Daily Papers

Large language models (LLMs) have shown emerging potential in spatiotemporal reasoning, making them promising candidates for building urban agents that support diverse urban downstream applications. Despite these benefits, existing studies primarily focus on evaluating urban LLM agent on outcome-level metrics (e.g., prediction accuracy, traffic efficiency), offering limited insight into their underlying reasoning processes. As a result, the strengths and limitations of urban LLM agents in spatiotemporal reasoning remain poorly understood. To this end, we introduce USTBench, the first benchmark to evaluate LLMs' spatiotemporal reasoning abilities as urban agents across four decomposed dimensions: spatiotemporal understanding, forecasting, planning, and reflection with feedback. Specifically, USTBench supports five diverse urban decision-making and four spatiotemporal prediction tasks, all running within our constructed interactive city environment UAgentEnv. The benchmark includes 62,466 structured QA pairs for process-level evaluation and standardized end-to-end task assessments, enabling fine-grained diagnostics and broad task-level comparison across diverse urban scenarios. Through extensive evaluation of thirteen leading LLMs, we reveal that although LLMs show promising potential across various urban downstream tasks, they still struggle in long-horizon planning and reflective adaptation in dynamic urban contexts. Notably, recent advanced reasoning models (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) trained on general logic or mathematical problems do not consistently outperform non-reasoning LLMs. This discrepancy highlights the need for domain-specialized adaptation methods to enhance urban spatiotemporal reasoning. Overall, USTBench provides a foundation to build more adaptive and effective LLM-based urban agents and broad smart city applications.

LLM agents increasingly interact with other agents on behalf of users, yet how users in the loop affect their agents' behavior--for better or worse--remains poorly understood. We study this question through the lens of negotiation, where agents must represent users while strategically bargaining with other agents. To isolate the effect of user presence, we develop PRESENT, a controlled evaluation framework that compares negotiation settings with and without an interactive user, while holding the game, objectives, and user preferences fixed across conditions. Across 11.2k runs spanning 7 games and 8 models, we find that user presence significantly changes both outcomes and behavior. Specifically, negotiation parties with a user obtain higher payouts (+13.7% on average) and their agents negotiate more aggressively. Surprisingly, user presence also induces misaligned behavior, both toward counterparties (where its rate roughly doubles) and toward users (where it emerges in 14.3% of games). These misaligned behaviors are uncorrelated with outcomes and persist even when the user sends only templated, neutral messages. These findings expose two blind spots in current evaluation practice: static instructions miss behaviors that emerge only when users are present, and outcome-level metrics cannot detect them.

Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess final reports using fixed rubrics, failing to evaluate the underlying research process. Most also offer limited multimodal coverage, rely on synthetic tasks that do not reflect real-world query complexity, and cannot be refreshed as knowledge evolves. To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks (70 text-only, 30 multimodal), all grounded in real user needs and constructed via a dual-path pipeline that supports periodic updates, enabling a live and evolving setting. The proposed evaluation suite assesses deep research systems along three complementary dimensions: adaptive synthesis quality evaluation with task-specific rubrics, agentic factuality verification via active retrieval and reasoning over both web sources and multimodal attachments, and process-centric evaluation audits how the system searches, reasons, and refines throughout its investigation. Evaluation across 13 systems yields three principal findings: the three evaluation dimensions capture complementary aspects of system capability, with each revealing distinct strengths and weaknesses across systems; process quality serves as a reliable predictor of overall outcome while revealing weaknesses invisible to output-level metrics; and multimodal tasks pose substantially greater challenges, with most systems declining by 3 to 10 points. The MiroThinker series achieves the most balanced performance, with MiroThinker-H1 ranking the highest overall in both settings. Human verification and robustness results confirm the reliability of the benchmark and evaluation framework. MiroEval provides a holistic diagnostic tool for the next generation of deep research agents.

Web agents act through long interaction sequences, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only terminal success, discarding all process information and offering little guidance on improvement. In this work, we conduct a process-level analysis of web agents. We introduce WebStep, a benchmark of 1,800 task instances with controlled difficulty and automatic semantic state tracking. Each website exposes a deterministic semantic MDP alongside the GUI: the agent operates on the interface, while the environment records high-level states and transitions in the background, enabling fine-grained analysis without manual annotation. Based on the semantic trajectory, we first show that process metrics reveal differences invisible to outcome evaluation: three agents whose success rates cluster within 31-33% diverge in exploration reach versus execution accuracy. Then, decomposing by skill characterizes the nature of these differences, exposing opposite per-skill rankings hidden within the same website: e.g., on Housing, OpenAI CUA outperforms Qwen3.5 by 23.7% on commit actions yet underperforms it by 15.6% on filtering, pinpointing a concrete skill to improve even within a domain. Bifurcation analysis further localizes the decisive error that loses the task and shows that this error is agent-specific rather than shared. Finally, these differences widen as tasks grow harder: success rate is similar on easy tasks but separates sharply as exploration becomes more demanding. Our process-level analysis opens a new avenue in web agent evaluation, providing fine-grained and actionable insight into where and how each agent should be improved.

Human visual search is serial: the fovea must land on a candidate to confirm it, and those landings form a scanpath. Whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs), given the same foveated input, search as humans do bears on their use as models of human vision and on attention-alignment scores. We compare three general-purpose MLLMs with human eye-movement scanpaths on goal-directed search (COCO-Search18), driving each model fixation by fixation through an identical, human-matched foveated view and assessing it along three axes: the decision of target presence, the efficiency of reaching the target, and the gaze process itself. The axes dissociate. On the decision and on target acquisition the models match or exceed humans, detecting present targets near ceiling and reaching them on the first saccade more often than people do. The gaze process is not human. Under the human-matched condition, all three share one signature: low-entropy, large-amplitude, self-consistent scanpaths that agree with themselves far more closely than two humans agree with each other. That is consistent with a single-pass, non-serial architecture rather than a limit of acuity. Matched retinal input reproduces where humans look but not how the looking unfolds in time, and no degradation regime recovers human-like search at human-like success. The gap sits on a process axis that answer-alignment and saliency metrics do not measure. Because they miss it, such metrics cannot certify human-like vision, and zero-shot models suit outcome and spatial questions but not temporal, process-level ones.

Tool-calling benchmarks are increasingly used to rank language-model agents, yet their scores are often treated as ground truth without validating the evaluators themselves. We present a systematic validity and reproducibility audit of four major tool-calling benchmark families: BFCL v4, τ2-Bench, LiveMCPBench, and MCP-Atlas. Across 496 expert-reviewed benchmark tasks, we find 92 evaluator-human disagreements, corresponding to an 18.5% misalignment rate. The failures are not isolated annotation mistakes: deterministic benchmarks exhibit brittle state matching, trajectory lock-in, incorrect ground truths, substring-based communication failures, and reward-basis misalignment, while LLM-judge benchmarks exhibit rubric drift, hallucinated completion, answer-only scoring, and substantial run-to-run variance. In LiveMCPBench, 23 repeated evaluations of the same setup produce scores ranging from 57.9% to 76.8%, a spread of 18.9 percentage points, large enough to change leaderboard conclusions. These results show that current tool-calling scores can reflect evaluator artifacts rather than agent capability. We introduce a unified taxonomy of tool-calling evaluation failures, release trace-level audit artifacts and corrected evaluation components, and argue for decomposed metrics that separately measure tool invocation, task completion, and outcome verification. Our findings suggest that progress in tool-using agents requires benchmarks whose evaluators are themselves reproducible, auditable, and aligned with human judgments of task success. We further introduce Tool-Veritas, a configurable benchmark that combines deterministic state verification with optional qualitative judging, and Harness Lab, an open-source system for benchmark execution, trace inspection, repeated-run comparison, and evaluator debugging.

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.

