Daily Papers

In personalized marketing, uplift models estimate incremental effects by modeling how customer behavior changes under alternative treatments. However, real-world data often exhibit biases - such as selection bias, spillover effects, and unobserved confounding - which adversely affect both estimation accuracy and metric validity. Despite the importance of bias-aware assessment, a lack of systematic studies persists. To bridge this gap, we design a systematic benchmarking framework. Unlike standard predictive tasks, real-world uplift datasets lack counterfactual ground truth, rendering direct metric validation infeasible. Therefore, a semi-synthetic approach serves as a critical enabler for systematic benchmarking, effectively bridging the gap by retaining real-world feature dependencies while providing the ground truth needed to isolate structural biases. Our investigations reveal that: (i) uplift targeting and prediction can manifest as distinct objectives, where proficiency in one does not ensure efficacy in the other; (ii) while many models exhibit inconsistent performance under diverse biases, TARNet shows notable robustness, providing insights for subsequent model design; (iii) evaluation metric stability is linked to mathematical alignment with the ATE, suggesting that ATE-approximating metrics yield more consistent model rankings under structural data imperfections. These findings suggest the need for more robust uplift models and metrics. Code will be released upon acceptance.

Handwritten UML sketches are common in early software design, but turning them into structured, analysable modelling artefacts still requires manual reconstruction. Vision-language models can generate PlantUML from diagram images, but prompt-based use treats this as image-to-text generation rather than structured model generation. We investigate formalism-aware rewards: feedback signals derived from analysable model representations rather than surface text. In a worked example, we adapt a vision-language model for handwritten UML-to-PlantUML generation using super-vised fine-tuning followed by Group Relative Policy Optimisation. Generated PlantUML is compared against target representations, using XMI for class diagrams and control-flow graphs for activity diagrams. Emerging results show that the adapted model improves compilability and conversion quality over the untuned open model and one proprietary baseline, while remaining competitive with a stronger proprietary baseline on class diagrams. The added benefit of the reward-guided stage remains open on the current held-out set. Error analysis and metric-validity results show that modelling acceptability is only partially captured, motivating rewards and evaluations that combine model analysis with human judgement.

Agentic memory systems enable large language model (LLM) agents to maintain state across long interactions, supporting long-horizon reasoning and personalization beyond fixed context windows. Despite rapid architectural development, the empirical foundations of these systems remain fragile: existing benchmarks are often underscaled, evaluation metrics are misaligned with semantic utility, performance varies significantly across backbone models, and system-level costs are frequently overlooked. This survey presents a structured analysis of agentic memory from both architectural and system perspectives. We first introduce a concise taxonomy of MAG systems based on four memory structures. Then, we analyze key pain points limiting current systems, including benchmark saturation effects, metric validity and judge sensitivity, backbone-dependent accuracy, and the latency and throughput overhead introduced by memory maintenance. By connecting the memory structure to empirical limitations, this survey clarifies why current agentic memory systems often underperform their theoretical promise and outlines directions for more reliable evaluation and scalable system design.

Large language models (LLMs) promise to accelerate incident response in production systems, yet single-agent approaches generate vague, unusable recommendations. We present MyAntFarm.ai, a reproducible containerized framework demonstrating that multi-agent orchestration fundamentally transforms LLM-based incident response quality. Through 348 controlled trials comparing single-agent copilot versus multi-agent systems on identical incident scenarios, we find that multi-agent orchestration achieves 100% actionable recommendation rate versus 1.7% for single-agent approaches, an 80 times improvement in action specificity and 140 times improvement in solution correctness. Critically, multi-agent systems exhibit zero quality variance across all trials, enabling production SLA commitments impossible with inconsistent single-agent outputs. Both architectures achieve similar comprehension latency (approx.40s), establishing that the architectural value lies in deterministic quality, not speed. We introduce Decision Quality (DQ), a novel metric capturing validity, specificity, and correctness properties essential for operational deployment that existing LLM metrics do not address. These findings reframe multi-agent orchestration from a performance optimization to a production-readiness requirement for LLM-based incident response. All code, Docker configurations, and trial data are publicly available for reproduction.

A central goal of science is to produce valid explanations of complex systems: high-level causal accounts that faithfully reflect the behavior of lower-level mechanisms. Yet no consensus exists on how to measure whether a proposed high-level explanation is actually valid. We introduce a benchmark of ten complex systems spanning both discrete and continuous state spaces, as well as static and dynamical regimes, each equipped with consensual ground-truth causal explanations and invalid contrastive conditions. Within a unified causal abstraction framework, we systematically evaluate over thirty candidate metrics drawn from observational, functional, information-theoretic, and causal families. Our results show that only the latter reliably discriminates valid from invalid abstractions, and only when incorporating faithfulness testing over unmapped variables. Building on these findings, we introduce the Causal Abstraction Error (CAE), a continuous validity metric with an explicit faithfulness test, which passes all discrimination tests across every system and can converge with as few as 30 sampled interventions. We offer it as a general-purpose metric for the discovery and validation of high-level explanations.

Standard methods for detecting discontinuities in conditional means are not applicable to outcomes that are complex, non-Euclidean objects like distributions, networks, or covariance matrices. This article develops a nonparametric test for jumps in conditional means when outcomes lie in a non-Euclidean metric space. Using local Fr\'echet regressionx2014which generalizes standard regression to metric-space valued datax2014the method estimates a mean path on either side of a candidate cutoff, extending existing k-sample tests to a flexible regression setting. Key theoretical contributions include a central limit theorem for the local estimator of the conditional Fr\'echet variance and the asymptotic validity and consistency of the proposed test. Simulations confirm nominal size control and robust power in finite samples. Two applications demonstrate the method's value by revealing effects invisible to scalar-based tests. First, I detect a sharp change in work-from-home compositions at Washington State's income threshold for non-compete enforceability during COVID-19, highlighting remote work's role as a bargaining margin. Second, I find that countries restructure their input-output networks after losing preferential US trade access. These findings underscore that analyzing regression functions within their native metric spaces can reveal structural discontinuities that scalar summaries would miss.

Dominant accuracy evaluation might reward unwarranted guessing of Large Language Models, and it might not be applicable to novel tasks for model validation without ground-truth (gt) annotation. Based on basic logic principle, we propose a novel framework to evaluate the vision-language logical consistency of MLLMs on both sufficient and necessary cause-effect relations. We define Vision-Language Logical Consistency Metric (VL-LCM) on traditional MC-VQA tests, and recent NaturalBench tests without the need for gt annotation. Through systematic experiments on representative VL benchmark MMMU and recent VL challenges like NaturalBench, we evaluated 11 recent open-source MLLMs from 4 frontier families. Our findings reveal that, despite significant progress of recent MLLMs on accuracy, logical consistency lags behind significantly. Extensive evaluations on the correlations of VL-LCM with metrics on gt, the reliability of LCM, and the relation of VL-LCM with response distribution justify the validity and applicability of VL-LCM even without gt annotation. Our findings suggest that, beyond accuracy, logical consistency could be employed for both accuracy and reliability. VL-LCM can also be employed for MLLM selection, validation, and reliable answer justification in novel tasks without gt annotation.

Machine Translation (MT) evaluation metrics assess translation quality automatically. Recently, researchers have employed MT metrics for various new use cases, such as data filtering and translation re-ranking. However, most MT metrics return assessments as scalar scores that are difficult to interpret, posing a challenge to making informed design choices. Moreover, MT metrics' capabilities have historically been evaluated using correlation with human judgment, which, despite its efficacy, falls short of providing intuitive insights into metric performance, especially in terms of new metric use cases. To address these issues, we introduce an interpretable evaluation framework for MT metrics. Within this framework, we evaluate metrics in two scenarios that serve as proxies for the data filtering and translation re-ranking use cases. Furthermore, by measuring the performance of MT metrics using Precision, Recall, and F-score, we offer clearer insights into their capabilities than correlation with human judgments. Finally, we raise concerns regarding the reliability of manually curated data following the Direct Assessments+Scalar Quality Metrics (DA+SQM) guidelines, reporting a notably low agreement with Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) annotations.

Metric validation in Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) is currently done by observing the correlation between human and metric-induced rankings. However, such correlation studies are costly, methodologically troublesome, and suffer from low inter-rater agreement. We propose MAEGE, an automatic methodology for GEC metric validation, that overcomes many of the difficulties with existing practices. Experiments with \maege\ shed a new light on metric quality, showing for example that the standard M^2 metric fares poorly on corpus-level ranking. Moreover, we use MAEGE to perform a detailed analysis of metric behavior, showing that correcting some types of errors is consistently penalized by existing metrics.

metric-learn is an open source Python package implementing supervised and weakly-supervised distance metric learning algorithms. As part of scikit-learn-contrib, it provides a unified interface compatible with scikit-learn which allows to easily perform cross-validation, model selection, and pipelining with other machine learning estimators. metric-learn is thoroughly tested and available on PyPi under the MIT licence.

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.

As machine translation (MT) metrics improve their correlation with human judgement every year, it is crucial to understand the limitations of such metrics at the segment level. Specifically, it is important to investigate metric behaviour when facing accuracy errors in MT because these can have dangerous consequences in certain contexts (e.g., legal, medical). We curate ACES, a translation accuracy challenge set, consisting of 68 phenomena ranging from simple perturbations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We use ACES to evaluate a wide range of MT metrics including the submissions to the WMT 2022 metrics shared task and perform several analyses leading to general recommendations for metric developers. We recommend: a) combining metrics with different strengths, b) developing metrics that give more weight to the source and less to surface-level overlap with the reference and c) explicitly modelling additional language-specific information beyond what is available via multilingual embeddings.

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable success in open-book question answering (QA), where the task requires generating answers grounded in a provided external context. A critical challenge in open-book QA is to ensure that model responses are based on the provided context rather than its parametric knowledge, which can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect. Existing evaluation methods, primarily based on the LLM-as-a-judge approach, face significant limitations, including biases, scalability issues, and dependence on costly external systems. To address these challenges, we propose a novel metric that contrasts the perplexity of the model response under two conditions: when the context is provided and when it is not. The resulting score quantifies the extent to which the model's answer relies on the provided context. The validity of this metric is demonstrated through a series of experiments that show its effectiveness in identifying whether a given answer is grounded in the provided context. Unlike existing approaches, this metric is computationally efficient, interpretable, and adaptable to various use cases, offering a scalable and practical solution to assess context utilization in open-book QA systems.

While text-to-video (T2V) generation has achieved remarkable progress in photorealism, generating intent-aligned videos that faithfully obey physics principles remains a core challenge. In this work, we systematically study Newtonian motion-controlled text-to-video generation and evaluation, emphasizing physical precision and motion coherence. We introduce MoReGen, a motion-aware, physics-grounded T2V framework that integrates multi-agent LLMs, physics simulators, and renderers to generate reproducible, physically accurate videos from text prompts in the code domain. To quantitatively assess physical validity, we propose object-trajectory correspondence as a direct evaluation metric and present MoReSet, a benchmark of 1,275 human-annotated videos spanning nine classes of Newtonian phenomena with scene descriptions, spatiotemporal relations, and ground-truth trajectories. Using MoReSet, we conduct experiments on existing T2V models, evaluating their physical validity through both our MoRe metrics and existing physics-based evaluators. Our results reveal that state-of-the-art models struggle to maintain physical validity, while MoReGen establishes a principled direction toward physically coherent video synthesis.

