirical methods, a comprehensive understanding remains elusive due to the fragmented nature of existing studies and their use of diverse, application-specific human feedback. Thus, our work serves a three-fold purpose: First, we present the first taxonomy of human feedback consolidating the entire programming process, which promotes fine-grained evaluation. Second, we introduce ELABORATIONSET, a novel programming dataset specifically designed for human-LLM collaboration, meticulously annotated to enable large-scale simulated human feedback and facilitate costeffective real human interaction studies. Third, we introduce ELABORATION, a novel benchmark to facilitate a thorough assessment of human-LLM competitive programming. With ELABORATION, we pinpoint strengthes and weaknesses of existing methods, thereby setting the foundation for future improvement. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/SCUNLP/ELABORATION

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performances in various tasks. However, the performance of LLMs heavily depends on the input prompt, which has given rise to a number of recent works on prompt optimization. However, previous works often require the availability of a numeric score to assess the quality of every prompt. Unfortunately, when a human user interacts with a black-box LLM, attaining such a score is often infeasible and unreliable. Instead, it is usually significantly easier and more reliable to obtain preference feedback from a human user, i.e., showing the user the responses generated from a pair of prompts and asking the user which one is preferred. Therefore, in this paper, we study the problem of prompt optimization with human feedback (POHF), in which we aim to optimize the prompt for a black-box LLM using only human preference feedback. Drawing inspiration from dueling bandits, we design a theoretically principled strategy to select a pair of prompts to query for preference feedback in every iteration, and hence introduce our algorithm named automated POHF (APOHF). We apply our APOHF algorithm to various tasks, including optimizing user instructions, prompt optimization for text-to-image generative models, and response optimization with human feedback (i.e., further refining the response using a variant of our APOHF). The results demonstrate that our APOHF can efficiently find a good prompt using a small number of preference feedback instances. Our code can be found at https://github.com/xqlin98/APOHF.

Human annotation variation (i.e., annotation disagreements) is common in NLP and often reflects important information such as task subjectivity and sample ambiguity. While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automatic annotation to reduce human effort, their evaluation often focuses on predicting the majority-voted "ground truth" labels. It is still unclear, however, whether these models also capture informative human annotation variation. Our work addresses this gap by extensively evaluating LLMs' ability to predict annotation disagreements without access to repeated human labels. Our results show that LLMs struggle with modeling disagreements, which can be overlooked by majority label-based evaluations. Notably, while RLVR-style (Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards) reasoning generally boosts LLM performance, it degrades performance in disagreement prediction. Our findings highlight the critical need for evaluating and improving LLM annotators in disagreement modeling. Code and data at https://github.com/EdisonNi-hku/Disagreement_Prediction.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect (hallucinated) information. Hence, aligning LLMs with human expectations has become an active area of interest within the research community. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects. (1) Data collection: the methods for effectively collecting high-quality instructions for LLM alignment, including the use of NLP benchmarks, human annotations, and leveraging strong LLMs. (2) Training methodologies: a detailed review of the prevailing training methods employed for LLM alignment. Our exploration encompasses Supervised Fine-tuning, both Online and Offline human preference training, along with parameter-efficient training mechanisms. (3) Model Evaluation: the methods for evaluating the effectiveness of these human-aligned LLMs, presenting a multifaceted approach towards their assessment. In conclusion, we collate and distill our findings, shedding light on several promising future research avenues in the field. This survey, therefore, serves as a valuable resource for anyone invested in understanding and advancing the alignment of LLMs to better suit human-oriented tasks and expectations. An associated GitHub link collecting the latest papers is available at https://github.com/GaryYufei/AlignLLMHumanSurvey.

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

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

Enabling a computer to understand a document so that it can answer comprehension questions is a central, yet unsolved goal of NLP. A key factor impeding its solution by machine learned systems is the limited availability of human-annotated data. Hermann et al. (2015) seek to solve this problem by creating over a million training examples by pairing CNN and Daily Mail news articles with their summarized bullet points, and show that a neural network can then be trained to give good performance on this task. In this paper, we conduct a thorough examination of this new reading comprehension task. Our primary aim is to understand what depth of language understanding is required to do well on this task. We approach this from one side by doing a careful hand-analysis of a small subset of the problems and from the other by showing that simple, carefully designed systems can obtain accuracies of 73.6% and 76.6% on these two datasets, exceeding current state-of-the-art results by 7-10% and approaching what we believe is the ceiling for performance on this task.

The recent explosion in work on neural topic modeling has been criticized for optimizing automated topic evaluation metrics at the expense of actual meaningful topic identification. But human annotation remains expensive and time-consuming. We propose LLM-based methods inspired by standard human topic evaluations, in a family of metrics called Contextualized Topic Coherence (CTC). We evaluate both a fully automated version as well as a semi-automated CTC that allows human-centered evaluation of coherence while maintaining the efficiency of automated methods. We evaluate CTC relative to five other metrics on six topic models and find that it outperforms automated topic coherence methods, works well on short documents, and is not susceptible to meaningless but high-scoring topics.

We present the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD), a new reading comprehension dataset consisting of 100,000+ questions posed by crowdworkers on a set of Wikipedia articles, where the answer to each question is a segment of text from the corresponding reading passage. We analyze the dataset to understand the types of reasoning required to answer the questions, leaning heavily on dependency and constituency trees. We build a strong logistic regression model, which achieves an F1 score of 51.0%, a significant improvement over a simple baseline (20%). However, human performance (86.8%) is much higher, indicating that the dataset presents a good challenge problem for future research. The dataset is freely available at https://stanford-qa.com

Measuring the full abilities of large language models (LLMs) requires benchmarks representing multiple tasks. We aim to create large, high-quality datasets for comparison of logical reasoning skills across several languages and of suitable difficulty for LLMs of various reasoning ability. We explore multiple ways of increasing difficulty. We generate zebra puzzles in multiple languages, themes, sizes and including 14 different clue types and 8 red herring types (uninformative clues). We find puzzle sizes 2x3 and 4x5 are sufficiently challenging for GPT-4o mini (a non-reasoning model) and o3-mini (a reasoning model), respectively. Including 5 red herrings decreases o3-mini puzzle-level accuracy on 4x5 puzzles by 15pm7 %. Scores of o3-mini on 4x5 puzzles are not significantly affected by use of English vs. Danish or the common houses theme vs. the country-specific smoerrebroed theme. We find no correlation between difficulty and the selected clue types. Datasets of 128+1024 puzzles are published as MultiZebraLogic in each of nine Germanic languages for sizes 2x3 and 4x5. We publish code for puzzle generation, designed for adaptablity into more languages and themes.