Foundation Models (FMs) have recently redefined the state-of-the-art in histopathology by providing robust representations for whole-slide image (WSI) analysis. However, selecting the optimal foundation model (FM) for a specific clinical cohort currently requires multiple preprocessing steps, followed by computationally expensive feature extraction and the training of a Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) aggregator for every model. In this work, we investigate whether efficient tile-level linear probing can serve as a reliable proxy for slide-level performance, reducing the need to run full slide-level pipelines for every candidate encoder. We benchmark 19 state-of-the-art FMs on 42 slide-level and 16 tile-level tasks, comparing tile probing metrics against slide-level outcomes using ABMIL and Mean Pooling aggregations. We observe a high correlation between tile and slide performance across varying task difficulties, indicating that encoder representation quality is the primary determinant of WSI success. Sensitivity analyses show that transferability is stable across models and is more influenced by cohort sizes and numbers of tiles per slide than by average task difficulty. We also measure the agreement in best performing models between tile and slide-level tasks, showing tile benchmarks reliably shortlist strong candidates. Overall, our study indicates that tile-level benchmarking provides an efficient and practical first step for narrowing down candidate models, while slide-level evaluation remains essential for final validation on clinical tasks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Benchmark suites assess model capability on controlled tasks; large-scale conversation corpora capture naturalistic use without user feedback; and in-interface feedback mechanisms record satisfaction without task purpose. Together, they leave a critical gap in LLM evaluation: no existing infrastructure routinely links interaction trajectories to user-defined outcomes. We introduce MonitrLLM, open-source infrastructure for community-centered LLM evaluations that links full conversation transcripts to user-reported task intent and outcome assessments, treating all three as primary evaluative signals rather than optional metadata. To demonstrate the value of this approach, we conducted a two-week feasibility pilot with 26 college students using ChatGPT, collecting 206 evaluation reports with full conversation transcripts. The findings from our pilot demonstrate the value of connecting conversation trajectories with user-reported outcomes. For instance, despite reporting high average satisfaction (4.19/5) with their LLM interactions, participants also experience a substantial 23.1% failure rate on their goal tasks. We also find that multi-turn conversations are reported as failing at 2.5 times the rate of single-turn exchanges, a pattern that reframes extended interaction as a signal of difficulty rather than engagement. We conclude by discussing the value of incorporating direct user feedback with observational data for robust LLM evaluations, and the possibilities for infrastructure that enables this goal.

As AI systems are increasingly used to draft radiology reports, reliably evaluating their clinical quality remains a critical challenge. Large language model (LLM)-based metrics are now the best-correlated with radiologist judgment, yet they output a single opaque score that neither a clinician nor a model builder can easily interpret or audit. We introduce RadMatch, a multi-stage, LLM-based metric that decomposes report comparison into a structured finding-level matching with significance-aware scoring and error characterization across seven clinical attribute dimensions (status, location, severity, morphology, certainty, longitudinal comparison, and measurement). The main score is the actionable-error count, both interpretable and auditable. Candidate findings are graded correct, partial, or incorrect, and unmatched findings are counted as missed or hallucinated. Triage and actionable safety recall/precision and per-subset views add complementary, deployment-oriented lenses. Across two expert benchmarks, RadMatch is the most clinically aligned metric, matching inter-radiologist agreement on ReXVal and more than doubling the best prior metric on the harder RadEvalExpert. Relying only on few-shot prompting, it is designed to extend to other modalities and anatomies. We will release RadMatch as open-source code with an interactive dashboard for inspecting results.

A benchmark is not merely a collection of test questions; it naturally induces an empirical measure over difficulty. In this work, we develop this measure-based view of benchmark evaluation. This perspective allows us to identify and formalize two central failure modes: measure mismatch, where the benchmark difficulty distribution differs from the intended difficulty distribution, and coverage gaps, where uncovered regions along the difficulty axis prevent benchmarks from detecting meaningful localized training progress. We propose two diagnostic metrics that capture these two failure modes and provide rigorous theoretical guarantees. Empirically, we analyze 25 popular benchmarks spanning 7 domains using carefully estimated item difficulties. Our results show that many benchmarks implicitly overweight certain difficulty regions, so their leaderboard conclusions should be interpreted with caution; others leave substantial portions of the difficulty axis uncovered, limiting their ability to monitor the model improvement process. Finally, we turn diagnosis into action by introducing BenchFill, a simple difficulty-targeted item rewriting algorithm that effectively reduces local coverage gaps.

Radiology report evaluation is essential for advancing automated report generation. Natural language generation metrics have limited clinical relevance. Clinical efficacy (CE) metrics evaluate important medical findings, but focus mainly on presence and cover only a limited set of entities. Due to heavy reliance on manual annotations, it is difficult for CE metrics to extend clinical entities or attributes. In clinical practice, radiology reports serve as a medium for information transfer. Clinicians use them to perform downstream diagnostic tasks without directly inspecting images. Based on this insight, we propose ReportQA, a clinical-related and flexible radiology report evaluation framework, supporting detailed quantitative analysis of radiology report generation systems. We first collect datasets covering multiple imaging modalities and anatomical regions. We then construct knowledge trees of clinical entities and attributes with radiologist guidance, and use large language models (LLMs) to extract structured information from raw reports. Next, we generate QA pairs from predefined templates and apply quality control through self-filtering and report-based filtering. During evaluation, the report is treated as context, and an LLM acts as a judge model to answer the QA pairs. Based on the resulting QA accuracy, we introduce QAScore metric. Compared with existing metrics, QAScore shows better alignment with radiologist judgments. Experiments on multiple state-of-the-art vision-language models reveal that current report-based inference paradigms struggle to learn fine-grained clinical representations and exhibit strong negative prior biases. In contrast, question-driven inference provides a more effective alternative. For reproducibility and extensibility, we release the knowledge trees, structured reports, and QA pairs, along with the pipeline code for QA construction and evaluation.

Patent examination remains an ongoing challenge in the NLP literature even after the advent of large language models (LLMs), as it requires an extensive yet nuanced human judgment on whether a submitted claim meets the statutory standards of novelty and non-obviousness against previously granted claims -- prior art -- in expert domains. Previous NLP studies have approached this challenge as a prediction task (e.g., forecasting grant outcomes) with high-level proxies such as similarity metrics or classifiers trained on historical labels. However, this approach often overlooks the step-by-step evaluations that examiners must make with profound information, including rationales for the decisions provided in office actions documents, which also makes it harder to measure the current state of techniques in patent review processes. To fill this gap, we construct PANORAMA, a dataset of 8,143 U.S. patent examination records that preserves the full decision trails, including original applications, all cited references, Non-Final Rejections, and Notices of Allowance. Also, PANORAMA decomposes the trails into sequential benchmarks that emulate patent professionals' patent review processes and allow researchers to examine large language models' capabilities at each step of them. Our findings indicate that, although LLMs are relatively effective at retrieving relevant prior art and pinpointing the pertinent paragraphs, they struggle to assess the novelty and non-obviousness of patent claims. We discuss these results and argue that advancing NLP, including LLMs, in the patent domain requires a deeper understanding of real-world patent examination. Our dataset is openly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/LG-AI-Research/PANORAMA.

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

Neural metrics for machine translation evaluation, such as COMET, exhibit significant improvements in their correlation with human judgments, as compared to traditional metrics based on lexical overlap, such as BLEU. Yet, neural metrics are, to a great extent, "black boxes" returning a single sentence-level score without transparency about the decision-making process. In this work, we develop and compare several neural explainability methods and demonstrate their effectiveness for interpreting state-of-the-art fine-tuned neural metrics. Our study reveals that these metrics leverage token-level information that can be directly attributed to translation errors, as assessed through comparison of token-level neural saliency maps with Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) annotations and with synthetically-generated critical translation errors. To ease future research, we release our code at: https://github.com/Unbabel/COMET/tree/explainable-metrics.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that require complex reasoning. Most benchmarks focus on final outcomes but overlook the intermediate reasoning steps - such as planning, revision, and decision making under resource constraints. We argue that measuring these internal processes is essential for understanding model behavior and improving reliability. We propose using strategic games as a natural evaluation environment: closed, rule-based systems with clear states, limited resources, and automatic feedback. We introduce a framework that evaluates LLMs along three core dimensions: planning, revision, and resource-constrained decision making. To operationalize this, we define metrics beyond win rate, including overcorrection risk rate, correction success rate, improvement slope, and over-budget ratio. In 4320 adversarial rounds across 12 leading models, ChatGPT-o3-mini achieves the top composite score, with a win rate of 74.7 percent, a correction success rate of 78.6 percent, and an improvement slope of 0.041. By contrast, Qwen-Plus, despite an overcorrection risk rate of 81.6 percent, wins only 25.6 percent of its matches - primarily due to excessive resource use. We also observe a negative correlation between overcorrection risk rate and correction success rate (Pearson r = -0.51, p = 0.093), suggesting that more frequent edits do not always improve outcomes. Our findings highlight the value of assessing not only what LLMs decide but how they arrive at those decisions

In realistic retrieval settings with large and evolving knowledge bases, the total number of documents relevant to a query is typically unknown, and recall cannot be computed. In this paper, we evaluate several established strategies for handling this limitation by measuring the correlation between retrieval quality metrics and LLM-based judgments of response quality, where responses are generated from the retrieved documents. We conduct experiments across multiple datasets with a relatively low number of relevant documents (2-15). We also introduce a simple retrieval quality measure that performs well without requiring knowledge of the total number of relevant documents.