Evaluating Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI, but has been a longstanding research challenge. While human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, it is expensive and lacks scalability. Practical applications have driven the development of various automatic evaluation metrics (AEM), designed to compare the model output with human-written references, generating a score which approximates human judgment. Over time, AEMs have evolved from simple lexical comparisons, to semantic similarity models and, more recently, to LLM-based evaluators. However, it seems that no single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications. This paper aims to show this by conducting a thorough examination of the methodologies of existing metrics, their documented strengths and limitations, validation methods, and correlations with human judgment. We identify several key challenges: metrics often capture only specific aspects of text quality, their effectiveness varies by task and dataset, validation practices remain unstructured, and correlations with human judgment are inconsistent. Importantly, we find that these challenges persist in the most recent type of metric, LLM-as-a-Judge, as well as in the evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), an increasingly relevant task in academia and industry. Our findings challenge the quest for the 'perfect metric'. We propose selecting metrics based on task-specific needs and leveraging complementary evaluations and advocate that new metrics should focus on enhanced validation methodologies.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate considerable potential in various natural language tasks but face significant challenges in mathematical reasoning, particularly in executing precise, multi-step logic. However, current evaluation frameworks judge their performance solely based on accuracy, which only accounts for the final answer. This study explores these pitfalls by employing a novel evaluation framework. We propose an evaluation metric called the MAPLE score, which holistically quantifies reasoning misalignment by integrating error rates, redundancy, and validity.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has enabled Large Language Models (LLMs) to achieve remarkable reasoning in domains like mathematics and coding, where verifiable rewards provide clear signals. However, extending this paradigm to financial decision is challenged by the market's stochastic nature: rewards are verifiable but inherently noisy, causing standard RL to degenerate into reward hacking. To address this, we propose Trade-R1, a model training framework that bridges verifiable rewards to stochastic environments via process-level reasoning verification. Our key innovation is a verification method that transforms the problem of evaluating reasoning over lengthy financial documents into a structured Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) task. We construct a triangular consistency metric, assessing pairwise alignment between retrieved evidence, reasoning chains, and decisions to serve as a validity filter for noisy market returns. We explore two reward integration strategies: Fixed-effect Semantic Reward (FSR) for stable alignment signals, and Dynamic-effect Semantic Reward (DSR) for coupled magnitude optimization. Experiments on different country asset selection demonstrate that our paradigm reduces reward hacking, with DSR achieving superior cross-market generalization while maintaining the highest reasoning consistency.

We propose a novel and flexible roof modeling approach that can be used for constructing planar 3D polygon roof meshes. Our method uses a graph structure to encode roof topology and enforces the roof validity by optimizing a simple but effective planarity metric we propose. This approach is significantly more efficient than using general purpose 3D modeling tools such as 3ds Max or SketchUp, and more powerful and expressive than specialized tools such as the straight skeleton. Our optimization-based formulation is also flexible and can accommodate different styles and user preferences for roof modeling. We showcase two applications. The first application is an interactive roof editing framework that can be used for roof design or roof reconstruction from aerial images. We highlight the efficiency and generality of our approach by constructing a mesh-image paired dataset consisting of 2539 roofs. Our second application is a generative model to synthesize new roof meshes from scratch. We use our novel dataset to combine machine learning and our roof optimization techniques, by using transformers and graph convolutional networks to model roof topology, and our roof optimization methods to enforce the planarity constraint.

We introduce GraphicDesignBench (GDB), the first comprehensive benchmark suite designed specifically to evaluate AI models on the full breadth of professional graphic design tasks. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on natural-image understanding or generic text-to-image synthesis, GDB targets the unique challenges of professional design work: translating communicative intent into structured layouts, rendering typographically faithful text, manipulating layered compositions, producing valid vector graphics, and reasoning about animation. The suite comprises 50 tasks organized along five axes: layout, typography, infographics, template & design semantics and animation, each evaluated under both understanding and generation settings, and grounded in real-world design templates drawn from the LICA layered-composition dataset. We evaluate a set of frontier closed-source models using a standardized metric taxonomy covering spatial accuracy, perceptual quality, text fidelity, semantic alignment, and structural validity. Our results reveal that current models fall short on the core challenges of professional design: spatial reasoning over complex layouts, faithful vector code generation, fine-grained typographic perception, and temporal decomposition of animations remain largely unsolved. While high-level semantic understanding is within reach, the gap widens sharply as tasks demand precision, structure, and compositional awareness. GDB provides a rigorous, reproducible testbed for tracking progress toward AI systems that can function as capable design collaborators. The full evaluation framework is publicly available.

Counterfactual examples are widely employed to enhance the performance and robustness of large language models (LLMs) through counterfactual data augmentation (CDA). However, the selection of the judge model used to evaluate label flipping, the primary metric for assessing the validity of generated counterfactuals for CDA, yields inconsistent results. To decipher this, we define four types of relationships between the counterfactual generator and judge models. Through extensive experiments involving two state-of-the-art LLM-based methods, three datasets, five generator models, and 15 judge models, complemented by a user study (n = 90), we demonstrate that judge models with an independent, non-fine-tuned relationship to the generator model provide the most reliable label flipping evaluations. Relationships between the generator and judge models, which are closely aligned with the user study for CDA, result in better model performance and robustness. Nevertheless, we find that the gap between the most effective judge models and the results obtained from the user study remains considerably large. This suggests that a fully automated pipeline for CDA may be inadequate and requires human intervention.

Computer-Aided Design is pivotal in modern manufacturing, yet existing automated methods predominantly rely on open-loop, one-shot generation, creating a mismatch with iterative real-world practices. In this paper, we present IterCAD, a unified multimodal agent framework for closed-loop, interactive CAD generation and editing. We formulate the task as a multi-turn interaction between a multimodal agent and an executable CAD sandbox, covering three tasks: Drawing-to-Code, Text-to-Code, and Interactive Editing. To support this, we develop a data synthesis pipeline incorporating advanced industrial manufacturing features to generate standard-compliant multi-view engineering drawings, complex code-editing tasks, and high-fidelity interaction trajectories. We optimize the agent via progressive SFT followed by geometry-aware reinforcement learning with viable-prefix masking to enhance code executability and geometric fidelity. Finally, we introduce the IterCAD-Bench evaluation suite and propose the Chamfer Distance Tolerance-Recall (CD-TR) curve alongside its AUC-TR metric, establishing a survivor-bias-free standard that unifies code validity and geometric precision. Extensive experiments demonstrate that IterCAD achieves highly competitive performance across multiple benchmarks, significantly outperforming existing approaches in both code executability and geometric precision, while exhibiting superior capabilities in closed-loop iterative refinement.

Recent breakthroughs in video generation have demonstrated an emerging capability termed Chain-of-Frames (CoF) reasoning, where models resolve complex tasks through the generation of continuous frames. While these models show promise for Generative Video Reasoning (GVR), existing evaluation frameworks often rely on single-frame assessments, which can lead to outcome-hacking, where a model reaches a correct conclusion through an erroneous process. To address this, we propose a process-aware evaluation paradigm. We introduce VIPER, a comprehensive benchmark spanning 16 tasks across temporal, structural, symbolic, spatial, physics, and planning reasoning. Furthermore, we propose Process-outcome Consistency (POC@r), a new metric that utilizes VLM-as-Judge with a hierarchical rubric to evaluate both the validity of the intermediate steps and the final result. Our experiments reveal that state-of-the-art video models achieve only about 20% POC@1.0 and exhibit a significant outcome-hacking. We further explore the impact of test-time scaling and sampling robustness, highlighting a substantial gap between current video generation and true generalized visual reasoning. Our benchmark will be publicly released.

Multi-entity question answering (MEQA) represents significant challenges for large language models (LLM) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems, which frequently struggle to consolidate scattered information across diverse documents. While existing methods excel at single-document comprehension, they often struggle with cross-document aggregation, particularly when resolving entity-dense questions like "What is the distribution of ACM Fellows among various fields of study?", which require integrating entity-centric insights from heterogeneous sources (e.g., Wikipedia pages). To address this gap, we introduce MEBench, a novel multi-document, multi-entity benchmark designed to systematically evaluate LLMs' capacity to retrieve, consolidate, and reason over fragmented information. Our benchmark comprises 4,780 questions which are systematically categorized into three primary categories, further divided into eight distinct types, ensuring broad coverage of real-world multi-entity reasoning scenarios. Our experiments on state-of-the-art LLMs (e.g., GPT-4, Llama-3) and RAG pipelines reveal critical limitations: even advanced models achieve only 59% accuracy on MEBench. Our benchmark emphasizes the importance of completeness and factual precision of information extraction in MEQA tasks, using Entity-Attributed F1 (EA-F1) metric for granular evaluation of entity-level correctness and attribution validity. MEBench not only highlights systemic weaknesses in current LLM frameworks but also provides a foundation for advancing robust, entity-aware QA architectures.

AI-generated content has evolved from monolithic models to modular workflows, particularly on platforms like ComfyUI, enabling customization in creative pipelines. However, crafting effective workflows requires great expertise to orchestrate numerous specialized components, presenting a steep learning curve for users. To address this challenge, we introduce ComfyUI-R1, the first large reasoning model for automated workflow generation. Starting with our curated dataset of 4K workflows, we construct long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning data, including node selection, workflow planning, and code-level workflow representation. ComfyUI-R1 is trained through a two-stage framework: (1) CoT fine-tuning for cold start, adapting models to the ComfyUI domain; (2) reinforcement learning for incentivizing reasoning capability, guided by a fine-grained rule-metric hybrid reward, ensuring format validity, structural integrity, and node-level fidelity. Experiments show that our 7B-parameter model achieves a 97\% format validity rate, along with high pass rate, node-level and graph-level F1 scores, significantly surpassing prior state-of-the-art methods that employ leading closed-source models such as GPT-4o and Claude series. Further analysis highlights the critical role of the reasoning process and the advantage of transforming workflows into code. Qualitative comparison reveals our strength in synthesizing intricate workflows with diverse nodes, underscoring the potential of long CoT reasoning in AI art creation.

The effectiveness of recommendation systems is pivotal to user engagement and satisfaction in online platforms. As these recommendation systems increasingly influence user choices, their evaluation transcends mere technical performance and becomes central to business success. This paper addresses the multifaceted nature of recommendations system evaluation by introducing a comprehensive suite of metrics, each tailored to capture a distinct aspect of system performance. We discuss * Similarity Metrics: to quantify the precision of content-based filtering mechanisms and assess the accuracy of collaborative filtering techniques. * Candidate Generation Metrics: to evaluate how effectively the system identifies a broad yet relevant range of items. * Predictive Metrics: to assess the accuracy of forecasted user preferences. * Ranking Metrics: to evaluate the effectiveness of the order in which recommendations are presented. * Business Metrics: to align the performance of the recommendation system with economic objectives. Our approach emphasizes the contextual application of these metrics and their interdependencies. In this paper, we identify the strengths and limitations of current evaluation practices and highlight the nuanced trade-offs that emerge when optimizing recommendation systems across different metrics. The paper concludes by proposing a framework for selecting and interpreting these metrics to not only improve system performance but also to advance business goals. This work is to aid researchers and practitioners in critically assessing recommendation systems and fosters the development of more nuanced, effective, and economically viable personalization strategies. Our code is available at GitHub - https://github.com/aryan-jadon/Evaluation-Metrics-for-Recommendation-Systems.