Curriculum learning, a training technique where data is presented to the model in order of example difficulty (e.g., from simpler to more complex documents), has shown limited success for pre-training language models. In this work, we investigate whether curriculum learning becomes competitive if we replace conventional human-centered difficulty metrics with one that more closely corresponds to example difficulty as observed during model training. Specifically, we experiment with sorting training examples by their training data influence, a score which estimates the effect of individual training examples on the model's output. Models trained on our curricula are able to outperform ones trained in random order by over 10 percentage points in benchmarks, confirming that curriculum learning is beneficial for language model pre-training, as long as a more model-centric notion of difficulty is adopted.

With the rapid improvement in the general capabilities of LLMs, LLM personalization, i.e., how to build LLM systems that can generate personalized responses or services that are tailored to distinct user personas, has become an increasingly important research and engineering problem. However, unlike many new challenging benchmarks being released for evaluating the general/reasoning capabilities, the lack of high-quality benchmarks for evaluating LLM personalization greatly hinders progress in this field. To address this, we introduce PersonaFeedback, a new benchmark that directly evaluates LLMs' ability to provide personalized responses given pre-defined user personas and queries. Unlike existing benchmarks that require models to infer implicit user personas from historical interactions, PersonaFeedback decouples persona inference from personalization, focusing on evaluating the model's ability to generate responses tailored to explicit personas. PersonaFeedback consists of 8298 human-annotated test cases, which are categorized into easy, medium, and hard tiers based on the contextual complexity of the user personas and the difficulty in distinguishing subtle differences between two personalized responses. We conduct comprehensive evaluations across a wide range of models. The empirical results reveal that even state-of-the-art LLMs that can solve complex real-world reasoning tasks could fall short on the hard tier of PersonaFeedback where even human evaluators may find the distinctions challenging. Furthermore, we conduct an in-depth analysis of failure modes across various types of systems, demonstrating that the current retrieval-augmented framework should not be seen as a de facto solution for personalization tasks. All benchmark data, annotation protocols, and the evaluation pipeline will be publicly available to facilitate future research on LLM personalization.

This study investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for predicting human-perceived misery scores from natural language descriptions of real-world scenarios. The task is framed as a regression problem, where the model assigns a scalar value from 0 to 100 to each input statement. We evaluate multiple prompting strategies, including zero-shot, fixed-context few-shot, and retrieval-based prompting using BERT sentence embeddings. Few-shot approaches consistently outperform zero-shot baselines, underscoring the value of contextual examples in affective prediction. To move beyond static evaluation, we introduce the "Misery Game Show", a novel gamified framework inspired by a television format. It tests LLMs through structured rounds involving ordinal comparison, binary classification, scalar estimation, and feedback-driven reasoning. This setup enables us to assess not only predictive accuracy but also the model's ability to adapt based on corrective feedback. The gamified evaluation highlights the broader potential of LLMs in dynamic emotional reasoning tasks beyond standard regression. Code and data link: https://github.com/abhi1nandy2/Misery_Data_Exps_GitHub

Large language models (LLMs) and small language models (SLMs) are being adopted at remarkable speed, although their safety still remains a serious concern. With the advent of multilingual S/LLMs, the question now becomes a matter of scale: can we expand multilingual safety evaluations of these models with the same velocity at which they are deployed? To this end we introduce RTP-LX, a human-transcreated and human-annotated corpus of toxic prompts and outputs in 28 languages. RTP-LX follows participatory design practices, and a portion of the corpus is especially designed to detect culturally-specific toxic language. We evaluate seven S/LLMs on their ability to detect toxic content in a culturally-sensitive, multilingual scenario. We find that, although they typically score acceptably in terms of accuracy, they have low agreement with human judges when judging holistically the toxicity of a prompt, and have difficulty discerning harm in context-dependent scenarios, particularly with subtle-yet-harmful content (e.g. microagressions, bias). We release of this dataset to contribute to further reduce harmful uses of these models and improve their safe deployment.

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

Existing RAG benchmarks often overlook query difficulty, leading to inflated performance on simpler questions and unreliable evaluations. A robust benchmark dataset must satisfy three key criteria: quality, diversity, and difficulty, which capturing the complexity of reasoning based on hops and the distribution of supporting evidence. In this paper, we propose MHTS (Multi-Hop Tree Structure), a novel dataset synthesis framework that systematically controls multi-hop reasoning complexity by leveraging a multi-hop tree structure to generate logically connected, multi-chunk queries. Our fine-grained difficulty estimation formula exhibits a strong correlation with the overall performance metrics of a RAG system, validating its effectiveness in assessing both retrieval and answer generation capabilities. By ensuring high-quality, diverse, and difficulty-controlled queries, our approach enhances RAG evaluation and benchmarking capabilities.

As Large Language Model (LLM) alignment evolves from simple completions to complex, highly sophisticated generation, Reward Models are increasingly shifting toward rubric-guided evaluation to mitigate surface-level biases. However, the community lacks a unified benchmark to assess this evaluation paradigm, as existing benchmarks lack both the discriminative complexity and the ground-truth rubric annotations required for rigorous analysis. To bridge this gap, we introduce RubricBench, a curated benchmark with 1,147 pairwise comparisons specifically designed to assess the reliability of rubric-based evaluation. Our construction employs a multi-dimensional filtration pipeline to target hard samples featuring nuanced input complexity and misleading surface bias, augmenting each with expert-annotated, atomic rubrics derived strictly from instructions. Comprehensive experiments reveal a substantial capability gap between human-annotated and model-generated rubrics, indicating that even state-of-the-art models struggle to autonomously specify valid evaluation criteria, lagging considerably behind human-guided performance.