Ranking and scoring are ubiquitous. We consider the setting in which an institution, called a ranker, evaluates a set of individuals based on demographic, behavioral or other characteristics. The final output is a ranking that represents the relative quality of the individuals. While automatic and therefore seemingly objective, rankers can, and often do, discriminate against individuals and systematically disadvantage members of protected groups. This warrants a careful study of the fairness of a ranking scheme. In this paper we propose fairness measures for ranked outputs. We develop a data generation procedure that allows us to systematically control the degree of unfairness in the output, and study the behavior of our measures on these datasets. We then apply our proposed measures to several real datasets, and demonstrate cases of unfairness. Finally, we show preliminary results of incorporating our ranked fairness measures into an optimization framework, and show potential for improving fairness of ranked outputs while maintaining accuracy.

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.

Vision-language-action models (VLAs) have been extensively used in robotics applications, achieving great success in various manipulation problems. More recently, VLAs have been used in long-horizon tasks and evaluated on benchmarks, such as BEHAVIOR1K (B1K), for solving complex household chores. The common metric for measuring progress in such benchmarks is success rate or partial score based on satisfaction of progress-agnostic criteria, meaning only the final states of the objects are considered, regardless of the events that lead to such states. In this paper, we argue that using such evaluation protocols say little about safety aspects of operation and can potentially exaggerate reported performance, undermining core challenges for future real-world deployment. To this end, we conduct a thorough analysis of state-of-the-art models on the B1K Challenge and evaluate policies in terms of robustness via reproducibility and consistency of performance, safety aspects of policies operations, task awareness, and key elements leading to the incompletion of tasks. We then propose evaluation protocols to capture safety violations to better measure the true performance of the policies in more complex and interactive scenarios. At the end, we discuss the limitations of the existing VLAs and motivate future research.

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.

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.

Scientific literature review generation aims to extract and organize important information from an abundant collection of reference papers and produces corresponding reviews while lacking a clear and logical hierarchy. We observe that a high-quality catalogue-guided generation process can effectively alleviate this problem. Therefore, we present an atomic and challenging task named Hierarchical Catalogue Generation for Literature Review as the first step for review generation, which aims to produce a hierarchical catalogue of a review paper given various references. We construct a novel English Hierarchical Catalogues of Literature Reviews Dataset with 7.6k literature review catalogues and 389k reference papers. To accurately assess the model performance, we design two evaluation metrics for informativeness and similarity to ground truth from semantics and structure.Our extensive analyses verify the high quality of our dataset and the effectiveness of our evaluation metrics. We further benchmark diverse experiments on state-of-the-art summarization models like BART and large language models like ChatGPT to evaluate their capabilities. We further discuss potential directions for this task to motivate future research.

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.

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

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.

A critical challenge in recommender systems is to establish reliable relationships between offline and online metrics that predict real-world performance. Motivated by recent advances in Pareto front approximation, we introduce a pragmatic strategy for identifying offline metrics that align with online impact. A key advantage of this approach is its ability to simultaneously serve multiple test groups, each with distinct offline performance metrics, in an online experiment controlled by a single model. The method is model-agnostic for systems with a neural network backbone, enabling broad applicability across architectures and domains. We validate the strategy through a large-scale online experiment in the field of session-based recommender systems on the OTTO e-commerce platform. The online experiment identifies significant alignments between offline metrics and real-word click-through rate, post-click conversion rate and units sold. Our strategy provides industry practitioners with a valuable tool for understanding offline-to-online metric relationships and making informed, data-driven decisions.

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.

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

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

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.

A law practitioner has to go through numerous lengthy legal case proceedings for their practices of various categories, such as land dispute, corruption, etc. Hence, it is important to summarize these documents, and ensure that summaries contain phrases with intent matching the category of the case. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evaluation metric that evaluates a summary based on its intent. We propose an automated intent-based summarization metric, which shows a better agreement with human evaluation as compared to other automated metrics like BLEU, ROUGE-L etc. in terms of human satisfaction. We also curate a dataset by annotating intent phrases in legal documents, and show a proof of concept as to how this system can be automated. Additionally, all the code and data to generate reproducible results is available on Github.

Deep research requires models to retrieve, connect, and synthesize evidence from large-scale heterogeneous sources to answer complex queries and produce analytical reports. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final outcomes, such as answer correctness, report quality, or citation alignment, while providing limited visibility into whether evidence is correctly selected, linked, and aggregated into supported claims and conclusions. To address this gap, we introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research. HiEviDR-Bench covers open-domain and academic-domain settings under both text-only and multimodal conditions, and represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation from evidence to intermediate claims and final conclusions. Based on this formulation, we develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness, together with a progressive gating mechanism for fine-grained error localization. HiEviDR-Bench contains 2,000 human-validated questions with evidence graphs across multiple difficulty levels. Experiments on 16 representative multimodal large language models show that, although many systems achieve strong report quality, their performance drops markedly on citation accuracy, claim construction, and answer correctness. Further analysis shows that the main bottlenecks lie in evidence identification and intermediate claim construction, revealing that strong surface-level report quality does not necessarily imply grounded multi-stage reasoning on our benchmark.

In this research, we introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs). Building upon the BEATS framework, we present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics. These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk. These metrics enable a quantitative assessment of the extent to which LLM generated responses may perpetuate societal prejudices that reinforce or expand systemic inequities. To achieve a high score on this benchmark a LLM must show very equitable behavior in their responses, making it a rigorous standard for responsible AI evaluation. Empirical results based on data from our experiment show that, 37.65\% of outputs generated by industry leading models contained some form of bias, highlighting a substantial risk of using these models in critical decision making systems. BEATS framework and benchmark offer a scalable and statistically rigorous methodology to benchmark LLMs, diagnose factors driving biases, and develop mitigation strategies. With the BEATS framework, our goal is to help the development of more socially responsible and ethically aligned AI models.

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.

In the information retrieval (IR) domain, evaluation plays a crucial role in optimizing search experiences and supporting diverse user intents. In the recent LLM era, research has been conducted to automate document relevance labels, as these labels have traditionally been assigned by crowd-sourced workers - a process that is both time and consuming and costly. This study focuses on LLM-generated usefulness labels, a crucial evaluation metric that considers the user's search intents and task objectives, an aspect where relevance falls short. Our experiment utilizes task-level, query-level, and document-level features along with user search behavior signals, which are essential in defining the usefulness of a document. Our research finds that (i) pre-trained LLMs can generate moderate usefulness labels by understanding the comprehensive search task session, (ii) pre-trained LLMs perform better judgement in short search sessions when provided with search session contexts. Additionally, we investigated whether LLMs can capture the unique divergence between relevance and usefulness, along with conducting an ablation study to identify the most critical metrics for accurate usefulness label generation. In conclusion, this work explores LLM-generated usefulness labels by evaluating critical metrics and optimizing for practicality in real-world settings.