Recent machine translation (MT) metrics calibrate their effectiveness by correlating with human judgement but without any insights about their behaviour across different error types. Challenge sets are used to probe specific dimensions of metric behaviour but there are very few such datasets and they either focus on a limited number of phenomena or a limited number of language pairs. We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs, aimed at discovering whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. These phenomena range from simple alterations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks. We benchmark metric performance, assess their incremental performance over successive campaigns, and measure their sensitivity to a range of linguistic phenomena. We also investigate claims that Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective as MT evaluators by evaluating on ACES. Our results demonstrate that different metric families struggle with different phenomena and that LLM-based methods fail to demonstrate reliable performance. Our analyses indicate that most metrics ignore the source sentence, tend to prefer surface-level overlap and end up incorporating properties of base models which are not always beneficial. We expand ACES to include error span annotations, denoted as SPAN-ACES and we use this dataset to evaluate span-based error metrics showing these metrics also need considerable improvement. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for building better MT metrics, including focusing on error labels instead of scores, ensembling, designing strategies to explicitly focus on the source sentence, focusing on semantic content and choosing the right base model for representations.

Annually, at the Conference of Machine Translation (WMT), the Metrics Shared Task organizers conduct the meta-evaluation of Machine Translation (MT) metrics, ranking them according to their correlation with human judgments. Their results guide researchers toward enhancing the next generation of metrics and MT systems. With the recent introduction of neural metrics, the field has witnessed notable advancements. Nevertheless, the inherent opacity of these metrics has posed substantial challenges to the meta-evaluation process. This work highlights two issues with the meta-evaluation framework currently employed in WMT, and assesses their impact on the metrics rankings. To do this, we introduce the concept of sentinel metrics, which are designed explicitly to scrutinize the meta-evaluation process's accuracy, robustness, and fairness. By employing sentinel metrics, we aim to validate our findings, and shed light on and monitor the potential biases or inconsistencies in the rankings. We discover that the present meta-evaluation framework favors two categories of metrics: i) those explicitly trained to mimic human quality assessments, and ii) continuous metrics. Finally, we raise concerns regarding the evaluation capabilities of state-of-the-art metrics, emphasizing that they might be basing their assessments on spurious correlations found in their training data.

Metric space magnitude, an active subject of research in algebraic topology, originally arose in the context of biology, where it was used to represent the effective number of distinct species in an environment. In a more general setting, the magnitude of a metric space is a real number that aims to quantify the effective number of distinct points in the space. The contribution of each point to a metric space's global magnitude, which is encoded by the {\em weighting vector}, captures much of the underlying geometry of the original metric space. Surprisingly, when the metric space is Euclidean, the weighting vector also serves as an effective tool for boundary detection. This allows the weighting vector to serve as the foundation of novel algorithms for classic machine learning tasks such as classification, outlier detection and active learning. We demonstrate, using experiments and comparisons on classic benchmark datasets, the promise of the proposed magnitude and weighting vector-based approaches.

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

The magnitude of a finite metric space has recently emerged as a novel invariant quantity, allowing to measure the effective size of a metric space. Despite encouraging first results demonstrating the descriptive abilities of the magnitude, such as being able to detect the boundary of a metric space, the potential use cases of magnitude remain under-explored. In this work, we investigate the properties of the magnitude on images, an important data modality in many machine learning applications. By endowing each individual images with its own metric space, we are able to define the concept of magnitude on images and analyse the individual contribution of each pixel with the magnitude vector. In particular, we theoretically show that the previously known properties of boundary detection translate to edge detection abilities in images. Furthermore, we demonstrate practical use cases of magnitude for machine learning applications and propose a novel magnitude model that consists of a computationally efficient magnitude computation and a learnable metric. By doing so, we address the computational hurdle that used to make magnitude impractical for many applications and open the way for the adoption of magnitude in machine learning research.

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

Automatic metrics are extensively used to evaluate natural language processing systems. However, there has been increasing focus on how they are used and reported by practitioners within the field. In this paper, we have conducted a survey on the use of automatic metrics, focusing particularly on natural language generation (NLG) tasks. We inspect which metrics are used as well as why they are chosen and how their use is reported. Our findings from this survey reveal significant shortcomings, including inappropriate metric usage, lack of implementation details and missing correlations with human judgements. We conclude with recommendations that we believe authors should follow to enable more rigour within the field.

Machine translation evaluation is a very important activity in machine translation development. Automatic evaluation metrics proposed in literature are inadequate as they require one or more human reference translations to compare them with output produced by machine translation. This does not always give accurate results as a text can have several different translations. Human evaluation metrics, on the other hand, lacks inter-annotator agreement and repeatability. In this paper we have proposed a new human evaluation metric which addresses these issues. Moreover this metric also provides solid grounds for making sound assumptions on the quality of the text produced by a machine translation.

Given a set of dissimilarity measurements amongst data points, determining what metric representation is most "consistent" with the input measurements or the metric that best captures the relevant geometric features of the data is a key step in many machine learning algorithms. Existing methods are restricted to specific kinds of metrics or small problem sizes because of the large number of metric constraints in such problems. In this paper, we provide an active set algorithm, Project and Forget, that uses Bregman projections, to solve metric constrained problems with many (possibly exponentially) inequality constraints. We provide a theoretical analysis of Project and Forget and prove that our algorithm converges to the global optimal solution and that the L_2 distance of the current iterate to the optimal solution decays asymptotically at an exponential rate. We demonstrate that using our method we can solve large problem instances of three types of metric constrained problems: general weight correlation clustering, metric nearness, and metric learning; in each case, out-performing the state of the art methods with respect to CPU times and problem sizes.

The GLEU metric was proposed for evaluating grammatical error corrections using n-gram overlap with a set of reference sentences, as opposed to precision/recall of specific annotated errors (Napoles et al., 2015). This paper describes improvements made to the GLEU metric that address problems that arise when using an increasing number of reference sets. Unlike the originally presented metric, the modified metric does not require tuning. We recommend that this version be used instead of the original version.

Devising indicative evaluation metrics for the image generation task remains an open problem. The most widely used metric for measuring the similarity between real and generated images has been the Fr\'echet Inception Distance (FID) score. Because it does not differentiate the fidelity and diversity aspects of the generated images, recent papers have introduced variants of precision and recall metrics to diagnose those properties separately. In this paper, we show that even the latest version of the precision and recall metrics are not reliable yet. For example, they fail to detect the match between two identical distributions, they are not robust against outliers, and the evaluation hyperparameters are selected arbitrarily. We propose density and coverage metrics that solve the above issues. We analytically and experimentally show that density and coverage provide more interpretable and reliable signals for practitioners than the existing metrics. Code: https://github.com/clovaai/generative-evaluation-prdc.

Automatic machine translation metrics often use human translations to determine the quality of system translations. Common wisdom in the field dictates that the human references should be of very high quality. However, there are no cost-benefit analyses that could be used to guide practitioners who plan to collect references for machine translation evaluation. We find that higher-quality references lead to better metric correlations with humans at the segment-level. Having up to 7 references per segment and taking their average helps all metrics. Interestingly, the references from vendors of different qualities can be mixed together and improve metric success. Higher quality references, however, cost more to create and we frame this as an optimization problem: given a specific budget, what references should be collected to maximize metric success. These findings can be used by evaluators of shared tasks when references need to be created under a certain budget.

Medical large language models (LLMs) research often makes bold claims, from encoding clinical knowledge to reasoning like a physician. These claims are usually backed by evaluation on competitive benchmarks; a tradition inherited from mainstream machine learning. But how do we separate real progress from a leaderboard flex? Medical LLM benchmarks, much like those in other fields, are arbitrarily constructed using medical licensing exam questions. For these benchmarks to truly measure progress, they must accurately capture the real-world tasks they aim to represent. In this position paper, we argue that medical LLM benchmarks should (and indeed can) be empirically evaluated for their construct validity. In the psychological testing literature, "construct validity" refers to the ability of a test to measure an underlying "construct", that is the actual conceptual target of evaluation. By drawing an analogy between LLM benchmarks and psychological tests, we explain how frameworks from this field can provide empirical foundations for validating benchmarks. To put these ideas into practice, we use real-world clinical data in proof-of-concept experiments to evaluate popular medical LLM benchmarks and report significant gaps in their construct validity. Finally, we outline a vision for a new ecosystem of medical LLM evaluation centered around the creation of valid benchmarks.

A robust evaluation metric has a profound impact on the development of text generation systems. A desirable metric compares system output against references based on their semantics rather than surface forms. In this paper we investigate strategies to encode system and reference texts to devise a metric that shows a high correlation with human judgment of text quality. We validate our new metric, namely MoverScore, on a number of text generation tasks including summarization, machine translation, image captioning, and data-to-text generation, where the outputs are produced by a variety of neural and non-neural systems. Our findings suggest that metrics combining contextualized representations with a distance measure perform the best. Such metrics also demonstrate strong generalization capability across tasks. For ease-of-use we make our metrics available as web service.

Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists. In many real applications it does not. We make three claims. First, metrics can be evolved: our metric loop searches compositions of small drawback detectors under a full evolutionary lifecycle, trained to agree with a ten-item anchored reference set, regularized by consensus over unlabeled outputs, and audited against a held-out anchor it never reads, yielding a transparent, inspectable metric rather than an opaque judge. Second, since no metric exists to beat, the yardstick is recovering what an accurate metric would have enabled, and Double Ratchet, our co-evolution of the metric with a lifecycle-managed skill loop, does so: across code generation (MBPP+), enterprise text-to-SQL (Spider~2.0-Snow), and reference-free report generation, it retains 88--110\% of the held-out lift achieved by the same skill loop driven by ground truth or the best available rubric. Third, safety comes from anchor discipline plus outer audits: removing anchor guards collapses the metric into a vacuous detector while removing the lifecycle does not; and when evolved skills gamed the report rubric, an independent judge caught it, one detector repaired it, and a task-aware judge then preferred the evolved outputs over the pre-evolution baseline in 77\% of decided pairs. We argue this failure-expecting architecture is the right default wherever no reliable automatic verifier exists.

The recent successful paradigm of solving logical reasoning problems with tool-augmented large language models (LLMs) leverages translation of natural language (NL) statements into First-Order Logic~(FOL) and external theorem provers. However, the correctness of FOL statements, comprising operators and text, often go unverified due to the lack of a reliable evaluation metric for comparing generated and ground-truth FOLs. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive study on the sensitivity of existing NL-, FOL-, and graph-based metrics to capture differences between a sampled FOL and its corresponding ground-truth. We then measure the alignment between a metric-based ranking of FOL outputs and a strong LLM as-a-judge. To do this, we first apply operator and text-based perturbations to ground-truth FOL statements to assess metric sensitivity. We then evaluate metric robustness by comparing the metrics against LLMs judgment. Our empirical findings highlight a clear oversensitivity in the n-gram metric BLEU for text perturbations. The operator perturbation affects the semantic graph metric Smatch++ for structural changes, and the FOL metric for specific operator changes. We observe a closer alignment between BertScore and LLM judgement, proving the importance of semantic evaluation. Additionally, we show that combining metrics enhances both robustness and sensitivity compared to using individual metrics.