Assessing the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in addressing diverse tasks is essential for comprehending their strengths and weaknesses. Conventional evaluation techniques typically apply a single prompting strategy uniformly across datasets, not considering the varying degrees of task complexity. We introduce the Hierarchical Prompting Taxonomy (HPT), a taxonomy that employs a Hierarchical Prompt Framework (HPF) composed of five unique prompting strategies, arranged from the simplest to the most complex, to assess LLMs more precisely and to offer a clearer perspective. This taxonomy assigns a score, called the Hierarchical Prompting Score (HP-Score), to datasets as well as LLMs based on the rules of the taxonomy, providing a nuanced understanding of their ability to solve diverse tasks and offering a universal measure of task complexity. Additionally, we introduce the Adaptive Hierarchical Prompt framework, which automates the selection of appropriate prompting strategies for each task. This study compares manual and adaptive hierarchical prompt frameworks using four instruction-tuned LLMs, namely Llama 3 8B, Phi 3 3.8B, Mistral 7B, and Gemma 7B, across four datasets: BoolQ, CommonSenseQA (CSQA), IWSLT-2017 en-fr (IWSLT), and SamSum. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of HPT, providing a reliable way to compare different tasks and LLM capabilities. This paper leads to the development of a universal evaluation metric that can be used to evaluate both the complexity of the datasets and the capabilities of LLMs. The implementation of both manual HPF and adaptive HPF is publicly available.

Word-level psycholinguistic norms lend empirical support to theories of language processing. However, obtaining such human-based measures is not always feasible or straightforward. One promising approach is to augment human norming datasets by using Large Language Models (LLMs) to predict these characteristics directly, a practice that is rapidly gaining popularity in psycholinguistics and cognitive science. However, the novelty of this approach (and the relative inscrutability of LLMs) necessitates the adoption of rigorous methodologies that guide researchers through this process, present the range of possible approaches, and clarify limitations that are not immediately apparent, but may, in some cases, render the use of LLMs impractical. In this work, we present a comprehensive methodology for estimating word characteristics with LLMs, enriched with practical advice and lessons learned from our own experience. Our approach covers both the direct use of base LLMs and the fine-tuning of models, an alternative that can yield substantial performance gains in certain scenarios. A major emphasis in the guide is the validation of LLM-generated data with human "gold standard" norms. We also present a software framework that implements our methodology and supports both commercial and open-weight models. We illustrate the proposed approach with a case study on estimating word familiarity in English. Using base models, we achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.8 with human ratings, which increased to 0.9 when employing fine-tuned models. This methodology, framework, and set of best practices aim to serve as a reference for future research on leveraging LLMs for psycholinguistic and lexical studies.

Recent advancements in conversational AI have created an urgent need for safety guardrails that prevent users from being exposed to offensive and dangerous content. Much of this work relies on human ratings and feedback, but does not account for the fact that perceptions of offense and safety are inherently subjective and that there may be systematic disagreements between raters that align with their socio-demographic identities. Instead, current machine learning approaches largely ignore rater subjectivity and use gold standards that obscure disagreements (e.g., through majority voting). In order to better understand the socio-cultural leanings of such tasks, we propose a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure systematic diversity in perspectives among different rater subgroups. We then demonstrate its utility by applying this framework to a dataset of human-chatbot conversations rated by a demographically diverse pool of raters. Our analysis reveals specific rater groups that have more diverse perspectives than the rest, and informs demographic axes that are crucial to consider for safety annotations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown prominent performance in various downstream tasks and prompt engineering plays a pivotal role in optimizing LLMs' performance. This paper, not only as an overview of current prompt engineering methods, but also aims to highlight the limitation of designing prompts based on an anthropomorphic assumption that expects LLMs to think like humans. From our review of 50 representative studies, we demonstrate that a goal-oriented prompt formulation, which guides LLMs to follow established human logical thinking, significantly improves the performance of LLMs. Furthermore, We introduce a novel taxonomy that categorizes goal-oriented prompting methods into five interconnected stages and we demonstrate the broad applicability of our framework. With four future directions proposed, we hope to further emphasize the power and potential of goal-oriented prompt engineering in all fields.

In this work, we investigate how explicitly modeling problem's difficulty prior information shapes the effectiveness of reinforcement learning based fine-tuning for multimodal reasoning. Our exploration mainly comprises of following three perspective: First, through offline data curation, we analyze the U-shaped difficulty distribution of two given datasets using the base model by multi-round sampling, and then filter out prompts that are either too simple or extremely difficult to provide meaningful gradients and perform subsequent two-stage training. Second, we implement an online advantage differentiation, computing group-wise empirical accuracy as a difficulty proxy to adaptively reweight advantages estimation, providing stronger learning signals for more challenging problems. Finally, we introduce difficulty hints as explicit prompts for more complex samples in the second training stage, encouraging the model to calibrate its reasoning depth and perform reflective validation checks. Our comprehensive approach demonstrates significant performances across various multi-modal mathematical reasoning benchmarks with only 2K+0.6K two-stage training data.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks, including logical puzzle games that require deriving solutions satisfying all constraints. However, whether they can flexibly apply appropriate rules to varying conditions, particularly when faced with non-canonical game variants, remains an open question. Existing corpora focus on popular puzzles like 9x9 Sudoku, risking overfitting to canonical formats and memorization of solution patterns, which can mask deficiencies in understanding novel rules or adapting strategies to new variants. To address this, we introduce HardcoreLogic, a challenging benchmark of over 5,000 puzzles across 10 games, designed to test the robustness of LRMs on the "long-tail" of logical games. HardcoreLogic systematically transforms canonical puzzles through three dimensions: Increased Complexity (IC), Uncommon Elements (UE), and Unsolvable Puzzles (UP), reducing reliance on shortcut memorization. Evaluations on a diverse set of LRMs reveal significant performance drops, even for models achieving top scores on existing benchmarks, indicating heavy reliance on memorized stereotypes. While increased complexity is the dominant source of difficulty, models also struggle with subtle rule variations that do not necessarily increase puzzle difficulty. Our systematic error analysis on solvable and unsolvable puzzles further highlights gaps in genuine reasoning. Overall, HardcoreLogic exposes the limitations of current LRMs and establishes a benchmark for advancing high-level logical reasoning.