The robot learning community has made great strides in recent years, proposing new architectures and showcasing impressive new capabilities; however, the dominant metric used in the literature, especially for physical experiments, is "success rate", i.e. the percentage of runs that were successful. Furthermore, it is common for papers to report this number with little to no information regarding the number of runs, the initial conditions, and the success criteria, little to no narrative description of the behaviors and failures observed, and little to no statistical analysis of the findings. In this paper we argue that to move the field forward, researchers should provide a nuanced evaluation of their methods, especially when evaluating and comparing learned policies on physical robots. To do so, we propose best practices for future evaluations: explicitly reporting the experimental conditions, evaluating several metrics designed to complement success rate, conducting statistical analysis, and adding a qualitative description of failures modes. We illustrate these through an evaluation on physical robots of several learned policies for manipulation tasks.

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

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) emphasizes the development of specific competencies through student-centered learning. In this study, we reviewed the importance of OBE and implemented transformer-based models, particularly DistilBERT, to analyze an NLP dataset that includes student feedback. Our objective is to assess and improve educational outcomes. Our approach is better than other machine learning models because it uses the transformer's deep understanding of language context to classify sentiment better, giving better results across a wider range of matrices. Our work directly contributes to OBE's goal of achieving measurable outcomes by facilitating the identification of patterns in student learning experiences. We have also applied LIME (local interpretable model-agnostic explanations) to make sure that model predictions are clear. This gives us understandable information about how key terms affect sentiment. Our findings indicate that the combination of transformer models and LIME explanations results in a strong and straightforward framework for analyzing student feedback. This aligns more closely with the principles of OBE and ensures the improvement of educational practices through data-driven insights.

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.

This study compares the performance of AI-generated and human-written product descriptions using a multifaceted evaluation model. We analyze descriptions for 100 products generated by four AI models (Gemma 2B, LLAMA, GPT2, and ChatGPT 4) with and without sample descriptions, against human-written descriptions. Our evaluation metrics include sentiment, readability, persuasiveness, Search Engine Optimization(SEO), clarity, emotional appeal, and call-to-action effectiveness. The results indicate that ChatGPT 4 performs the best. In contrast, other models demonstrate significant shortcomings, producing incoherent and illogical output that lacks logical structure and contextual relevance. These models struggle to maintain focus on the product being described, resulting in disjointed sentences that do not convey meaningful information. This research provides insights into the current capabilities and limitations of AI in the creation of content for e-Commerce.

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

We introduce a flexible framework that produces high-quality almost-exact matches for causal inference. Most prior work in matching uses ad-hoc distance metrics, often leading to poor quality matches, particularly when there are irrelevant covariates. In this work, we learn an interpretable distance metric for matching, which leads to substantially higher quality matches. The learned distance metric stretches the covariate space according to each covariate's contribution to outcome prediction: this stretching means that mismatches on important covariates carry a larger penalty than mismatches on irrelevant covariates. Our ability to learn flexible distance metrics leads to matches that are interpretable and useful for the estimation of conditional average treatment effects.

Language models can generate harmful and biased outputs and exhibit undesirable behavior according to a given cultural context. We propose a Process for Adapting Language Models to Society (PALMS) with Values-Targeted Datasets, an iterative process to significantly change model behavior by crafting and fine-tuning on a dataset that reflects a predetermined set of target values. We evaluate our process using three metrics: quantitative metrics with human evaluations that score output adherence to a target value, toxicity scoring on outputs; and qualitative metrics analyzing the most common word associated with a given social category. Through each iteration, we add additional training dataset examples based on observed shortcomings from evaluations. PALMS performs significantly better on all metrics compared to baseline and control models for a broad range of GPT-3 language model sizes without compromising capability integrity. We find that the effectiveness of PALMS increases with model size. We show that significantly adjusting language model behavior is feasible with a small, hand-curated dataset.

We introduce RoboEval, a structured evaluation framework and benchmark for robotic manipulation that augments binary success with principled behavioral and outcome metrics. Existing evaluations often collapse performance into outcome counts, masking differences in execution quality and obscuring failure structure. RoboEval provides eight bimanual tasks with systematically controlled variations, more than three thousand expert demonstrations, and a modular simulation platform for reproducible experimentation. All tasks are instrumented with standardized metrics that quantify efficiency, coordination, and safety/stability, as well as outcome measures that trace stagewise progress and localize failure modes. Through extensive experiments with state-of-the-art visuomotor policies, we validate these metrics by analyzing their stability under variation, discriminative power across policies with similar success rates, and correlation with task success. Project Page: https://robo-eval.github.io

Different from its counterpart outcome reward models (ORMs), which evaluate the entire responses, a process reward model (PRM) scores a reasoning trajectory step by step, providing denser and more fine grained rewards. However, training a PRM requires labels annotated at every intermediate step, presenting significant challenges for both manual and automatic data collection. This paper aims to address this challenge. Both theoretically and empirically, we show that an implicit PRM can be obtained at no additional cost, by simply training an ORM on the cheaper response-level labels. The only assumption is to parameterize the outcome reward as the log-likelihood ratios of the policy and reference models, which can be optimized regardless of the specific choice of loss objectives. In experiments, we instantiate our implicit PRMs with various objectives and evaluate their performance on MATH. We show that our implicit PRM outperforms a strong MCTS-based baseline \'a la Math-Shepherd using less than 1/38 of the training data. Its performance can be further improved with majority voting. We further find that scaling up instructions and responses benefits our implicit PRM, and the latter brings a larger gain. Particularly, we find that our implicit PRM, when instantiated with the cross-entropy (CE) loss, is more data-efficient and can keep improving generation models even when trained with only one response per instruction, the setup that suffers from extreme data scarcity and imbalance. Further, instructions should be relevant to downstream tasks while the diversity of responses does not bring gains. Surprisingly, training on extra Math-Shepherd step labels brings no further improvements to our implicit PRM trained on only outcome data. We hope that our work will encourage a rethinking of PRM training approaches and contribute to making training PRMs more accessible.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models by incorporating context retrieved from external knowledge sources. While the effectiveness of the retrieval module is typically evaluated with relevance-based ranking metrics, such metrics may be insufficient to reflect the retrieval's impact on the final RAG result, especially in long-form generation scenarios. We argue that providing a comprehensive retrieval-augmented context is important for long-form RAG tasks like report generation and propose metrics for assessing the context independent of generation. We introduce CRUX, a Controlled Retrieval-aUgmented conteXt evaluation framework designed to directly assess retrieval-augmented contexts. This framework uses human-written summaries to control the information scope of knowledge, enabling us to measure how well the context covers information essential for long-form generation. CRUX uses question-based evaluation to assess RAG's retrieval in a fine-grained manner. Empirical results show that CRUX offers more reflective and diagnostic evaluation. Our findings also reveal substantial room for improvement in current retrieval methods, pointing to promising directions for advancing RAG's retrieval. Our data and code are publicly available to support and advance future research on retrieval.

Few images on the Web receive alt-text descriptions that would make them accessible to blind and low vision (BLV) users. Image-based NLG systems have progressed to the point where they can begin to address this persistent societal problem, but these systems will not be fully successful unless we evaluate them on metrics that guide their development correctly. Here, we argue against current referenceless metrics -- those that don't rely on human-generated ground-truth descriptions -- on the grounds that they do not align with the needs of BLV users. The fundamental shortcoming of these metrics is that they do not take context into account, whereas contextual information is highly valued by BLV users. To substantiate these claims, we present a study with BLV participants who rated descriptions along a variety of dimensions. An in-depth analysis reveals that the lack of context-awareness makes current referenceless metrics inadequate for advancing image accessibility. As a proof-of-concept, we provide a contextual version of the referenceless metric CLIPScore which begins to address the disconnect to the BLV data. An accessible HTML version of this paper is available at https://elisakreiss.github.io/contextual-description-evaluation/paper/reflessmetrics.html

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.