Metric space magnitude, an active field of research in algebraic topology, is a scalar quantity that summarizes the effective number of distinct points that live in a general metric space. The {\em weighting vector} is a closely-related concept that captures, in a nontrivial way, much of the underlying geometry of the original metric space. Recent work has demonstrated that when the metric space is Euclidean, the weighting vector serves as an effective tool for boundary detection. We recast this result and show the weighting vector may be viewed as a solution to a kernelized SVM. As one consequence, we apply this new insight to the task of outlier detection, and we demonstrate performance that is competitive or exceeds performance of state-of-the-art techniques on benchmark data sets. Under mild assumptions, we show the weighting vector, which has computational cost of matrix inversion, can be efficiently approximated in linear time. We show how nearest neighbor methods can approximate solutions to the minimization problems defined by SVMs.

We survey the large language model (LLM) serving area to understand the intricate dynamics between cost-efficiency and accuracy, which is magnified by the growing need for longer contextual understanding when deploying models at a massive scale. Our findings reveal that works in this space optimize along three distinct but conflicting goals: improving serving context length (C), improving serving accuracy (A), and improving serving performance (P). Drawing inspiration from the CAP theorem in databases, we propose a CAP principle for LLM serving, which suggests that any optimization can improve at most two of these three goals simultaneously. Our survey categorizes existing works within this framework. We find the definition and continuity of user-perceived measurement metrics are crucial in determining whether a goal has been met, akin to prior CAP databases in the wild. We recognize the CAP principle for LLM serving as a guiding principle, rather than a formal theorem, to inform designers of the inherent and dynamic trade-offs in serving models. As serving accuracy and performance have been extensively studied, this survey focuses on works that extend serving context length and address the resulting challenges.

Evaluation metrics are central to binary target segmentation because they determine how progress is measured, compared, and interpreted. In this paper, target denotes the task-defined positive region to be segmented rather than a generic foreground object. It may be salient, camouflaged, transparent, glass-like, mirror-like, shadow-like, lesion-like, or defined by other application-specific semantics. We treat existing metrics as compositions of modular design choices rather than isolated formulas. The proposed framework decomposes each metric into five stages covering prediction representation, target extraction, target matching, score computation, and metric reporting. We use this framework to analyze representative metrics and show how newer metrics address specific limits in earlier protocols. The stage choices keep each metric's assumptions visible. We then discuss the design space opened by the framework and its implications for task-aware evaluation protocols. Reference code is available at https://github.com/lartpang/PySODMetrics.

The year 2024 marks the 10th anniversary of the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework for analytic translation quality evaluation. The MQM error typology has been widely used by practitioners in the translation and localization industry and has served as the basis for many derivative projects. The annual Conference on Machine Translation (WMT) shared tasks on both human and automatic translation quality evaluations used the MQM error typology. The metric stands on two pillars: error typology and the scoring model. The scoring model calculates the quality score from annotation data, detailing how to convert error type and severity counts into numeric scores to determine if the content meets specifications. Previously, only the raw scoring model had been published. This April, the MQM Council published the Linear Calibrated Scoring Model, officially presented herein, along with the Non-Linear Scoring Model, which had not been published before. This paper details the latest MQM developments and presents a universal approach to translation quality measurement across three sample size ranges. It also explains why Statistical Quality Control should be used for very small sample sizes, starting from a single sentence.

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

Selective Classification, wherein models can reject low-confidence predictions, promises reliable translation of machine-learning based classification systems to real-world scenarios such as clinical diagnostics. While current evaluation of these systems typically assumes fixed working points based on pre-defined rejection thresholds, methodological progress requires benchmarking the general performance of systems akin to the AUROC in standard classification. In this work, we define 5 requirements for multi-threshold metrics in selective classification regarding task alignment, interpretability, and flexibility, and show how current approaches fail to meet them. We propose the Area under the Generalized Risk Coverage curve (AUGRC), which meets all requirements and can be directly interpreted as the average risk of undetected failures. We empirically demonstrate the relevance of AUGRC on a comprehensive benchmark spanning 6 data sets and 13 confidence scoring functions. We find that the proposed metric substantially changes metric rankings on 5 out of the 6 data sets.

Understanding the quality of a performance evaluation metric is crucial for ensuring that model outputs align with human preferences. However, it remains unclear how well each metric captures the diverse aspects of these preferences, as metrics often excel in one particular area but not across all dimensions. To address this, it is essential to systematically calibrate metrics to specific aspects of human preference, catering to the unique characteristics of each aspect. We introduce MetaMetrics, a calibrated meta-metric designed to evaluate generation tasks across different modalities in a supervised manner. MetaMetrics optimizes the combination of existing metrics to enhance their alignment with human preferences. Our metric demonstrates flexibility and effectiveness in both language and vision downstream tasks, showing significant benefits across various multilingual and multi-domain scenarios. MetaMetrics aligns closely with human preferences and is highly extendable and easily integrable into any application. This makes MetaMetrics a powerful tool for improving the evaluation of generation tasks, ensuring that metrics are more representative of human judgment across diverse contexts.

Grounded text generation systems often generate text that contains factual inconsistencies, hindering their real-world applicability. Automatic factual consistency evaluation may help alleviate this limitation by accelerating evaluation cycles, filtering inconsistent outputs and augmenting training data. While attracting increasing attention, such evaluation metrics are usually developed and evaluated in silo for a single task or dataset, slowing their adoption. Moreover, previous meta-evaluation protocols focused on system-level correlations with human annotations, which leave the example-level accuracy of such metrics unclear. In this work, we introduce TRUE: a comprehensive survey and assessment of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks, manually annotated for factual consistency. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations, yielding clearer quality measures. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results. We recommend those methods as a starting point for model and metric developers, and hope TRUE will foster progress towards even better evaluation methods.

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

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.

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

With the rapid growth in language processing applications, fairness has emerged as an important consideration in data-driven solutions. Although various fairness definitions have been explored in the recent literature, there is lack of consensus on which metrics most accurately reflect the fairness of a system. In this work, we propose a new formulation : ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY, which measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. The metric attempts to quantify the extent to which a single prediction depends on a protected attribute, where the protected attribute encodes the membership status of an individual in a protected group. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness. It also correlates well with humans' perception of fairness. We conduct experiments on two text classification datasets : JIGSAW TOXICITY, and BIAS IN BIOS, and evaluate the correlations between metrics and manual annotations on whether the model produced a fair outcome. We observe that the proposed fairness metric based on prediction sensitivity is statistically significantly more correlated with human annotation than the existing counterfactual fairness metric.

Reference-free faithfulness metrics verify each atomic claim a model makes against ground truth, and are increasingly used to evaluate grounded generation. We show they share a blind spot: they measure only precision -- are the stated claims supported? -- and therefore reward abstention, since a model can score near-perfect faithfulness by saying almost nothing. We make this measurable using Formula 1 telemetry, a domain where strategic ground truth is derived deterministically and, crucially, completely: for each decision we know the full set of facts that mattered. This completeness -- absent in open-domain faithfulness benchmarks -- lets us measure recall (coverage of the relevant facts) exactly, alongside precision. On a multilingual (EN/ES/PT) benchmark of 7,253 decision instances spanning 150 races, the most precise frontier model covers under half of the relevant facts and ranks last by F1, so requiring coverage reorders the systems; the same effect reappears in a second complete-oracle domain (NOAA weather forecasts). A prompt ablation shows the low coverage is not an under-prompting artifact: explicitly asking models to be thorough does not close the gap. We pair faithfulness with coverage into a single score, validate the metric (controlled perturbation; agreement across a model-free regex extractor and a cross-family LLM extractor, system-level Spearman 1.0), and give a verifier-guided generation method that improves precision and recall without references. We release the benchmark, structured annotations, metric, baselines, and an interactive demo.

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

LLM judges are used to reduce the need for costly human labor in evaluating open-ended text generation. However, the reliability of these judges depends critically on their alignment with human raters -- a property that itself depends on costly human annotations. In this work, we develop a method (Metric Match) for estimating correlation-based reliability metrics of LLM judges from limited annotations. Metric Match selects a subset of samples for human annotation such that the subset matches the population reliability metric with respect to acquired synthetic labels. We empirically show that Metric Match achieves a win-rate of 0.838 against random subset selection across four different correlation metrics and 15 datasets, with an 18.7% decrease in average estimation error and reduces annotation needs by 32.5%. We provide a cost model and highlight a medical case study where our method saves $1,041.67 compared to random selection for expert annotation. Further, we shift our task from reliability estimation to reliability classification of whether a given judge is above a deployment threshold, outperforming random selection with Metric Match. All project code is publicly available, and we additionally provide an installable package for ease of use.

Large Language Models (LLMs) changed the way we design and interact with software systems. Their ability to process and extract information from text has drastically improved productivity in a number of routine tasks. Developers that want to include these models in their software stack, however, face a dreadful challenge: debugging LLMs' inconsistent behavior across minor variations of the prompt. We therefore introduce two metrics for classification tasks, namely sensitivity and consistency, which are complementary to task performance. First, sensitivity measures changes of predictions across rephrasings of the prompt, and does not require access to ground truth labels. Instead, consistency measures how predictions vary across rephrasings for elements of the same class. We perform an empirical comparison of these metrics on text classification tasks, using them as guideline for understanding failure modes of the LLM. Our hope is that sensitivity and consistency will be helpful to guide prompt engineering and obtain LLMs that balance robustness with performance.

The paper considers a new quantitative-qualitative proximity measure for the features of information objects, where data enters a common information resource from several sources independently. The goal is to determine the possibility of their relation to the same physical object (observation object). The proposed measure accounts for the possibility of differences in individual feature values - both quantitative and qualitative - caused by existing determination errors. To analyze the proximity of quantitative feature values, the author employs a probabilistic measure; for qualitative features, a measure of possibility is used. The paper demonstrates the feasibility of the proposed measure by checking its compliance with the axioms required of any measure. Unlike many known measures, the proposed approach does not require feature value transformation to ensure comparability. The work also proposes several variants of measures to determine the proximity of information objects (IO) based on a group of diverse features.

Overconfidence and underconfidence in machine learning classifiers is measured by calibration: the degree to which the probabilities predicted for each class match the accuracy of the classifier on that prediction. How one measures calibration remains a challenge: expected calibration error, the most popular metric, has numerous flaws which we outline, and there is no clear empirical understanding of how its choices affect conclusions in practice, and what recommendations there are to counteract its flaws. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive empirical study of choices in calibration measures including measuring all probabilities rather than just the maximum prediction, thresholding probability values, class conditionality, number of bins, bins that are adaptive to the datapoint density, and the norm used to compare accuracies to confidences. To analyze the sensitivity of calibration measures, we study the impact of optimizing directly for each variant with recalibration techniques. Across MNIST, Fashion MNIST, CIFAR-10/100, and ImageNet, we find that conclusions on the rank ordering of recalibration methods is drastically impacted by the choice of calibration measure. We find that conditioning on the class leads to more effective calibration evaluations, and that using the L2 norm rather than the L1 norm improves both optimization for calibration metrics and the rank correlation measuring metric consistency. Adaptive binning schemes lead to more stablity of metric rank ordering when the number of bins vary, and is also recommended. We open source a library for the use of our calibration measures.