The "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. LLM annotations are widely used, not only in NLP research but also in fields like medicine, psychology, and social science. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. In this paper, we propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations. Additionally, we introduce a versatile and interpretable measure for comparing LLM judges. To demonstrate our procedure, we curated a diverse collection of ten datasets, consisting of language and vision-language tasks, and conducted experiments with six LLMs and four prompting techniques. Our results show that LLMs can sometimes replace humans with closed-source LLMs (such as GPT-4o), outperforming open-source LLMs, and that prompting techniques yield judges of varying quality. We hope this study encourages more rigorous and reliable practices.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot annotation and LLM-as-a-judge tasks, yet their reliability hinges on how model-internalized priors interact with user-provided instructions. We investigate three dimensions of this interaction: (1) how an LLM's familiarity with data and task definitions affects performance, (2) the extent to which additional information in prompts can correct zero-shot errors ("decision stickiness"), and (3) model susceptibility to misaligned task definitions. Through experiments on toxicity detection across diverse datasets (spanning social media, gaming, news, and forums) using both dense and mixture-of-experts models, we find that nearly two-thirds of zero-shot errors are resistant to correction, with an overall rescue rate (fraction of initial errors corrected by prompting) of only 34.8%. High-confidence errors prove especially resistant to correction. When given misaligned definitions, LLMs follow them while maintaining confidence levels unchanged from the aligned condition. Crucially, we introduce Definition-Specific Familiarity (DSF), which measures alignment between a model's internal concept and the task definition. After controlling for dataset-level confounds, DSF shows a positive association with model performance (partial r = +0.41), while three distinct memorization metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, and embedding cosine similarity) all fail to show a positive association. These findings show the limitations of prompt-based correction in annotation tasks, highlighting the importance of definition alignment over text-level memorization.

When using language models (LMs) to solve complex problems, humans might struggle to understand the LM-generated solutions and repair the flawed ones. To assist humans in repairing them, we propose to automatically decompose complex solutions into multiple simpler pieces that correspond to specific subtasks. We introduce a novel objective for learning task decomposition, termed assistive value (AssistV), which measures the feasibility and speed for humans to repair the decomposed solution. We collect a dataset of human repair experiences on different decomposed solutions. Utilizing the collected data as in-context examples, we then learn to critique, refine, and rank decomposed solutions to improve AssistV. We validate our method under competitive programming problems: under 177 hours of human study, our method enables non-experts to solve 33.3\% more problems, speeds them up by 3.3x, and empowers them to match unassisted experts.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated significant advances in visual understanding tasks. However, their capacity to comprehend human-centric scenes has rarely been explored, primarily due to the absence of comprehensive evaluation benchmarks that take into account both the human-oriented granular level and higher-dimensional causal reasoning ability. Such high-quality evaluation benchmarks face tough obstacles, given the physical complexity of the human body and the difficulty of annotating granular structures. In this paper, we propose Human-MME, a curated benchmark designed to provide a more holistic evaluation of MLLMs in human-centric scene understanding. Compared with other existing benchmarks, our work provides three key features: 1. Diversity in human scene, spanning 4 primary visual domains with 15 secondary domains and 43 sub-fields to ensure broad scenario coverage. 2. Progressive and diverse evaluation dimensions, evaluating the human-based activities progressively from the human-oriented granular perception to the higher-dimensional reasoning, consisting of eight dimensions with 19,945 real-world image question pairs and an evaluation suite. 3. High-quality annotations with rich data paradigms, constructing the automated annotation pipeline and human-annotation platform, supporting rigorous manual labeling to facilitate precise and reliable model assessment. Our benchmark extends the single-target understanding to the multi-person and multi-image mutual understanding by constructing the choice, short-answer, grounding, ranking and judgment question components, and complex questions of their combination. The extensive experiments on 17 state-of-the-art MLLMs effectively expose the limitations and guide future MLLMs research toward better human-centric image understanding. All data and code are available at https://github.com/Yuan-Hou/Human-MME.

Neural networks (NN) perform well in diverse tasks, but sometimes produce nonsensical results to humans. Most NN models "solely" learn from (input, output) pairs, occasionally conflicting with human knowledge. Many studies indicate injecting human knowledge by reducing output constraints during training can improve model performance and reduce constraint violations. While there have been several attempts to compare different existing algorithms under the same programming framework, nonetheless, there has been no previous work that categorizes learning algorithms with output constraints in a unified manner. Our contributions are as follows: (1) We categorize the previous studies based on three axes: type of constraint loss used (e.g. probabilistic soft logic, REINFORCE), exploration strategy of constraint-violating examples, and integration mechanism of learning signals from main task and constraint. (2) We propose new algorithms to integrate the information of main task and constraint injection, inspired by continual-learning algorithms. (3) Furthermore, we propose the Hβ-score as a metric for considering the main task metric and constraint violation simultaneously. To provide a thorough analysis, we examine all the algorithms on three NLP tasks: natural language inference (NLI), synthetic transduction examples (STE), and semantic role labeling (SRL). We explore and reveal the key factors of various algorithms associated with achieving high Hβ-scores.