With the widespread availability of LLMs since the release of ChatGPT and increased public scrutiny, commercial model development appears to have focused their efforts on 'safety' training concerning legal liabilities at the expense of social impact evaluation. This mimics a similar trend which we could observe for search engine autocompletion some years prior. We draw on scholarship from NLP and search engine auditing and present a novel evaluation task in the style of autocompletion prompts to assess stereotyping in LLMs. We assess LLMs by using four metrics, namely refusal rates, toxicity, sentiment and regard, with and without safety system prompts. Our findings indicate an improvement to stereotyping outputs with the system prompt, but overall a lack of attention by LLMs under study to certain harms classified as toxic, particularly for prompts about peoples/ethnicities and sexual orientation. Mentions of intersectional identities trigger a disproportionate amount of stereotyping. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings about stereotyping harms in light of the coming intermingling of LLMs and search and the choice of stereotyping mitigation policy to adopt. We address model builders, academics, NLP practitioners and policy makers, calling for accountability and awareness concerning stereotyping harms, be it for training data curation, leader board design and usage, or social impact measurement.

Current abstractive summarization systems present important weaknesses which prevent their deployment in real-world applications, such as the omission of relevant information and the generation of factual inconsistencies (also known as hallucinations). At the same time, automatic evaluation metrics such as CTC scores have been recently proposed that exhibit a higher correlation with human judgments than traditional lexical-overlap metrics such as ROUGE. In this work, we intend to close the loop by leveraging the recent advances in summarization metrics to create quality-aware abstractive summarizers. Namely, we propose an energy-based model that learns to re-rank summaries according to one or a combination of these metrics. We experiment using several metrics to train our energy-based re-ranker and show that it consistently improves the scores achieved by the predicted summaries. Nonetheless, human evaluation results show that the re-ranking approach should be used with care for highly abstractive summaries, as the available metrics are not yet sufficiently reliable for this purpose.

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

This paper introduces a novel, entity-aware metric, termed as Radiological Report (Text) Evaluation (RaTEScore), to assess the quality of medical reports generated by AI models. RaTEScore emphasizes crucial medical entities such as diagnostic outcomes and anatomical details, and is robust against complex medical synonyms and sensitive to negation expressions. Technically, we developed a comprehensive medical NER dataset, RaTE-NER, and trained an NER model specifically for this purpose. This model enables the decomposition of complex radiological reports into constituent medical entities. The metric itself is derived by comparing the similarity of entity embeddings, obtained from a language model, based on their types and relevance to clinical significance. Our evaluations demonstrate that RaTEScore aligns more closely with human preference than existing metrics, validated both on established public benchmarks and our newly proposed RaTE-Eval benchmark.

Existing benchmarks for LLM coding agents primarily evaluate final outcomes. While useful for measuring overall capability, these metrics provide limited visibility and often miss defects that arise during execution. We present ProcCtrlBench, a benchmark for execution-process evaluation in LLM coding agents. ProcCtrlBench organizes recurrent execution defects into a reusable ontology covering 11 defect types in 4 categories, and evaluates agent trajectories through standardized process evidence rather than final outcomes alone. To support comparison across heterogeneous agents, ProcCtrlBench standardizes raw logs into a unified trajectory representation and reports calibrated scorecards over process-level findings. In addition, ProcCtrlBench uses control preservation as a way to quantify execution-process quality, capturing whether execution remains interpretable, interruptible, correctable, reversible, and able to hand back authority when needed. We evaluate ProcCtrlBench on 200 cases sampled from three benchmarks: AndroidBench, TerminalBench, and SWE-bench-Verified. Results show that ProcCtrlBench can be instantiated with useful reliability, provides more stable semantics than direct thresholding, and reveals meaningful differences in execution quality that are often overlooked by conventional outcome-based evaluation.

Recent advances in Text-to-3D (T23D) generative models have enabled the synthesis of diverse, high-fidelity 3D assets from textual prompts. However, existing challenges restrict the development of reliable T23D quality assessment (T23DQA). First, existing benchmarks are outdated, fragmented, and coarse-grained, making fine-grained metric training infeasible. Moreover, current objective metrics exhibit inherent design limitations, resulting in non-representative feature extraction and diminished metric robustness. To address these limitations, we introduce T23D-CompBench, a comprehensive benchmark for compositional T23D generation. We define five components with twelve sub-components for compositional prompts, which are used to generate 3,600 textured meshes from ten state-of-the-art generative models. A large-scale subjective experiment is conducted to collect 129,600 reliable human ratings across different perspectives. Based on T23D-CompBench, we further propose Rank2Score, an effective evaluator with two-stage training for T23DQA. Rank2Score enhances pairwise training via supervised contrastive regression and curriculum learning in the first stage, and subsequently refines predictions using mean opinion scores to achieve closer alignment with human judgments in the second stage. Extensive experiments and downstream applications demonstrate that Rank2Score consistently outperforms existing metrics across multiple dimensions and can additionally serve as a reward function to optimize generative models. The project is available at https://cbysjtu.github.io/Rank2Score/.

Many platforms on the web present ranked lists of content to users, typically optimized for engagement-, satisfaction- or retention- driven metrics. Advances in the Learning-to-Rank (LTR) research literature have enabled rapid growth in this application area. Several popular interfaces now include nested lists, where users can enter a 2nd-level feed via any given 1st-level item. Naturally, this has implications for evaluation metrics, objective functions, and the ranking policies we wish to learn. We propose a theoretically grounded method to incorporate 2nd-level feedback into any 1st-level ranking model. Online experiments on a large-scale recommendation system confirm our theoretical findings.

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.

Personalized treatment effect estimates are often of interest in high-stakes applications -- thus, before deploying a model estimating such effects in practice, one needs to be sure that the best candidate from the ever-growing machine learning toolbox for this task was chosen. Unfortunately, due to the absence of counterfactual information in practice, it is usually not possible to rely on standard validation metrics for doing so, leading to a well-known model selection dilemma in the treatment effect estimation literature. While some solutions have recently been investigated, systematic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria is still lacking. In this paper, instead of attempting to declare a global `winner', we therefore empirically investigate success- and failure modes of different selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them, and provide interesting insights into the relative (dis)advantages of different criteria alongside desiderata for the design of further illuminating empirical studies in this context.

It is desirable to coarsely classify short scientific texts, such as grant or publication abstracts, for strategic insight or research portfolio management. These texts efficiently transmit dense information to experts possessing a rich body of knowledge to aid interpretation. Yet this task is remarkably difficult to automate because of brevity and the absence of context. To address this gap, we have developed a novel approach to generate and appropriately assign coarse domain-specific labels. We show that a Large Language Model (LLM) can provide metadata essential to the task, in a process akin to the augmentation of supplemental knowledge representing human intuition, and propose a workflow. As a pilot study, we use a corpus of award abstracts from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). We develop new assessment tools in concert with established performance metrics.

In this paper, we present the MetricX-24 submissions to the WMT24 Metrics Shared Task and provide details on the improvements we made over the previous version of MetricX. Our primary submission is a hybrid reference-based/-free metric, which can score a translation irrespective of whether it is given the source segment, the reference, or both. The metric is trained on previous WMT data in a two-stage fashion, first on the DA ratings only, then on a mixture of MQM and DA ratings. The training set in both stages is augmented with synthetic examples that we created to make the metric more robust to several common failure modes, such as fluent but unrelated translation, or undertranslation. We demonstrate the benefits of the individual modifications via an ablation study, and show a significant performance increase over MetricX-23 on the WMT23 MQM ratings, as well as our new synthetic challenge set.

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.

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.

Existing evaluation frameworks for large language models -- including HELM, MT-Bench, AgentBench, and BIG-bench -- are designed for controlled, single-session, lab-scale settings. They do not address the evaluation challenges that emerge when agentic AI systems operate continuously in production: compounding decision errors, tool failure cascades, non-deterministic output drift, and the absence of ground truth for long-horizon tasks. This paper makes three contributions. First, we present a taxonomy of seven failure modes unique to production agentic systems, each grounded in observations from systems operating at billion-event scale. Second, we demonstrate empirically where standard metrics -- ROUGE, BERTScore, accuracy/AUC, and the agentic benchmarks above -- fail to detect each failure mode. Third, we propose PAEF (Production Agentic Evaluation Framework), a five-dimension evaluation framework with an open-source reference implementation, designed for continuous evaluation on production traffic rather than episodic benchmark runs. Our analysis shows that standard metrics fail to detect four of the seven failure modes entirely and detect three others only after a lag of multiple evaluation cycles.