We present TIGERScore, a Trained metric that follows Instruction Guidance to perform Explainable, and Reference-free evaluation over a wide spectrum of text generation tasks. Different from other automatic evaluation methods that only provide arcane scores, TIGERScore is guided by the natural language instruction to provide error analysis to pinpoint the mistakes in the generated text. Our metric is based on LLaMA, trained on our meticulously curated instruction-tuning dataset MetricInstruct which covers 6 text generation tasks and 23 text generation datasets. The dataset consists of 48K quadruple in the form of (instruction, input, system output rightarrow error analysis). We collected the `system outputs' through diverse channels to cover different types of errors. To quantitatively assess our metric, we evaluate its correlation with human ratings on 5 held-in datasets, 2 held-out datasets and show that TIGERScore can achieve the highest overall Spearman's correlation with human ratings across these datasets and outperforms other metrics significantly. As a reference-free metric, its correlation can even surpass the best existing reference-based metrics. To further qualitatively assess the rationale generated by our metric, we conduct human evaluation on the generated explanations and found that the explanations are 70.8\% accurate. Through these experimental results, we believe TIGERScore demonstrates the possibility of building universal explainable metrics to evaluate any text generation task.

We develop techniques to quantify the degree to which a given (training or testing) example is an outlier in the underlying distribution. We evaluate five methods to score examples in a dataset by how well-represented the examples are, for different plausible definitions of "well-represented", and apply these to four common datasets: MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10, and ImageNet. Despite being independent approaches, we find all five are highly correlated, suggesting that the notion of being well-represented can be quantified. Among other uses, we find these methods can be combined to identify (a) prototypical examples (that match human expectations); (b) memorized training examples; and, (c) uncommon submodes of the dataset. Further, we show how we can utilize our metrics to determine an improved ordering for curriculum learning, and impact adversarial robustness. We release all metric values on training and test sets we studied.

Predictive artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes, but risks perpetuating biases if fairness is inadequately addressed. However, the definition of "fairness" remains unclear. We conducted a scoping review to identify and critically appraise fairness metrics for clinical predictive AI. We defined a "fairness metric" as a measure quantifying whether a model discriminates (societally) against individuals or groups defined by sensitive attributes. We searched five databases (2014-2024), screening 820 records, to include 41 studies, and extracted 62 fairness metrics. Metrics were classified by performance-dependency, model output level, and base performance metric, revealing a fragmented landscape with limited clinical validation and overreliance on threshold-dependent measures. Eighteen metrics were explicitly developed for healthcare, including only one clinical utility metric. Our findings highlight conceptual challenges in defining and quantifying fairness and identify gaps in uncertainty quantification, intersectionality, and real-world applicability. Future work should prioritise clinically meaningful metrics.

Existing losses used in deep metric learning (DML) for image retrieval often lead to highly non-uniform intra-class and inter-class representation structures across test classes and data distributions. When combined with the common practice of using a fixed threshold to declare a match, this gives rise to significant performance variations in terms of false accept rate (FAR) and false reject rate (FRR) across test classes and data distributions. We define this issue in DML as threshold inconsistency. In real-world applications, such inconsistency often complicates the threshold selection process when deploying commercial image retrieval systems. To measure this inconsistency, we propose a novel variance-based metric called Operating-Point-Inconsistency-Score (OPIS) that quantifies the variance in the operating characteristics across classes. Using the OPIS metric, we find that achieving high accuracy levels in a DML model does not automatically guarantee threshold consistency. In fact, our investigation reveals a Pareto frontier in the high-accuracy regime, where existing methods to improve accuracy often lead to degradation in threshold consistency. To address this trade-off, we introduce the Threshold-Consistent Margin (TCM) loss, a simple yet effective regularization technique that promotes uniformity in representation structures across classes by selectively penalizing hard sample pairs. Extensive experiments demonstrate TCM's effectiveness in enhancing threshold consistency while preserving accuracy, simplifying the threshold selection process in practical DML settings.

LLM confidence signals are used for abstention, routing, and safety-critical decisions. No standard practice exists for checking whether a confidence signal carries item-level information before building on it. We transfer the validity screening principle from clinical personality assessment (PAI, MMPI-3) as a portable protocol for benchmark-based LLM confidence data. The protocol specifies three core indices (L, Fp, RBS), a structural indicator (TRIN), and an item-sensitivity statistic, computed from a single 2x2 contingency table. A three-tier classification system (Invalid, Indeterminate, Valid) draws on four clinical traditions. Validated on 20 frontier LLMs across 524 items, four models are classified Invalid, two Indeterminate. Valid-profile models show mean r = .18 (15/16 significant). Invalid-profile models show mean r = -.20 (d = 2.48). Cross-benchmark validation on 18 models using MMLU with verbalized confidence and on external data from Yang et al. (2024) confirms the screen transfers across benchmarks and probe formats. All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

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

Consider a scenario where a harmfulness evaluation metric intended to filter unsafe responses from a Large Language Model. When applied to individual harmful prompt-response pairs, it correctly flags them as unsafe by assigning a high-risk score. Yet, if those same pairs are concatenated, the metrics decision unexpectedly reverses - labelling the combined content as safe with a low score, allowing the harmful text to bypass the filter. We found that multiple safety metrics, including advanced metrics such as GPT-based judges, exhibit this non-safe behaviour. Moreover, they show a strong sensitivity to input order: responses are often classified as safe if safe content appears first, regardless of any harmful content that follows, and vice versa. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating the safety of safety metrics, that is, the reliability of their output scores. To address this, we developed general, automatic, concatenation-based tests to assess key properties of these metrics. When applied in a model safety scenario, the tests revealed significant inconsistencies in harmfulness evaluations.

The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also becomes increasingly important that this task be automatable and reliable, lest both human attention and compute tokens be wasted on ideas that have already been explored. Due to the challenge of quantifying ground-truth novelty, however, existing novelty metrics for scientific papers generally validate their results against noisy, confounded signals such as citation counts or peer review scores. These proxies can conflate novelty with impact, quality, or reviewer preference, which in turn makes it harder to assess how well a given metric actually evaluates novelty. We therefore propose an axiomatic benchmark for scientific novelty metrics. We first define a set of axioms that a well-behaved novelty metric should satisfy, grounded in human scientific norms and practice, then evaluate existing metrics across ten tasks spanning three domains of AI research. Our results reveal that no existing metric satisfies all axioms consistently, and that metrics fail on systematically different axioms, reflecting their underlying architectures. Additionally, we show that combining metrics of complementary architectures leads to consistent improvements on the benchmark, with per-axiom weighting achieving 90.1% versus 71.5% for the best individual metric, suggesting that developing architecturally diverse metrics is a promising direction for future work. We release the benchmark code as supplementary material to encourage the development of more robust scientific literature novelty metrics.

Priorities in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) convey the relevance preference of one criterion over another, which is usually reflected by imposing the non-negativity and unit-sum constraints. The processing of such priorities is different than other unconstrained data, but this point is often neglected by researchers, which results in fallacious statistical analysis. This article studies three prevalent fallacies in group MCDM along with solutions based on compositional data analysis to avoid misusing statistical operations. First, we use a compositional approach to aggregate the priorities of a group of DMs and show that the outcome of the compositional analysis is identical to the normalized geometric mean, meaning that the arithmetic mean should be avoided. Furthermore, a new aggregation method is developed, which is a robust surrogate for the geometric mean. We also discuss the errors in computing measures of dispersion, including standard deviation and distance functions. Discussing the fallacies in computing the standard deviation, we provide a probabilistic criteria ranking by developing proper Bayesian tests, where we calculate the extent to which a criterion is more important than another. Finally, we explain the errors in computing the distance between priorities, and a clustering algorithm is specially tailored based on proper distance metrics.

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

In most machine learning tasks, we evaluate a model M on a given data population S by measuring a population-level metric F(S;M). Examples of such evaluation metric F include precision/recall for (binary) recognition, the F1 score for multi-class classification, and the BLEU metric for language generation. On the other hand, the model M is trained by optimizing a sample-level loss G(S_t;M) at each learning step t, where S_t is a subset of S (a.k.a. the mini-batch). Popular choices of G include cross-entropy loss, the Dice loss, and sentence-level BLEU scores. A fundamental assumption behind this paradigm is that the mean value of the sample-level loss G, if averaged over all possible samples, should effectively represent the population-level metric F of the task, such as, that E[ G(S_t;M) ] approx F(S;M). In this paper, we systematically investigate the above assumption in several NLP tasks. We show, both theoretically and experimentally, that some popular designs of the sample-level loss G may be inconsistent with the true population-level metric F of the task, so that models trained to optimize the former can be substantially sub-optimal to the latter, a phenomenon we call it, Simpson's bias, due to its deep connections with the classic paradox known as Simpson's reversal paradox in statistics and social sciences.

We present a benchmark dataset for evaluating method-level code generation task. The benchmark contains a dataset of 175 samples for automated evaluation and a dataset of 161 samples for manual evaluation. We also present a new metric for automatically evaluating the correctness of the generated code, and a set of criteria to manually evaluating the overall quality of the generated code.

The lack of automatic evaluation metrics tailored for SignWriting presents a significant obstacle in developing effective transcription and translation models for signed languages. This paper introduces a comprehensive suite of evaluation metrics specifically designed for SignWriting, including adaptations of standard metrics such as BLEU and chrF, the application of CLIPScore to SignWriting images, and a novel symbol distance metric unique to our approach. We address the distinct challenges of evaluating single signs versus continuous signing and provide qualitative demonstrations of metric efficacy through score distribution analyses and nearest-neighbor searches within the SignBank corpus. Our findings reveal the strengths and limitations of each metric, offering valuable insights for future advancements using SignWriting. This work contributes essential tools for evaluating SignWriting models, facilitating progress in the field of sign language processing. Our code is available at https://github.com/sign-language-processing/signwriting-evaluation.

Evaluating text revision in scientific writing remains a challenge, as traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore primarily focus on similarity rather than capturing meaningful improvements. In this work, we analyse and identify the limitations of these metrics and explore alternative evaluation methods that better align with human judgments. We first conduct a manual annotation study to assess the quality of different revisions. Then, we investigate reference-free evaluation metrics from related NLP domains. Additionally, we examine LLM-as-a-judge approaches, analysing their ability to assess revisions with and without a gold reference. Our results show that LLMs effectively assess instruction-following but struggle with correctness, while domain-specific metrics provide complementary insights. We find that a hybrid approach combining LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and task-specific metrics offers the most reliable assessment of revision quality.