Estimating the performance difficulty of a musical score is crucial in music education for adequately designing the learning curriculum of the students. Although the Music Information Retrieval community has recently shown interest in this task, existing approaches mainly use machine-readable scores, leaving the broader case of sheet music images unaddressed. Based on previous works involving sheet music images, we use a mid-level representation, bootleg score, describing notehead positions relative to staff lines coupled with a transformer model. This architecture is adapted to our task by introducing an encoding scheme that reduces the encoded sequence length to one-eighth of the original size. In terms of evaluation, we consider five datasets -- more than 7500 scores with up to 9 difficulty levels -- , two of them particularly compiled for this work. The results obtained when pretraining the scheme on the IMSLP corpus and fine-tuning it on the considered datasets prove the proposal's validity, achieving the best-performing model with a balanced accuracy of 40.34\% and a mean square error of 1.33. Finally, we provide access to our code, data, and models for transparency and reproducibility.

In large organisations, identifying experts on a given topic is crucial in leveraging the internal knowledge spread across teams and departments. So-called enterprise expert retrieval systems automatically discover and structure employees' expertise based on the vast amount of heterogeneous data available about them and the work they perform. Evaluating these systems requires comprehensive ground truth expert annotations, which are hard to obtain. Therefore, the annotation process typically relies on automated recommendations of knowledge areas to validate. This case study provides an analysis of how these recommendations can impact the evaluation of expert finding systems. We demonstrate on a popular benchmark that system-validated annotations lead to overestimated performance of traditional term-based retrieval models and even invalidate comparisons with more recent neural methods. We also augment knowledge areas with synonyms to uncover a strong bias towards literal mentions of their constituent words. Finally, we propose constraints to the annotation process to prevent these biased evaluations, and show that this still allows annotation suggestions of high utility. These findings should inform benchmark creation or selection for expert finding, to guarantee meaningful comparison of methods.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in interactive applications, and human evaluation remains the gold standard for assessing their performance in multi-turn conversations. Since human studies are costly, time-consuming, and hard to reproduce, recent work explores using LLMs to simulate users for automatic assistant evaluation. However, there is no benchmark or systematic study to evaluate whether these simulated users are reliable stand-ins for real users. To address this, we introduce SimulatorArena, a benchmark of 909 annotated human-LLM conversations on two interactive tasks -- math tutoring and document creation. SimulatorArena evaluates simulators based on how closely their messages match human behavior and how well their assistant ratings align with human judgments. Experiments on various simulator methods show that simulators conditioned on user profiles, capturing traits like background and message styles, align closely with human judgments. They reach Spearman's rho of 0.7 on both tasks, providing a practical, scalable alternative to human evaluation. Using the best simulator for each task, we benchmark 18 assistants, including the latest LLMs such as GPT-5, Claude 4.1 Opus, and Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art. As benchmarks rapidly evolve to incorporate complex reasoning and subjective tasks, they increasingly necessitate open-ended responses from LALMs. We present Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment (ORCA) -- a reliable and lightweight model-based approach for answer correctness and disagreement modeling. We employ a three-stage annotation pipeline combining human judgment, structured feedback, and human-AI correction, yielding 9,663 annotations across 3,699 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on three audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks (achieving a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.82). Our experiments employing curriculum learning show that ORCA models achieve a Spearman correlation of 0.91 with average human correctness ratings on seen benchmarks and generalize to unseen benchmarks with a score of 0.85, outperforming several LLM judge baselines including Gemini 2.5 Flash. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ORCA's predicted variance correlates strongly with human disagreement, allowing it to effectively identify problematic benchmark items.

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.

We present IndoNLI, the first human-elicited NLI dataset for Indonesian. We adapt the data collection protocol for MNLI and collect nearly 18K sentence pairs annotated by crowd workers and experts. The expert-annotated data is used exclusively as a test set. It is designed to provide a challenging test-bed for Indonesian NLI by explicitly incorporating various linguistic phenomena such as numerical reasoning, structural changes, idioms, or temporal and spatial reasoning. Experiment results show that XLM-R outperforms other pre-trained models in our data. The best performance on the expert-annotated data is still far below human performance (13.4% accuracy gap), suggesting that this test set is especially challenging. Furthermore, our analysis shows that our expert-annotated data is more diverse and contains fewer annotation artifacts than the crowd-annotated data. We hope this dataset can help accelerate progress in Indonesian NLP research.

Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging agrees with human annotation at kappa=0.049 (chance-level); a three-LLM ensemble reaches kappa=0.432 (moderate) with a conservative bias. Under validated evaluation, a parameter-level injection propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62 (range 0.46-0.73 across models). Rejection (catching bad parameters) and recovery (correcting after acceptance) are independent model capabilities (Spearman rho=0.126, p=0.747). A tuned runtime interceptor reduces hallucination on GPT-4o-mini by 23.0 percentage points under a concurrent n=600 control, but shows no significant effect on Gemini-2.0-Flash, whose aggressive parameter rejection eliminates the target failure mode. All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.

Human models play a crucial role in human-robot interaction (HRI), enabling robots to consider the impact of their actions on people and plan their behavior accordingly. However, crafting good human models is challenging; capturing context-dependent human behavior requires significant prior knowledge and/or large amounts of interaction data, both of which are difficult to obtain. In this work, we explore the potential of large-language models (LLMs) -- which have consumed vast amounts of human-generated text data -- to act as zero-shot human models for HRI. Our experiments on three social datasets yield promising results; the LLMs are able to achieve performance comparable to purpose-built models. That said, we also discuss current limitations, such as sensitivity to prompts and spatial/numerical reasoning mishaps. Based on our findings, we demonstrate how LLM-based human models can be integrated into a social robot's planning process and applied in HRI scenarios. Specifically, we present one case study on a simulated trust-based table-clearing task and replicate past results that relied on custom models. Next, we conduct a new robot utensil-passing experiment (n = 65) where preliminary results show that planning with a LLM-based human model can achieve gains over a basic myopic plan. In summary, our results show that LLMs offer a promising (but incomplete) approach to human modeling for HRI.