This study explores the proactive ability of LLMs to seek user support. We propose metrics to evaluate the trade-off between performance improvements and user burden, and investigate whether LLMs can determine when to request help under varying information availability. Our experiments show that without external feedback, many LLMs struggle to recognize their need for user support. The findings highlight the importance of external signals and provide insights for future research on improving support-seeking strategies. Source code: https://github.com/appier-research/i-need-help

Reality may establish that an outcome occurred without identifying which evolving procedure produced it or why. This distinction matters in production ML systems whose code, configuration, and artifacts change while external feedback accumulates. We examine it in a human-directed, agent-engineered quantitative trading system, using oracle to mean an external source of realized outcomes rather than a complete correctness specification. Across one year, the account gained and outperformed a broad market index, while annual alpha was not statistically distinguishable from zero under the main retrospective specification. Retrospectively selected subperiods include adverse relative performance and conditional candidate-level weakness under declared approximate references. Engineering records document changes during the episode, and complete recommendation-to-runtime binding is unavailable. The archive does not establish a common frozen instance or a unique cause. The case motivates an outcome--diagnosis gap: outcome evidence, evaluated-object identity, and causal explanation support distinct claims. We distinguish frozen instances, pre-specified adaptive procedures, and ad-hoc development; organize archive-relative claim identifiability and an evidence hierarchy; and propose a prospective production-binding protocol. An illustrative compatible-history example shows how factual binding can resolve a recommendation's referent without supplying its counterfactual effect. The protocol is proposed rather than prospectively validated. External feedback constrains outcome claims, while provenance and additional identification structure determine the resolution of diagnosis.

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

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.

Counterfactual prompting (i.e., perturbing a single factor and measuring output change) is widely used to evaluate things like LLM bias and CoT faithfulness. But in this work we argue that observed effects cannot be attributed to the targeted factor without accounting for baseline ``meaning-preserving'' modifications to text that establish general model sensitivity. This is because every counterfactual edit is a compound treatment that bundles the variable of interest with incidental surface-form variation; this violates treatment variation irrelevance. We observe prediction flip rates on MedQA of 14.9% when we surgically change patient gender. However, this is statistically indistinguishable from the flip rates induced by simply paraphrasing inputs (14.1%). In this case, it would therefore be unwarranted to conclude that the LLM is especially sensitive to patient gender. To account for this and robustly measure the effects of targeted interventions, we propose a framework in which we compare (via statistical testing) differences observed under target interventions to those induced by paraphrasing inputs. We then use this framework to revisit a analysis done on the MedPerturb dataset, which reported evidence of model sensitivity to patient demographics and stylistic cues. We find that these effects largely dissipate when we account for general model sensitivity, with only 5 of 120 tests reaching statistical significance. Applying the same framework to occupational biography classification, we detect clearly significant directional gender bias, showing that the framework identifies real directional effects even when they are small. We evaluate a range of metrics -- aggregate, per-sample distributional, and regression -- and find that per-sample metrics are dramatically more powerful than aggregate metrics and regression powerfully and uniquely characterizes effect direction and magnitude.

Recent model-based reference-free metrics for open-domain dialogue evaluation exhibit promising correlations with human judgment. However, they either perform turn-level evaluation or look at a single dialogue quality dimension. One would expect a good evaluation metric to assess multiple quality dimensions at the dialogue level. To this end, we are motivated to propose a multi-dimensional dialogue-level metric, which consists of three sub-metrics with each targeting a specific dimension. The sub-metrics are trained with novel self-supervised objectives and exhibit strong correlations with human judgment for their respective dimensions. Moreover, we explore two approaches to combine the sub-metrics: metric ensemble and multitask learning. Both approaches yield a holistic metric that significantly outperforms individual sub-metrics. Compared to the existing state-of-the-art metric, the combined metrics achieve around 16% relative improvement on average across three high-quality dialogue-level evaluation benchmarks.

We propose MM-Vet, an evaluation benchmark that examines large multimodal models (LMMs) on complicated multimodal tasks. Recent LMMs have shown various intriguing abilities, such as solving math problems written on the blackboard, reasoning about events and celebrities in news images, and explaining visual jokes. Rapid model advancements pose challenges to evaluation benchmark development. Problems include: (1) How to systematically structure and evaluate the complicated multimodal tasks; (2) How to design evaluation metrics that work well across question and answer types; and (3) How to give model insights beyond a simple performance ranking. To this end, we present MM-Vet, designed based on the insight that the intriguing ability to solve complicated tasks is often achieved by a generalist model being able to integrate different core vision-language (VL) capabilities. MM-Vet defines 6 core VL capabilities and examines the 16 integrations of interest derived from the capability combination. For evaluation metrics, we propose an LLM-based evaluator for open-ended outputs. The evaluator enables the evaluation across different question types and answer styles, resulting in a unified scoring metric. We evaluate representative LMMs on MM-Vet, providing insights into the capabilities of different LMM system paradigms and models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/yuweihao/MM-Vet.

Is it possible to build a general and automatic natural language generation (NLG) evaluation metric? Existing learned metrics either perform unsatisfactorily or are restricted to tasks where large human rating data is already available. We introduce SESCORE, a model-based metric that is highly correlated with human judgements without requiring human annotation, by utilizing a novel, iterative error synthesis and severity scoring pipeline. This pipeline applies a series of plausible errors to raw text and assigns severity labels by simulating human judgements with entailment. We evaluate SESCORE against existing metrics by comparing how their scores correlate with human ratings. SESCORE outperforms all prior unsupervised metrics on multiple diverse NLG tasks including machine translation, image captioning, and WebNLG text generation. For WMT 20/21 En-De and Zh-En, SESCORE improve the average Kendall correlation with human judgement from 0.154 to 0.195. SESCORE even achieves comparable performance to the best supervised metric COMET, despite receiving no human-annotated training data.

8 years after the visual question answering (VQA) task was proposed, accuracy remains the primary metric for automatic evaluation. VQA Accuracy has been effective so far in the IID evaluation setting. However, our community is undergoing a shift towards open-ended generative models and OOD evaluation. In this new paradigm, the existing VQA Accuracy metric is overly stringent and underestimates the performance of VQA systems. Thus, there is a need to develop more robust automatic VQA metrics that serve as a proxy for human judgment. In this work, we propose to leverage the in-context learning capabilities of instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) to build a better VQA metric. We formulate VQA evaluation as an answer-rating task where the LLM is instructed to score the accuracy of a candidate answer given a set of reference answers. We demonstrate the proposed metric better correlates with human judgment compared to existing metrics across several VQA models and benchmarks. We hope wide adoption of our metric will contribute to better estimating the research progress on the VQA task. We plan to release the evaluation code and collected human judgments.

Radiology reports convey detailed clinical observations and capture diagnostic reasoning that evolves over time. However, existing evaluation methods are limited to single-report settings and rely on coarse metrics that fail to capture fine-grained clinical semantics and temporal dependencies. We introduce LUNGUAGE,a benchmark dataset for structured radiology report generation that supports both single-report evaluation and longitudinal patient-level assessment across multiple studies. It contains 1,473 annotated chest X-ray reports, each reviewed by experts, and 80 of them contain longitudinal annotations to capture disease progression and inter-study intervals, also reviewed by experts. Using this benchmark, we develop a two-stage framework that transforms generated reports into fine-grained, schema-aligned structured representations, enabling longitudinal interpretation. We also propose LUNGUAGESCORE, an interpretable metric that compares structured outputs at the entity, relation, and attribute level while modeling temporal consistency across patient timelines. These contributions establish the first benchmark dataset, structuring framework, and evaluation metric for sequential radiology reporting, with empirical results demonstrating that LUNGUAGESCORE effectively supports structured report evaluation. The code is available at: https://github.com/SuperSupermoon/Lunguage

Introduction. Generative Artificial Intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs), offers transformative potential for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR). However, evaluating the quality, transparency, and rigor of LLM-assisted research lacks standardized guidance. This article introduces the ELEVATE AI LLMs framework and checklist, designed to support researchers and reviewers in assessing LLM use in HEOR. Methods. The ELEVATE AI LLMs framework was developed through a targeted review of existing guidelines and evaluation frameworks. The framework comprises ten evaluation domains, including model characteristics, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and fairness. The accompanying checklist operationalizes the framework. To validate the framework, we applied it to two published studies, demonstrating its usability across different HEOR tasks. Results. The ELEVATE AI LLMs framework provides a comprehensive structure for evaluating LLM-assisted research, while the checklist facilitates practical application. Validation of the framework and checklist on studies of systematic literature reviews and health economic modeling highlighted their ability to identify strengths and gaps in reporting. Limitations. While the ELEVATE AI LLMs framework provides robust guidance, its broader generalizability and applicability to diverse HEOR tasks require further empirical testing. Additionally, several metrics adapted from computer science need further validation in HEOR contexts. Conclusion. The ELEVATE AI LLMs framework and checklist fill a critical gap in HEOR by offering structured guidance for evaluating LLM-assisted research. By promoting transparency, accuracy, and reproducibility, they aim to standardize and improve the integration of LLMs into HEOR, ensuring their outputs meet the field's rigorous standards.