Generating unbiased summaries in real-world settings such as political perspective summarization remains a crucial application of Large Language Models (LLMs). Yet, existing evaluation frameworks rely on traditional metrics for measuring key attributes such as coverage and faithfulness without verifying their applicability, and efforts to develop improved summarizers are still nascent. We address these gaps by (1) identifying reliable metrics for measuring perspective summary quality, and (2) investigating the efficacy of LLM-based methods beyond zero-shot inference. Namely, we build a test set for benchmarking metric reliability using human annotations and show that traditional metrics underperform compared to language model-based metrics, which prove to be strong evaluators. Using these metrics, we show that reranking-based methods yield strong results, and preference tuning with synthetically generated and reranking-labeled data further boosts performance. Our findings aim to contribute to the reliable evaluation and development of perspective summarization methods.

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

An abundance of datasets and availability of reliable evaluation metrics have resulted in strong progress in factoid question answering (QA). This progress, however, does not easily transfer to the task of long-form QA, where the goal is to answer questions that require in-depth explanations. The hurdles include (i) a lack of high-quality data, and (ii) the absence of a well-defined notion of the answer's quality. In this work, we address these problems by (i) releasing a novel dataset and a task that we call ASQA (Answer Summaries for Questions which are Ambiguous); and (ii) proposing a reliable metric for measuring performance on ASQA. Our task focuses on factoid questions that are ambiguous, that is, have different correct answers depending on interpretation. Answers to ambiguous questions should synthesize factual information from multiple sources into a long-form summary that resolves the ambiguity. In contrast to existing long-form QA tasks (such as ELI5), ASQA admits a clear notion of correctness: a user faced with a good summary should be able to answer different interpretations of the original ambiguous question. We use this notion of correctness to define an automated metric of performance for ASQA. Our analysis demonstrates an agreement between this metric and human judgments, and reveals a considerable gap between human performance and strong baselines.

Chains of thought (CoTs) have become central in interpreting and auditing behaviors of large language models. Yet growing evidence suggests that these traces often fail to faithfully represent the computations behind a model's predictions. Several faithfulness metrics have been proposed, but whether they indeed measure faithfulness remains unknown. Answering this requires ground-truth labels, which are hard to obtain since internal computations are not directly observable. Consequently, most works proposing metrics report only absolute scores or comparisons to prior metrics, and the few existing benchmarks rely on proxies like plausibility or importance, properties orthogonal to faithfulness that can mislead about whether a CoT can be trusted. We address this challenge by constructing tasks whose outputs reveal which intermediate computations must have produced them, and developing an automated labeling pipeline that yields ground-truth faithfulness labels at both the step and CoT level. Building on this methodology, we present BonaFide, a benchmark of 3,066 labeled CoTs across 13 tasks and 10 models, and use it to conduct the first systematic evaluation of prominent faithfulness metrics. Our experiments show that most metrics perform near chance, exhibit strong prediction biases and degrade on longer CoTs. The best metric reaches only 0.70 AUROC at the CoT level while another reaches 0.59 at the step level, with neither transferring across settings, while entailing prohibitively high computational cost. Our results expose fundamental gaps in current faithfulness evaluation and call for the development of more reliable and efficient metrics.

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

Prior NLP work studying poetry has focused primarily on automatic poem generation and summarization. Many languages have well-studied traditions of poetic meter which enforce constraints on a poem in terms of syllable and phoneme patterns. Such advanced literary forms offer opportunities for probing deeper reasoning and language understanding in Large Language Models (LLMs) and their ability to follow strict pre-requisites and rules. In this paper, we introduce MetricalARGS, the first taxonomy of poetry-related NLP tasks designed to evaluate LLMs on metrical poetry across four dimensions: Analysis, Retrieval, Generation, and Support. We discuss how these tasks relate to existing NLP tasks, addressing questions around datasets and evaluation metrics. Taking Telugu as our example language, we illustrate how the taxonomy can be used in practice. MetricalARGS highlights the broader possibilities for understanding the capabilities and limitations of today's LLMs through the lens of metrical poetry.

"What cannot be measured cannot be improved" while likely never uttered by Lord Kelvin, summarizes effectively the driving force behind this work. This paper presents a detailed discussion of automated metrics for evaluating structured 3D reconstructions. Pitfalls of each metric are discussed, and an analysis through the lens of expert 3D modelers' preferences is presented. A set of systematic "unit tests" are proposed to empirically verify desirable properties, and context aware recommendations regarding which metric to use depending on application are provided. Finally, a learned metric distilled from human expert judgments is proposed and analyzed. The source code is available at https://github.com/s23dr/wireframe-metrics-iccv2025

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

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies which explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organizational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers: 1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e. dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive & organisational justice? 2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3,509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 19% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7 and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive & organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and hence research quality.

Obtaining meaningful quality scores for machine translation systems through human evaluation remains a challenge given the high variability between human evaluators, partly due to subjective expectations for translation quality for different language pairs. We propose a new metric called XSTS that is more focused on semantic equivalence and a cross-lingual calibration method that enables more consistent assessment. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these novel contributions in large scale evaluation studies across up to 14 language pairs, with translation both into and out of English.

Objective speech-quality metrics are widely used to assess codec performance. However, for neural codecs, it is often unclear which metrics provide reliable quality estimates. To address this, we evaluated 45 objective metrics by correlating their scores with subjective listening scores for clean speech across 17 codec conditions. Neural-based metrics such as scoreq and utmos achieved the highest Pearson correlations with subjective scores. Further analysis across different subjective quality ranges revealed that non-intrusive metrics tend to saturate at high subjective quality levels.

Automated summary quality assessment falls into two categories: reference-based and reference-free. Reference-based metrics, historically deemed more accurate due to the additional information provided by human-written references, are limited by their reliance on human input. In this paper, we hypothesize that the comparison methodologies used by some reference-based metrics to evaluate a system summary against its corresponding reference can be effectively adapted to assess it against its source document, thereby transforming these metrics into reference-free ones. Experimental results support this hypothesis. After being repurposed reference-freely, the zero-shot BERTScore using the pretrained DeBERTa-large-MNLI model of <0.5B parameters consistently outperforms its original reference-based version across various aspects on the SummEval and Newsroom datasets. It also excels in comparison to most existing reference-free metrics and closely competes with zero-shot summary evaluators based on GPT-3.5.

"Effective robustness" measures the extra out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness beyond what can be predicted from the in-distribution (ID) performance. Existing effective robustness evaluations typically use a single test set such as ImageNet to evaluate the ID accuracy. This becomes problematic when evaluating models trained on different data distributions, e.g., comparing models trained on ImageNet vs. zero-shot language-image pre-trained models trained on LAION. In this paper, we propose a new evaluation metric to evaluate and compare the effective robustness of models trained on different data. To do this, we control for the accuracy on multiple ID test sets that cover the training distributions for all the evaluated models. Our new evaluation metric provides a better estimate of effective robustness when there are models with different training data. It may also explain the surprising effective robustness gains of zero-shot CLIP-like models exhibited in prior works that used ImageNet as the only ID test set, while the gains diminish under our new evaluation. Additional artifacts including interactive visualizations are provided at https://shizhouxing.github.io/effective-robustness.

Existing metrics for evaluating the quality of automatically generated questions such as BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, and BLEURT compare the reference and predicted questions, providing a high score when there is a considerable lexical overlap or semantic similarity between the candidate and the reference questions. This approach has two major shortcomings. First, we need expensive human-provided reference questions. Second, it penalises valid questions that may not have high lexical or semantic similarity to the reference questions. In this paper, we propose a new metric, RQUGE, based on the answerability of the candidate question given the context. The metric consists of a question-answering and a span scorer modules, using pre-trained models from existing literature, thus it can be used without any further training. We demonstrate that RQUGE has a higher correlation with human judgment without relying on the reference question. Additionally, RQUGE is shown to be more robust to several adversarial corruptions. Furthermore, we illustrate that we can significantly improve the performance of QA models on out-of-domain datasets by fine-tuning on synthetic data generated by a question generation model and re-ranked by RQUGE.

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

This paper bridges internal and external analysis approaches to large language models (LLMs) by demonstrating that geometric properties of internal model representations serve as reliable proxies for evaluating generated text quality. We validate a set of metrics including Maximum Explainable Variance, Effective Rank, Intrinsic Dimensionality, MAUVE score, and Schatten Norms measured across different layers of LLMs, demonstrating that Intrinsic Dimensionality and Effective Rank can serve as universal assessments of text naturalness and quality. Our key finding reveals that different models consistently rank text from various sources in the same order based on these geometric properties, indicating that these metrics reflect inherent text characteristics rather than model-specific artifacts. This allows a reference-free text quality evaluation that does not require human-annotated datasets, offering practical advantages for automated evaluation pipelines.

Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.

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

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

Reliable evaluation is essential for understanding large language model (LLM) performance, yet today's go-to metrics, namely token-overlap scores (e.g., ROUGE) and embedding-based measures (e.g., BERTScore), often misjudge semantic similarity of documents. Our study shows that both token-overlap metrics and embedding-based metrics routinely assign nearly identical scores to texts that directly contradict each other, thereby potentially masking fundamental errors. We introduce MATCHA, an automatic metric that jointly rewards semantic agreement with a reference and penalizes contradictions. MATCHA employs a dual-view perspective that measures (i) proximity to the gold text and (ii) distance from an adversarially generated counterfactual contradiction. In eight public benchmarks, MATCHA outperforms popular metrics, compared with human annotations on question-answering, image caption generation, natural language inference, summarization, and semantic textual similarity tasks. On the TruthfulQA dataset (i.e., a dataset without a training set, where no embedding-based metrics could locally train on), this improvement in terms of matching texts with a reference reaches 18.38% over ROUGE-L and 20.82% over BERTScore. Both quantitative comparison and qualitative human assessments confirm the efficacy and validity of MATCHA and uncover fundamental weaknesses in pre-existing metrics. Compared with 23 embedding models, including top state-of-the-art ones, used as a metric similar to BERTScore, MATCHA remains the most accurate in distinguishing correct from incorrect statements solely based on a reference. Our code and metric are publicly available (https://github.com/Siran-Li/MATCHA).

Without accurate transcription of numerical data in scientific documents, a scientist cannot draw accurate conclusions. Unfortunately, the process of copying numerical data from one paper to another is prone to human error. In this paper, we propose to meet this challenge through the novel task of automatic table verification (AutoTV), in which the objective is to verify the accuracy of numerical data in tables by cross-referencing cited sources. To support this task, we propose a new benchmark, arXiVeri, which comprises tabular data drawn from open-access academic papers on arXiv. We introduce metrics to evaluate the performance of a table verifier in two key areas: (i) table matching, which aims to identify the source table in a cited document that corresponds to a target table, and (ii) cell matching, which aims to locate shared cells between a target and source table and identify their row and column indices accurately. By leveraging the flexible capabilities of modern large language models (LLMs), we propose simple baselines for table verification. Our findings highlight the complexity of this task, even for state-of-the-art LLMs like OpenAI's GPT-4. The code and benchmark will be made publicly available.