Directly learning from examples of random difficulty levels is often challenging for both humans and machine learning models. A more effective strategy involves exposing learners to examples in a progressive order, from easy to difficult. Curriculum Learning (CL) has been proposed to implement this strategy in machine learning model training. However, two key challenges persist in CL framework design: defining the difficulty of training data and determining the appropriate amount of data to input at each training step. This paper presents a Psychology-based Unified Dynamic Framework for Curriculum Learning (PUDF), drawing inspiration from psychometrics. We quantify the difficulty of training data by applying Item Response Theory (IRT) to responses from Artificial Crowds (AC). This theory-driven IRT-AC approach leads to global (i.e., model-independent) and interpretable difficulty values. Leveraging IRT, we propose a Dynamic Data Selection via Model Ability Estimation (DDS-MAE) strategy to schedule the appropriate amount of data during model training. Since our difficulty labeling and model ability estimation are based on a consistent theory, namely IRT, their values are comparable within the same scope, potentially leading to a faster convergence compared to the other CL methods. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning pre-trained language models with PUDF enhances their performance on the GLUE benchmark. Moreover, PUDF surpasses other state-of-the-art (SOTA) CL methods on the GLUE benchmark. We further explore the components of PUDF, namely the difficulty measurer (IRT-AC) and the training scheduler (DDS-MAE) qualitatively and quantitatively. Lastly, we conduct an ablation study to clarify which components of PUDF contribute to faster convergence and higher accuracy.

Pool-based active learning (AL) aims to optimize the annotation process (i.e., labeling) as the acquisition of annotations is often time-consuming and therefore expensive. For this purpose, an AL strategy queries annotations intelligently from annotators to train a high-performance classification model at a low annotation cost. Traditional AL strategies operate in an idealized framework. They assume a single, omniscient annotator who never gets tired and charges uniformly regardless of query difficulty. However, in real-world applications, we often face human annotators, e.g., crowd or in-house workers, who make annotation mistakes and can be reluctant to respond if tired or faced with complex queries. Recently, a wide range of novel AL strategies has been proposed to address these issues. They differ in at least one of the following three central aspects from traditional AL: (1) They explicitly consider (multiple) human annotators whose performances can be affected by various factors, such as missing expertise. (2) They generalize the interaction with human annotators by considering different query and annotation types, such as asking an annotator for feedback on an inferred classification rule. (3) They take more complex cost schemes regarding annotations and misclassifications into account. This survey provides an overview of these AL strategies and refers to them as real-world AL. Therefore, we introduce a general real-world AL strategy as part of a learning cycle and use its elements, e.g., the query and annotator selection algorithm, to categorize about 60 real-world AL strategies. Finally, we outline possible directions for future research in the field of AL.

BIG-Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022) is a diverse evaluation suite that focuses on tasks believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. Language models have already made good progress on this benchmark, with the best model in the BIG-Bench paper outperforming average reported human-rater results on 65% of the BIG-Bench tasks via few-shot prompting. But on what tasks do language models fall short of average human-rater performance, and are those tasks actually unsolvable by current language models? In this work, we focus on a suite of 23 challenging BIG-Bench tasks which we call BIG-Bench Hard (BBH). These are the task for which prior language model evaluations did not outperform the average human-rater. We find that applying chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting to BBH tasks enables PaLM to surpass the average human-rater performance on 10 of the 23 tasks, and Codex (code-davinci-002) to surpass the average human-rater performance on 17 of the 23 tasks. Since many tasks in BBH require multi-step reasoning, few-shot prompting without CoT, as done in the BIG-Bench evaluations (Srivastava et al., 2022), substantially underestimates the best performance and capabilities of language models, which is better captured via CoT prompting. As further analysis, we explore the interaction between CoT and model scale on BBH, finding that CoT enables emergent task performance on several BBH tasks with otherwise flat scaling curves.

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

Academic researchers need efficient and reliable methods for collecting high-quality information from trusted sources, but modern tools for AI-assisted research still suffer from the tendency of Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce factually inaccurate or nonsensical output, commonly referred to as hallucinations. We apply the extractive question answering system VerbatimRAG to research papers in the ACL Anthology, directly mapping user queries to verbatim text spans in retrieved documents. We contribute a novel ground truth dataset for the task of mapping user queries to relevant text spans in research papers, and use it to train and evaluate a variety of extractive models. Human annotation is performed by NLP researchers and is based on synthetic user queries generated using a custom pipeline based on the ScIRGen methodology, paired with chunks of research papers retrieved by VerbatimRAG. On this benchmark, a 150M-parameter ModernBERT token classifier trained on silver supervision from our pipeline achieves the best word-level F1 (53.6), ahead of the strongest evaluated LLM extractor (48.7).

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in settings where they interact with a wide variety of people, including users who are unclear, impatient, or reluctant to share information. However, collecting real interaction data at scale remains expensive. The field has turned to LLM-based user simulators as stand-ins, but these simulators inherit the behavior of their underlying models: cooperative and homogeneous. As a result, agents that appear strong in simulation often fail under the unseen, diverse communication patterns of real users. To narrow this gap, we introduce Persona Policies (PPol), a plug-and-play control layer that induces realistic behavioral variation in user simulators while preserving the original task goals. Rather than hand-crafting personas, we cast persona generation as an LLM-driven evolutionary program search that optimizes a Python generator to discover behaviors and translate them into task-preserving roleplay policies. Candidate generators are guided by a multi-objective fitness score combining human-likeness with broad coverage of human behavioral patterns. Once optimized, the generator produces a diverse population of human-like personas for any task in the domain. Across tau^2-bench retail and airline domains, evolved PPol programs yield 33-62% absolute gains in fitness score over the baseline simulator. In a blinded evaluation, annotators rated PPol-conditioned users as human 80.4% of the time, close to real human traces and nearly twice as frequently as baseline simulators. Agents trained with PPol are more robust to challenging, out-of-distribution behaviors, improving task success by +17% relative to training only on existing simulated interactions. This offers a novel approach to strengthen simulator-based evaluation and training without changing tasks or rewards.