A key challenge in MT evaluation is the inherent noise and inconsistency of human ratings. Regression-based neural metrics struggle with this noise, while prompting LLMs shows promise at system-level evaluation but performs poorly at segment level. In this work, we propose ReMedy, a novel MT metric framework that reformulates translation evaluation as a reward modeling task. Instead of regressing on imperfect human ratings directly, ReMedy learns relative translation quality using pairwise preference data, resulting in a more reliable evaluation. In extensive experiments across WMT22-24 shared tasks (39 language pairs, 111 MT systems), ReMedy achieves state-of-the-art performance at both segment- and system-level evaluation. Specifically, ReMedy-9B surpasses larger WMT winners and massive closed LLMs such as MetricX-13B, XCOMET-Ensemble, GEMBA-GPT-4, PaLM-540B, and finetuned PaLM2. Further analyses demonstrate that ReMedy delivers superior capability in detecting translation errors and evaluating low-quality translations.

We present a framework for the automated measurement of responsible AI (RAI) metrics for large language models (LLMs) and associated products and services. Our framework for automatically measuring harms from LLMs builds on existing technical and sociotechnical expertise and leverages the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs, such as GPT-4. We use this framework to run through several case studies investigating how different LLMs may violate a range of RAI-related principles. The framework may be employed alongside domain-specific sociotechnical expertise to create measurements for new harm areas in the future. By implementing this framework, we aim to enable more advanced harm measurement efforts and further the responsible use of LLMs.

Current robotic evaluation is still largely dominated by binary success rates, which collapse rich execution processes into a single outcome and obscure critical qualities such as progress, efficiency, and stability. To address this limitation, we propose PRM-as-a-Judge, a dense evaluation paradigm that leverages Process Reward Models (PRMs) to audit policy execution directly from trajectory videos by estimating task progress from observation sequences. Central to this paradigm is the OPD (Outcome-Process-Diagnosis) metric system, which explicitly formalizes execution quality via a task-aligned progress potential. We characterize dense robotic evaluation through two axiomatic properties: macro-consistency, which requires additive and path-consistent aggregation, and micro-resolution, which requires sensitivity to fine-grained physical evolution. Under this formulation, potential-based PRM judges provide a natural instantiation of dense evaluation, with macro-consistency following directly from the induced scalar potential. We empirically validate the micro-resolution property using RoboPulse, a diagnostic benchmark specifically designed for probing micro-scale progress discrimination, where several trajectory-trained PRM judges outperform discriminative similarity-based methods and general-purpose foundation-model judges. Finally, leveraging PRM-as-a-Judge and the OPD metric system, we conduct a structured audit of mainstream policy paradigms across long-horizon tasks, revealing behavioral signatures and failure modes that are invisible to outcome-only metrics.

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.

We present the contribution of the Unbabel team to the WMT 2020 Shared Task on Metrics. We intend to participate on the segment-level, document-level and system-level tracks on all language pairs, as well as the 'QE as a Metric' track. Accordingly, we illustrate results of our models in these tracks with reference to test sets from the previous year. Our submissions build upon the recently proposed COMET framework: We train several estimator models to regress on different human-generated quality scores and a novel ranking model trained on relative ranks obtained from Direct Assessments. We also propose a simple technique for converting segment-level predictions into a document-level score. Overall, our systems achieve strong results for all language pairs on previous test sets and in many cases set a new state-of-the-art.

One straightforward metric to evaluate a survival prediction model is based on the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) -- the average of the absolute difference between the time predicted by the model and the true event time, over all subjects. Unfortunately, this is challenging because, in practice, the test set includes (right) censored individuals, meaning we do not know when a censored individual actually experienced the event. In this paper, we explore various metrics to estimate MAE for survival datasets that include (many) censored individuals. Moreover, we introduce a novel and effective approach for generating realistic semi-synthetic survival datasets to facilitate the evaluation of metrics. Our findings, based on the analysis of the semi-synthetic datasets, reveal that our proposed metric (MAE using pseudo-observations) is able to rank models accurately based on their performance, and often closely matches the true MAE -- in particular, is better than several alternative methods.

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

Current evaluation protocols for Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in Radiology Report Generation (RRG) rely on report-level metrics that measure lexical overlap or aggregate clinical correctness. However, such metrics do not test whether individual diagnostic statements stem from the actual pathological evidence visible in the image. This allows models to achieve competitive scores by exploiting learned priors or spurious correlations, a failure mode we refer to as vision shortcut. We introduce SHOVIR, a benchmark for evaluating vision shortcut behavior in RRG. SHOVIR extends two spatially annotated chest X-ray datasets, MIMIC-CXR and PadChest-GR, with per-box CheXpert labels, and defines image-level and disease-level occlusion experiments that contrast baseline performance on clean images against localized, region-specific perturbations. Comparing predictions across these conditions isolates two failure modes at the disease-class level: direct shortcuts, where a finding persists after its visual evidence is removed, and contextual shortcuts, where detection degrades once co-occurring pathologies are occluded despite the target region remaining intact. Benchmarking eight state-of-the-art VLMs, we find that shortcut behavior varies substantially across architectures and datasets. Models achieving the highest baseline report quality do not necessarily rank highest in spatial grounding, revealing that clinically fluent generation can coexist with shallow reliance on visual evidence. These findings expose a blind spot in current RRG evaluation and motivate region-aware assessment protocols.

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

We consider estimating the conditional distribution of a multivariate outcome given covariates when its coordinates may be continuous, binary, categorical, ordinal or rankings, and are conditionally dependent on one another. Different statistical methods have been developed for each outcome type, and most of them target a summary of the conditional distribution, such as the mean of each coordinate, rather than the joint distribution of the outcome vector. We develop generalized engression models, a unified nonparametric distributional regression framework for outcomes of any type. The proposed method builds upon engression, a scoring-rule-based deep generative model, and introduces a data-type-specific link function and a stochastic perturbation that smooths the loss, enabling gradient-based training even with discontinuous links. We establish universal representation results for continuous, discrete and mixed outcomes. In simulations and in two applications, 242 species in a community ecology benchmark and a 17-dimensional mixed-type health outcome, the method matches type-specific models on marginal scores, improves on them on the joint distribution, and matches or exceeds purpose-built state-of-the-art joint species distribution models. Software is available in Python.

In medical imaging, the clinical value of Computed Tomography (CT) lies not only in depicting current disease status, but crucially in enabling longitudinal comparison of serial scans to determine disease evolution, a process that underpins response assessment, recurrence detection, and ongoing patient management. Yet, despite this central role of temporal comparison in clinical decision-making, existing medical foundation models remain largely confined to single-study understanding, leaving temporally grounded cross-examination insufficiently addressed. To address this gap, we study longitudinal imaging difference reporting, a task in which a model takes two temporally separated scans from the same patient and generates a clinically meaningful report describing interval changes between them. We introduce CT-ΔBench, a dedicated benchmark for this task with patient-level splitting to prevent information leakage. To better evaluate this task beyond surface-level text similarity, we further develop change-aware metrics specifically designed to capture clinically meaningful longitudinal changes, and conduct an independent physician validation to assess the reliability of the synthesized references and event extraction pipeline. We also compare direct paired-CT reasoning with an indirect two-stage pipeline that first generates single-timepoint reports and then performs textual differencing. Finally, we propose DeltaMed, a baseline model for direct paired-CT difference reporting, and train it on the benchmark training set. Together, these contributions lay the groundwork for temporally aware medical foundation models that better reflect real-world longitudinal clinical reasoning.