Despite the advancement of machine learning techniques in recent years, state-of-the-art systems lack robustness to "real world" events, where the input distributions and tasks encountered by the deployed systems will not be limited to the original training context, and systems will instead need to adapt to novel distributions and tasks while deployed. This critical gap may be addressed through the development of "Lifelong Learning" systems that are capable of 1) Continuous Learning, 2) Transfer and Adaptation, and 3) Scalability. Unfortunately, efforts to improve these capabilities are typically treated as distinct areas of research that are assessed independently, without regard to the impact of each separate capability on other aspects of the system. We instead propose a holistic approach, using a suite of metrics and an evaluation framework to assess Lifelong Learning in a principled way that is agnostic to specific domains or system techniques. Through five case studies, we show that this suite of metrics can inform the development of varied and complex Lifelong Learning systems. We highlight how the proposed suite of metrics quantifies performance trade-offs present during Lifelong Learning system development - both the widely discussed Stability-Plasticity dilemma and the newly proposed relationship between Sample Efficient and Robust Learning. Further, we make recommendations for the formulation and use of metrics to guide the continuing development of Lifelong Learning systems and assess their progress in the future.

Deep Metric Learning (DML) methods aim at learning an embedding space in which distances are closely related to the inherent semantic similarity of the inputs. Previous studies have shown that popular benchmark datasets often contain numerous wrong labels, and DML methods are susceptible to them. Intending to study the effect of realistic noise, we create an ontology of the classes in a dataset and use it to simulate semantically coherent labeling mistakes. To train robust DML models, we propose ProcSim, a simple framework that assigns a confidence score to each sample using the normalized distance to its class representative. The experimental results show that the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance on the DML benchmark datasets injected with uniform and the proposed semantically coherent noise.

We introduce a new, extensive multidimensional quality metrics (MQM) annotated dataset covering 11 language pairs in the biomedical domain. We use this dataset to investigate whether machine translation (MT) metrics which are fine-tuned on human-generated MT quality judgements are robust to domain shifts between training and inference. We find that fine-tuned metrics exhibit a substantial performance drop in the unseen domain scenario relative to metrics that rely on the surface form, as well as pre-trained metrics which are not fine-tuned on MT quality judgments.

With PRECISE, we extended Prediction-Powered Inference to produce bias-corrected estimates of ranking evaluation metrics by combining a small human-labeled set with a large LLM-judged set. PPI is provably unbiased regardless of the LLM judge's error profile. We make it applicable to hierarchical metrics like Precision@K, where annotations are per-document but the metric is per-query, by reducing the output-space computation from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K). On the ESCI benchmark, augmenting 30 human annotations with Claude 3 Sonnet judgments reduces the standard error of Precision@4 estimates from 4.45 to 3.50 (a 21% relative reduction). In a production system, our framework correctly identified the best of three system variants from 100 human labels and 2 hours of domain-expert annotation; A/B testing confirmed this ranking with +407 bps in daily sales.

In recent years, researchers have created and introduced a significant number of various code generation models. As human evaluation of every new model version is unfeasible, the community adopted automatic evaluation metrics such as BLEU to approximate the results of human judgement. These metrics originate from the machine translation domain and it is unclear whether they are applicable for the code generation tasks and how well they agree with the human evaluation on this task. There are also other metrics, CodeBLEU and RUBY, developed to estimate the similarity of code, that take into account the properties of source code. However, for these metrics there are hardly any studies on their agreement with the human evaluation. Despite all that, minimal differences in the metric scores have been used in recent papers to claim superiority of some code generation models over the others. In this paper, we present a study on the applicability of six metrics -- BLEU, ROUGE-L, METEOR, ChrF, CodeBLEU, and RUBY -- for evaluation of code generation models. We conduct a study on two different code generation datasets and use human annotators to assess the quality of all models run on these datasets. The results indicate that for the CoNaLa dataset of Python one-liners, none of the metrics can correctly emulate human judgement on which model is better with >95% certainty if the difference in model scores is less than 5 points. For the HearthStone dataset, which consists of classes of a particular structure, a difference in model scores of at least 2 points is enough to claim the superiority of one model over the other. Our findings suggest that the ChrF metric is a better fit for the evaluation of code generation models than the commonly used BLEU and CodeBLEU. Yet, finding a metric for code generation that closely agrees with humans requires additional work.

Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models. First, we taxonomize the vast space of potential scenarios (i.e. use cases) and metrics (i.e. desiderata) that are of interest for LMs. Then we select a broad subset based on coverage and feasibility, noting what's missing or underrepresented (e.g. question answering for neglected English dialects, metrics for trustworthiness). Second, we adopt a multi-metric approach: We measure 7 metrics (accuracy, calibration, robustness, fairness, bias, toxicity, and efficiency) for each of 16 core scenarios when possible (87.5% of the time). This ensures metrics beyond accuracy don't fall to the wayside, and that trade-offs are clearly exposed. We also perform 7 targeted evaluations, based on 26 targeted scenarios, to analyze specific aspects (e.g. reasoning, disinformation). Third, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 30 prominent language models (spanning open, limited-access, and closed models) on all 42 scenarios, 21 of which were not previously used in mainstream LM evaluation. Prior to HELM, models on average were evaluated on just 17.9% of the core HELM scenarios, with some prominent models not sharing a single scenario in common. We improve this to 96.0%: now all 30 models have been densely benchmarked on the same core scenarios and metrics under standardized conditions. Our evaluation surfaces 25 top-level findings. For full transparency, we release all raw model prompts and completions publicly for further analysis, as well as a general modular toolkit. We intend for HELM to be a living benchmark for the community, continuously updated with new scenarios, metrics, and models.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are increasingly used to support large lan guage model (LLM) reasoning, but standard triplet-based KGs treat each relation as globally valid. In many settings, whether a relation should count as evidence depends on the context. We therefore formulate triplet validity as a triplet-specific function of context and refer to this formulation as a Quantum Knowledge Graph (QKG). We instantiate QKG in medicine using a diabetes-centered PrimeKG subgraph, whose 68,651 context-sensitive relations are further annotated with patient-group-specific constraints. We evaluate it in a reasoner--validator pipeline for medical question answering on a KG-grounded subset of MedReason containing 2,788 questions. With Haiku-4.5 as both the Reasoner and the Validator, KG-backed validation significantly improves over a no-validator baseline (+0.61 pp), and QKG with context matching yields the largest gain, outperforming both KG validation without context matching (+0.79 pp) and the no-validator baseline (+1.40 pp; paired McNemar, all p<0.05). Under a stronger validator (Qwen-3.6-Plus), the raw QKG gain over the no-validator baseline grows from +1.40 pp to +5.96 pp; the context-matching gap is non-significant (p=0.73) on the raw set but becomes borderline significant (p=0.05) after adjustment for knowledge leakage and suspicious questions, consistent with a benchmark-gold ceiling rather than a QKG limitation. Taken together, the results support the view that the value of a KG in LLM-based clinical reasoning lies not merely in storing medically related facts, but in representing whether those facts are applicable to the specific patient context. For reproducibility and further research, we release the curated QKG datasets and source code.https://github.com/HKAI-Sci/QKG

Machine unlearning aims to remove specific data influences from trained models, a capability essential for adhering to copyright laws and ensuring AI safety. Current unlearning metrics typically measure success by monitoring the model's performance degradation on the specific unlearning dataset (D_u). We argue that for Large Language Models (LLMs), this evaluation paradigm is insufficient and potentially misleading. Many real-world uses of unlearning--motivated by copyright or safety--implicitly target not only verbatim content in D_u, but also behaviors influenced by the broader generalizations the model derived from it. We demonstrate that LLMs can pass standard unlearning evaluation and appear to have "forgotten" the target knowledge, while simultaneously retaining strong capabilities on content that is semantically adjacent to D_u. This phenomenon indicates that erasing exact sentences does not necessarily equate to removing the underlying knowledge. To address this gap, we propose Proximal Surrogate Generation (PSG), an automated stress-testing framework that generates a surrogate dataset, D_u. This surrogate set is constructed to be semantically derived from D_u yet sufficiently distinct in embedding space. By comparing unlearning metric scores between D_u and D_u, we can stress-test the reliability of the metric itself. Our extensive evaluation across three LLM families (Llama-3-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, and Zephyr-7B-β), three distinct datasets, and seven standard metrics reveals widespread inconsistencies. We find that current metrics frequently overestimate unlearning success, failing to detect retained knowledge exposed by our stress-test datasets.

Meta-analysis is a demanding form of evidence synthesis that combines literature retrieval, PI/ECO-guided study selection, and statistical aggregation. Its structured, verifiable workflow makes it an ideal substrate for evaluating systematic scientific reasoning, yet existing benchmarks lack ground truth across the full retrieval-screening-synthesis pipeline. We introduce MetaSyn, a dataset of 442 expert-curated meta-analyses from Nature Portfolio journals. Each entry pairs a research question with PI/ECO criteria, a retrieval corpus of 140k PubMed articles, verified positive studies, hard negatives that are topically similar but PI/ECO-ineligible, and complete search strategies and date bounds. Benchmarking twelve pipeline configurations (nine RAG variants and a protocol-driven agent) reveals a critical screening bottleneck: despite a retrieval ceiling of 90.9% recall at K=200, no system recovers more than 52.7% of ground-truth included literature. Current LLMs fail to reliably separate eligible studies from PI/ECO-failing distractors in pools of comparable topical relevance. Stage-attributed metrics capture where systems succeed and fail; a single end-to-end score does not.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

For many evaluation metrics commonly used as benchmarks for unconditional image generation, trivially memorizing the training set attains a better score than models which are considered state-of-the-art; we consider this problematic. We clarify a necessary condition for an evaluation metric not to behave this way: estimating the function must require a large sample from the model. In search of such a metric, we turn to neural network divergences (NNDs), which are defined in terms of a neural network trained to distinguish between distributions. The resulting benchmarks cannot be "won" by training set memorization, while still being perceptually correlated and computable only from samples. We survey past work on using NNDs for evaluation and implement an example black-box metric based on these ideas. Through experimental validation we show that it can effectively measure diversity, sample quality, and generalization.

There have been a couple of studies showing that attempting to erase multilingual knowledge using only English data is insufficient for multilingual LLMs. However, their analyses remain highly performance-oriented. In this paper, we switch the point of view to evaluation, and address an additional blind spot which reveals itself when the multilingual LLM is fully finetuned with parallel multilingual dataset before unlearning. Here, language confusion occurs whereby a model responds in language different from that of the input prompt. Language confusion is a problematic phenomenon in unlearning, causing the standard reference-based metrics to fail. We tackle this phenomenon in three steps: (1) introduce N-gram-based Language-Mix (N-Mix) score to quantitatively show the language confusion is pervasive and consistent in multilingual LLMs, (2) demonstrate that reference-based metrics result in false negatives when N-Mix score is high, and(3) suggest the need of new type of unlearning evaluation that can directly assess the content of the generated sentences. We call this type of metrics as semantic-based metric.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks, yet it remains unclear whether such success reflects genuine reasoning or sophisticated recall. We introduce AInstein, a framework for testing whether LLMs can generate valid solutions to AI research problems using only their pretrained parametric knowledge -- without domain-specific fine-tuning, retrieval augmentation, or other external aids. Our approach extracts distilled problem statements from high-quality ICLR 2025 submissions, then tasks specialized solver agents with proposing and refining technical solutions through iterative critique loops, mimicking the cycles of proposal, review, and revision central to scientific inquiry. We evaluate AInstein on 1,214 ICLR papers stratified by acceptance tier (Oral, Spotlight, Poster), using an LLM-as-a-judge paradigm guided by a structured rubric, complemented by targeted manual checks. Performance is assessed with three metrics: Success Rate (does the solution address the problem?), Rediscovery (does it align with human-proposed methods?), and Novelty (does it yield valid, original approaches?). Our results reveal that while LLMs can rediscover feasible solutions and occasionally propose creative alternatives, their problem-solving ability remains fragile and highly sensitive to framing. These findings provide the first large-scale evidence on the extent to which LLMs can act as autonomous scientific problem-solvers, highlighting both their latent potential and their current limitations.