Psychological defenses are strategies, often automatic, that people use to manage distress. Rigid or overuse of defenses is negatively linked to mental health and shapes what speakers disclose and how they accept or resist help. However, defenses are complex and difficult to reliably measure, particularly in clinical dialogues. We introduce PsyDefConv, a dialogue corpus with help seeker utterances labeled for defense level, and DMRS Co-Pilot, a four-stage pipeline that provides evidence-based pre-annotations. The corpus contains 200 dialogues and 4709 utterances, including 2336 help seeker turns, with labeling and Cohen's kappa 0.639. In a counterbalanced study, the co-pilot reduced average annotation time by 22.4%. In expert review, it averaged 4.62 for evidence, 4.44 for clinical plausibility, and 4.40 for insight on a seven-point scale. Benchmarks with strong language models in zero-shot and fine-tuning settings demonstrate clear headroom, with the best macro F1-score around 30% and a tendency to overpredict mature defenses. Corpus analyses confirm that mature defenses are most common and reveal emotion-specific deviations. We will release the corpus, annotations, code, and prompts to support research on defensive functioning in language.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Image content safety has become a significant challenge with the rise of visual media on online platforms. Meanwhile, in the age of AI-generated content (AIGC), many image generation models are capable of producing harmful content, such as images containing sexual or violent material. Thus, it becomes crucial to identify such unsafe images based on established safety rules. Pre-trained Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) offer potential in this regard, given their strong pattern recognition abilities. Existing approaches typically fine-tune MLLMs with human-labeled datasets, which however brings a series of drawbacks. First, relying on human annotators to label data following intricate and detailed guidelines is both expensive and labor-intensive. Furthermore, users of safety judgment systems may need to frequently update safety rules, making fine-tuning on human-based annotation more challenging. This raises the research question: Can we detect unsafe images by querying MLLMs in a zero-shot setting using a predefined safety constitution (a set of safety rules)? Our research showed that simply querying pre-trained MLLMs does not yield satisfactory results. This lack of effectiveness stems from factors such as the subjectivity of safety rules, the complexity of lengthy constitutions, and the inherent biases in the models. To address these challenges, we propose a MLLM-based method includes objectifying safety rules, assessing the relevance between rules and images, making quick judgments based on debiased token probabilities with logically complete yet simplified precondition chains for safety rules, and conducting more in-depth reasoning with cascaded chain-of-thought processes if necessary. Experiment results demonstrate that our method is highly effective for zero-shot image safety judgment tasks.

Language models are known to hallucinate incorrect information, and it is unclear if they are sufficiently accurate and reliable for use in scientific research. We developed a rigorous human-AI comparison methodology to evaluate language model agents on real-world literature search tasks covering information retrieval, summarization, and contradiction detection tasks. We show that PaperQA2, a frontier language model agent optimized for improved factuality, matches or exceeds subject matter expert performance on three realistic literature research tasks without any restrictions on humans (i.e., full access to internet, search tools, and time). PaperQA2 writes cited, Wikipedia-style summaries of scientific topics that are significantly more accurate than existing, human-written Wikipedia articles. We also introduce a hard benchmark for scientific literature research called LitQA2 that guided design of PaperQA2, leading to it exceeding human performance. Finally, we apply PaperQA2 to identify contradictions within the scientific literature, an important scientific task that is challenging for humans. PaperQA2 identifies 2.34 +/- 1.99 contradictions per paper in a random subset of biology papers, of which 70% are validated by human experts. These results demonstrate that language model agents are now capable of exceeding domain experts across meaningful tasks on scientific literature.

Human feedback can alter language models in unpredictable and undesirable ways, as practitioners lack a clear understanding of what feedback data encodes. While prior work studies preferences over certain attributes (e.g., length or sycophancy), automatically extracting relevant features without pre-specifying hypotheses remains challenging. We introduce What's In My Human Feedback? (WIMHF), a method to explain feedback data using sparse autoencoders. WIMHF characterizes both (1) the preferences a dataset is capable of measuring and (2) the preferences that the annotators actually express. Across 7 datasets, WIMHF identifies a small number of human-interpretable features that account for the majority of the preference prediction signal achieved by black-box models. These features reveal a wide diversity in what humans prefer, and the role of dataset-level context: for example, users on Reddit prefer informality and jokes, while annotators in HH-RLHF and PRISM disprefer them. WIMHF also surfaces potentially unsafe preferences, such as that LMArena users tend to vote against refusals, often in favor of toxic content. The learned features enable effective data curation: re-labeling the harmful examples in Arena yields large safety gains (+37%) with no cost to general performance. They also allow fine-grained personalization: on the Community Alignment dataset, we learn annotator-specific weights over subjective features that improve preference prediction. WIMHF provides a human-centered analysis method for practitioners to better understand and use preference data.

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

Active Learning (AL) addresses the high costs of collecting human annotations by strategically annotating the most informative samples. However, for subjective NLP tasks, incorporating a wide range of perspectives in the annotation process is crucial to capture the variability in human judgments. We introduce Annotator-Centric Active Learning (ACAL), which incorporates an annotator selection strategy following data sampling. Our objective is two-fold: (1) to efficiently approximate the full diversity of human judgments, and (2) to assess model performance using annotator-centric metrics, which emphasize minority perspectives over a majority. We experiment with multiple annotator selection strategies across seven subjective NLP tasks, employing both traditional and novel, human-centered evaluation metrics. Our findings indicate that ACAL improves data efficiency and excels in annotator-centric performance evaluations. However, its success depends on the availability of a sufficiently large and diverse pool of annotators to sample from.