Automatic evaluation metrics are essential for building multilingual translation systems. The common practice of evaluating these systems is averaging metric scores across languages, yet this is suspicious since metrics may suffer from cross-lingual scoring bias, where translations of equal quality receive different scores across languages. This problem has not been systematically studied because no benchmark exists that provides parallel-quality instances across languages, and expert annotation is not realistic. In this work, we propose XQ-MEval, a semi-automatically built dataset covering nine translation directions, to benchmark translation metrics. Specifically, we inject MQM-defined errors into gold translations automatically, filter them by native speakers for reliability, and merge errors to generate pseudo translations with controllable quality. These pseudo translations are then paired with corresponding sources and references to form triplets used in assessing the qualities of translation metrics. Using XQ-MEval, our experiments on nine representative metrics reveal the inconsistency between averaging and human judgment and provide the first empirical evidence of cross-lingual scoring bias. Finally, we propose a normalization strategy derived from XQ-MEval that aligns score distributions across languages, improving the fairness and reliability of multilingual metric evaluation.

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.

In industrial procurement, an LLM answer is useful only if it survives a standards check: recommended material must match operating condition, every parameter must respect a regulated threshold, and no procedure may contradict a safety clause. Partial correctness can mask safety-critical contradictions that aggregate LLM benchmarks rarely capture. We introduce IndustryBench, a 2,049-item benchmark for industrial procurement QA in Chinese, grounded in Chinese national standards (GB/T) and structured industrial product records, organized by seven capability dimensions, ten industry categories, and panel-derived difficulty tiers, with item-aligned English, Russian, and Vietnamese renderings. Our construction pipeline rejects 70.3% of LLM-generated candidates at a search-based external-verification stage, calibrating how unreliable industrial QA remains after LLM-only filtering.Our evaluation decouples raw correctness, scored by a Qwen3-Max judge validated at κ_w = 0.798 against a domain expert, from a separate safety-violation (SV) check against source texts. Across 17 models in Chinese and an 8-model intersection over four languages, we find: (i) the best system reaches only 2.083 on the 0--3 rubric, leaving substantial headroom; (ii) Standards & Terminology is the most persistent capability weakness and survives item-aligned translation; (iii) extended reasoning lowers safety-adjusted scores for 12 of 13 models, primarily by introducing unsupported safety-critical details into longer final answers; and (iv) safety-violation rates reshuffle the leaderboard -- GPT-5.4 climbs from rank 6 to rank 3 after SV adjustment, while Kimi-k2.5-1T-A32B drops seven positions.Industrial LLM evaluation therefore requires source-grounded, safety-aware diagnosis rather than aggregate accuracy. We release IndustryBench with all prompts, scoring scripts, and dataset documentation.

The rapid proliferation of LLMs has created a critical evaluation paradox: while LLMs claim multilingual proficiency, comprehensive non-machine-translated benchmarks exist for fewer than 30 languages, leaving >98% of the world's 7,000 languages in an empirical void. Traditional benchmark construction faces scaling challenges such as cost, scarcity of domain experts, and data contamination. We evaluate the validity of a simpler alternative: can translation quality alone indicate a model's broader multilingual capabilities? Through systematic evaluation of 14 models (1B-72B parameters) across 9 diverse benchmarks and 7 translation metrics, we find that translation performance is a good indicator of downstream task success (e.g., Phi-4, median Pearson r: MetricX = 0.89, xCOMET = 0.91, SSA-COMET = 0.87). These results suggest that the representational abilities supporting faithful translation overlap with those required for multilingual understanding. Translation quality, thus emerges as a strong, inexpensive first-pass proxy of multilingual performance, enabling a translation-first screening with targeted follow-up for specific tasks.

Evaluation metrics play a vital role in the growth of an area as it defines the standard of distinguishing between good and bad models. In the area of code synthesis, the commonly used evaluation metric is BLEU or perfect accuracy, but they are not suitable enough to evaluate codes, because BLEU is originally designed to evaluate the natural language, neglecting important syntactic and semantic features of codes, and perfect accuracy is too strict thus it underestimates different outputs with the same semantic logic. To remedy this, we introduce a new automatic evaluation metric, dubbed CodeBLEU. It absorbs the strength of BLEU in the n-gram match and further injects code syntax via abstract syntax trees (AST) and code semantics via data-flow. We conduct experiments by evaluating the correlation coefficient between CodeBLEU and quality scores assigned by the programmers on three code synthesis tasks, i.e., text-to-code, code translation, and code refinement. Experimental results show that our proposed CodeBLEU can achieve a better correlation with programmer assigned scores compared with BLEU and accuracy.

For deploying foundation models, practitioners increasingly need prescriptive scaling laws: given a pre training compute budget, what downstream accuracy is attainable with contemporary post training practice, and how stable is that mapping as the field evolves? Using large scale observational evaluations with 5k observational and 2k newly sampled data on model performance, we estimate capability boundaries, high conditional quantiles of benchmark scores as a function of log pre training FLOPs, via smoothed quantile regression with a monotone, saturating sigmoid parameterization. We validate the temporal reliability by fitting on earlier model generations and evaluating on later releases. Across various tasks, the estimated boundaries are mostly stable, with the exception of math reasoning that exhibits a consistently advancing boundary over time. We then extend our approach to analyze task dependent saturation and to probe contamination related shifts on math reasoning tasks. Finally, we introduce an efficient algorithm that recovers near full data frontiers using roughly 20% of evaluation budget. Together, our work releases the Proteus 2k, the latest model performance evaluation dataset, and introduces a practical methodology for translating compute budgets into reliable performance expectations and for monitoring when capability boundaries shift across time.

For fair academic recruitment at universities and research institutions, determination of the right measure based on globally accepted academic quality features is a highly delicate, challenging, but quite important problem to be addressed. In a series of two papers, we consider the modeling part for academic quality quantification in the first paper, in this paper, and the case studies part in the second paper. For academic quality quantification modeling, we develop two computational frameworks which can be used to construct a decision-support tool: (i) an optimization-based framework and (ii) a Siamese network (a type of artificial neural network)-based framework. The output of both models is a single index called Academic Quality Index (AQI) which is a measure of the overall academic quality. The data of academics from first-class and average-class world universities, based on Times Higher Education World University Rankings and QS World University Rankings, are assumed as the reference data for tuning model parameters.

The performance of machine learning models depends heavily on training data. The scarcity of large-scale, well-annotated datasets poses significant challenges in creating robust models. To address this, synthetic data generated through simulations and generative models has emerged as a promising solution, enhancing dataset diversity and improving the performance, reliability, and resilience of models. However, evaluating the quality of this generated data requires an effective metric. This paper introduces the Synthetic Dataset Quality Metric (SDQM) to assess data quality for object detection tasks without requiring model training to converge. This metric enables more efficient generation and selection of synthetic datasets, addressing a key challenge in resource-constrained object detection tasks. In our experiments, SDQM demonstrated a strong correlation with the mean Average Precision (mAP) scores of YOLOv11, a leading object detection model, while previous metrics only exhibited moderate or weak correlations. Additionally, it provides actionable insights for improving dataset quality, minimizing the need for costly iterative training. This scalable and efficient metric sets a new standard for evaluating synthetic data. The code for SDQM is available at https://github.com/ayushzenith/SDQM

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been observed to exhibit bias in numerous ways, potentially creating or worsening outcomes for specific groups identified by protected attributes such as sex, race, sexual orientation, or age. To help address this gap, we introduce LangFair, an open-source Python package that aims to equip LLM practitioners with the tools to evaluate bias and fairness risks relevant to their specific use cases. The package offers functionality to easily generate evaluation datasets, comprised of LLM responses to use-case-specific prompts, and subsequently calculate applicable metrics for the practitioner's use case. To guide in metric selection, LangFair offers an actionable decision framework.

While Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding using metrics such as COMET or MetricX has outperformed traditional decoding methods such as greedy or beam search, it introduces a challenge we refer to as metric bias. As MBR decoding aims to produce translations that score highly according to a specific utility metric, this very process makes it impossible to use the same metric for both decoding and evaluation, as improvements might simply be due to reward hacking rather than reflecting real quality improvements. In this work we find that compared to human ratings, neural metrics not only overestimate the quality of MBR decoding when the same metric is used as the utility metric, but they also overestimate the quality of MBR/QE decoding with other neural utility metrics as well. We also show that the metric bias issue can be mitigated by using an ensemble of utility metrics during MBR decoding: human evaluations show that MBR decoding using an ensemble of utility metrics outperforms a single utility metric.

Advances in training, post-training, and inference-time methods have enabled frontier reasoning models to win gold medals in math competitions and settle challenging open problems. Gaining trust in the responses of these models requires that natural language proofs be checked for errors. LLM judges are increasingly being adopted to meet the growing demand for evaluating such proofs. While verification is considered easier than generation, what model capability does reliable verification actually require? We systematically evaluate four open-source and two frontier LLMs on datasets of human-graded natural language proofs of competition-level problems. We consider two key metrics: verifier accuracy and self-consistency (the rate of agreement across repeated judgments on the same proof). We observe that smaller open-source models are only up to ~10% behind frontier models in accuracy but they are up to ~25% more inconsistent. Furthermore, we see that verifier accuracy is sensitive to prompt choice across all models. We then demonstrate that the smaller models, in fact, do possess the mathematical capabilities to verify proofs at the level of frontier models, but they struggle to reliably elicit these capabilities with general judging prompts. Through an LLM-guided prompt search, we synthesize an ensemble of specialized prompts that overcome the specific failure modes of smaller models, boosting their performance by up to 9.1% in accuracy and 15.9% in self-consistency. These gains are realized across models and datasets, allowing models like Qwen3.5-35B to perform on par with frontier models such as Gemini 3.1 Pro for proof verification.

Factual consistency is an essential quality of text summarization models in practical settings. Existing work in evaluating this dimension can be broadly categorized into two lines of research, entailment-based and question answering (QA)-based metrics, and different experimental setups often lead to contrasting conclusions as to which paradigm performs the best. In this work, we conduct an extensive comparison of entailment and QA-based metrics, demonstrating that carefully choosing the components of a QA-based metric, especially question generation and answerability classification, is critical to performance. Building on those insights, we propose an optimized metric, which we call QAFactEval, that leads to a 14% average improvement over previous QA-based metrics on the SummaC factual consistency benchmark, and also outperforms the best-performing entailment-based metric. Moreover, we find that QA-based and entailment-based metrics can offer complementary signals and be combined into a single metric for a further performance boost.