The application of machine learning to medical ultrasound videos of the heart, i.e., echocardiography, has recently gained traction with the availability of large public datasets. Traditional supervised tasks, such as ejection fraction regression, are now making way for approaches focusing more on the latent structure of data distributions, as well as generative methods. We propose a model trained exclusively by knowledge distillation, either on real or synthetical data, involving retrieving masks suggested by a teacher model. We achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) values on the task of identifying end-diastolic and end-systolic frames. By training the model only on synthetic data, it reaches segmentation capabilities close to the performance when trained on real data with a significantly reduced number of weights. A comparison with the 5 main existing methods shows that our method outperforms the others in most cases. We also present a new evaluation method that does not require human annotation and instead relies on a large auxiliary model. We show that this method produces scores consistent with those obtained from human annotations. Relying on the integrated knowledge from a vast amount of records, this method overcomes certain inherent limitations of human annotator labeling. Code: https://github.com/GregoirePetit/EchoDFKD

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

Designing dialog tutors has been challenging as it involves modeling the diverse and complex pedagogical strategies employed by human tutors. Although there have been significant recent advances in neural conversational systems using large language models (LLMs) and growth in available dialog corpora, dialog tutoring has largely remained unaffected by these advances. In this paper, we rigorously analyze various generative language models on two dialog tutoring datasets for language learning using automatic and human evaluations to understand the new opportunities brought by these advances as well as the challenges we must overcome to build models that would be usable in real educational settings. We find that although current approaches can model tutoring in constrained learning scenarios when the number of concepts to be taught and possible teacher strategies are small, they perform poorly in less constrained scenarios. Our human quality evaluation shows that both models and ground-truth annotations exhibit low performance in terms of equitable tutoring, which measures learning opportunities for students and how engaging the dialog is. To understand the behavior of our models in a real tutoring setting, we conduct a user study using expert annotators and find a significantly large number of model reasoning errors in 45% of conversations. Finally, we connect our findings to outline future work.

Learning of preference models from human feedback has been central to recent advances in artificial intelligence. Motivated by the cost of obtaining high-quality human annotations, we study efficient human preference elicitation for learning preference models. The key idea in our work is to generalize optimal designs, an approach to computing optimal information-gathering policies, to lists of items that represent potential questions with answers. The policy is a distribution over the lists and we elicit preferences from them proportionally to their probabilities. To show the generality of our ideas, we study both absolute and ranking feedback models on items in the list. We design efficient algorithms for both and analyze them. Finally, we demonstrate that our algorithms are practical by evaluating them on existing question-answering problems.

For socially sensitive tasks like hate speech detection, the quality of explanations from Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for factors like user trust and model alignment. While Persona prompting (PP) is increasingly used as a way to steer model towards user-specific generation, its effect on model rationales remains underexplored. We investigate how LLM-generated rationales vary when conditioned on different simulated demographic personas. Using datasets annotated with word-level rationales, we measure agreement with human annotations from different demographic groups, and assess the impact of PP on model bias and human alignment. Our evaluation across three LLMs results reveals three key findings: (1) PP improving classification on the most subjective task (hate speech) but degrading rationale quality. (2) Simulated personas fail to align with their real-world demographic counterparts, and high inter-persona agreement shows models are resistant to significant steering. (3) Models exhibit consistent demographic biases and a strong tendency to over-flag content as harmful, regardless of PP. Our findings reveal a critical trade-off: while PP can improve classification in socially-sensitive tasks, it often comes at the cost of rationale quality and fails to mitigate underlying biases, urging caution in its application.

We measure the performance of in-context learning as a function of task novelty and difficulty for open and closed questions. For that purpose, we created a novel benchmark consisting of hard scientific questions, each paired with a context of various relevancy. We show that counter-intuitively, a context that is more aligned with the topic does not always help more than a less relevant context. This effect is especially visible for open questions and questions of high difficulty or novelty. This result reveals a fundamental difference between the treatment of close-form and open-form questions by large-language models and shows a need for a more robust evaluation of in-context learning on the variety of different types of questions. It also poses a new question of how to optimally select a context for large language models, especially in the context of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. Our results suggest that the answer to this question can be highly application-dependent and might be contingent on factors including the format of the question, the perceived difficulty level of the questions, and the novelty or popularity of the information we seek.

Ensuring that online discussions are civil and productive is a major challenge for social media platforms. Such platforms usually rely both on users and on automated detection tools to flag inappropriate arguments of other users, which moderators then review. However, this kind of post-hoc moderation is expensive and time-consuming, and moderators are often overwhelmed by the amount and severity of flagged content. Instead, a promising alternative is to prevent negative behavior during content creation. This paper studies how inappropriate language in arguments can be computationally mitigated. We propose a reinforcement learning-based rewriting approach that balances content preservation and appropriateness based on existing classifiers, prompting an instruction-finetuned large language model (LLM) as our initial policy. Unlike related style transfer tasks, rewriting inappropriate arguments allows deleting and adding content permanently. It is therefore tackled on document level rather than sentence level. We evaluate different weighting schemes for the reward function in both absolute and relative human assessment studies. Systematic experiments on non-parallel data provide evidence that our approach can mitigate the inappropriateness of arguments while largely preserving their content. It significantly outperforms competitive baselines, including few-shot learning, prompting, and humans.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are flourishing, but mainly focus on images with less attention than videos, especially in sub-fields such as prompt engineering, video chain-of-thought (CoT), and instruction tuning on videos. Therefore, we try to explore the collection of CoT datasets in videos to lead to video OpenQA and improve the reasoning ability of MLLMs. Unfortunately, making such video CoT datasets is not an easy task. Given that human annotation is too cumbersome and expensive, while machine-generated is not reliable due to the hallucination issue, we develop an automatic annotation tool that combines machine and human experts, under the active learning paradigm. Active learning is an interactive strategy between the model and human experts, in this way, the workload of human labeling can be reduced and the quality of the dataset can be guaranteed. With the help of the automatic annotation tool, we strive to contribute three datasets, namely VideoCoT, TopicQA, TopicCoT. Furthermore, we propose a simple but effective benchmark based on the collected datasets, which exploits CoT to maximize the complex reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness our solution.