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.

Traditional Information Retrieval (IR) metrics, such as nDCG, MAP, and MRR, assume that human users sequentially examine documents with diminishing attention to lower ranks. This assumption breaks down in Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems, where search results are consumed by Large Language Models (LLMs), which, unlike humans, process all retrieved documents as a whole rather than sequentially. Additionally, traditional IR metrics do not account for related but irrelevant documents that actively degrade generation quality, rather than merely being ignored. Due to these two major misalignments, namely human vs. machine position discount and human relevance vs. machine utility, classical IR metrics do not accurately predict RAG performance. We introduce a utility-based annotation schema that quantifies both the positive contribution of relevant passages and the negative impact of distracting ones. Building on this foundation, we propose UDCG (Utility and Distraction-aware Cumulative Gain), a metric using an LLM-oriented positional discount to directly optimize the correlation with the end-to-end answer accuracy. Experiments on five datasets and six LLMs demonstrate that UDCG improves correlation by up to 36% compared to traditional metrics. Our work provides a critical step toward aligning IR evaluation with LLM consumers and enables more reliable assessment of RAG components

We introduce Semantic Task Completion Video Generation, an outcome-oriented video generation task. Under this formulation, success requires both achievement of the intended outcome and semantic grounding. Semantic grounding characterizes the correspondence between the reference image and the generated outcome in terms of high-level semantics relevant to the task. Evaluation focuses on the generated outcome and requires neither the presentation of a complete sequence of intermediate task steps nor conventional appearance consistency with the reference image. To support systematic evaluation, we construct SemComp-Data, an evaluation dataset covering six domains. Each instance comprises a reference image, a detailed instruction, a brief instruction, and an outcome-centric video clip. A scalable four-stage curation pipeline converts raw videos into standardized SemComp-Data instances. We further introduce SemComp-Bench, an evaluation protocol that uses a vision-language model (VLM) to answer structured binary questions. SemComp-Bench reports the OA Score and the GR Score for Outcome Achievement and Generation Reliability, respectively. Experiments on representative video generation models show that achieving intended outcomes while maintaining task-relevant semantic grounding in reference images remains challenging.

Recruitment applications span diverse operations, from drafting job descriptions and interpreting queries to organizing profiles, assessing fit, and recommending candidates and jobs. Systematic LLM evaluation therefore requires task coverage that reflects this range of business needs. We introduce EHR-Bench, an open Chinese benchmark comprising twelve tasks across six capability families and five recruitment scenarios. The tasks cover generation, extraction, classification, retrieval, semantic similarity, and reciprocal ranking within one evaluation framework. An internal recruitment dataset guides task definitions, the occupation taxonomy and sampling targets, output requirements, and scoring protocols. Following these specifications, we construct 8,336 task instances from public materials and controlled augmentation, with source-aware expert review and documented provenance. We evaluate twelve LLMs through task-level, capability-level, and aggregate comparisons. Closely ranked models exhibit distinct task strengths, and performance varies across input sources, reference evidence, and candidate pools. Five shared models retain the same observed Overall ordering on a private operational reference, with variation in capability and task correspondence. EHR-Bench provides a reproducible foundation for systematic model assessment, task-specific model selection, and further research on LLMs for recruitment. The project repository is available at https://github.com/EhrBench/EHR-Bench.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation enhances Large Language Models by grounding responses in external knowledge, but multi-hop reasoning remains vulnerable to error propagation, where early retrieval failures confound subsequent steps. Standard outcome-based optimization only rewards the final answer, leaving intermediate retrieval and reasoning errors undetected. While existing process-based methods introduce step-level signals, they still score each step against the final answer, rewarding spurious successes where flawed retrieval coincidentally produces the correct answer. Step-level supervision in RAG requires evaluating both logical validity and evidential grounding at each step. We introduce PRO-STEP: we train a generative PRM that evaluates both dimensions, employ PRM-guided value tree search to construct preference pairs contrasting valid steps against flawed ones, and optimize the policy via step-level Direct Preference Optimization. Experiments on single and multi-hop QA datasets demonstrate that PRO-STEP achieves the best average EM and F1 across five benchmarks. Code, models, and training data are publicly available at https://github.com/keemminnke/PRO-Step.

Recent incidents involving LLMs used for mental-health support reveal a critical evaluation gap: surface-level safety scores do not capture how models behave across realistic, emotionally sensitive interactions over time. Existing benchmarks measure knowledge, safety, or static response quality, but miss whether LLM interactions help users keep reflecting, coping, and making decisions themselves. We formalize this missing dimension as COGNITIVE ATROPHY, a process-level behavioural measure in AI-mediated mental-health support distinct from safety and helpfulness. To measure it, we introduce COGNITIVE ATROPHY BENCH, a clinically grounded benchmark built from 1,576 fully human-generated counseling conversations, 15,680 turns, and 42,230 responses from five LLMs. Three clinical and neuropsychology experts developed a 20-attribute schema spanning user context, response behaviour, and global risk flags; six trained clinical reviewers applied it with span-grounded evidence, producing 5,324 reviewer judgments. We further introduce the User-Input Risk Index (UIRI), the Cognitive Atrophy Risk Index (ARI), and trajectory summaries. Across five LLMs, models show a consistent moderate-to-high level of atrophy-aligned behaviour across single and multi-turn settings. While models generally respond to overt safety cues, they adapt less reliably when users seek solutions or decisions. The dominant recurring patterns are directive advice, problem-solving, recommendation responses, topic shifts, and forms of validation that may reinforce dependence rather than reflection. Our work makes COGNITIVE ATROPHY measurable and provides a foundation for auditing model behaviour in sensitive LLM conversations.

Qualitative interviews provide essential insights into human experiences when they elicit high-quality responses. While qualitative and NLP researchers have proposed various measures of interview quality, these measures lack validation that high-scoring responses actually contribute to the study's goals. In this work, we identify, implement, and evaluate 10 proposed measures of interview response quality to determine which are actually predictive of a response's contribution to the study findings. To conduct our analysis, we introduce the Qualitative Interview Corpus, a newly constructed dataset of 343 interview transcripts with 16,940 participant responses from 14 real research projects. We find that direct relevance to a key research question is the strongest predictor of response quality. We additionally find that two measures commonly used to evaluate NLP interview systems, clarity and surprisal-based informativeness, are not predictive of response quality. Our work provides analytic insights and grounded, scalable metrics to inform the design of qualitative studies and the evaluation of automated interview systems.

In recent years, the intersection of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and public health has opened innovative pathways for investigating various domains, including chronic pain in textual datasets. Despite the promise of NLP in chronic pain, the literature is dispersed across various disciplines, and there is a need to consolidate existing knowledge, identify knowledge gaps in the literature, and inform future research directions in this emerging field. This review aims to investigate the state of the research on NLP-based interventions designed for chronic pain research. A search strategy was formulated and executed across PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and ACL Anthology to find studies published in English between 2014 and 2024. After screening 132 papers, 26 studies were included in the final review. Key findings from this review underscore the significant potential of NLP techniques to address pressing challenges in chronic pain research. The past 10 years in this field have showcased the utilization of advanced methods (transformers like RoBERTa and BERT) achieving high-performance metrics (e.g., F1>0.8) in classification tasks, while unsupervised approaches like Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and k-means clustering have proven effective for exploratory analyses. Results also reveal persistent challenges such as limited dataset diversity, inadequate sample sizes, and insufficient representation of underrepresented populations. Future research studies should explore multimodal data validation systems, context-aware mechanistic modeling, and the development of standardized evaluation metrics to enhance reproducibility and equity in chronic pain research.

We study the problem of model selection in causal inference, specifically for the case of conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation under binary treatments. Unlike model selection in machine learning, there is no perfect analogue of cross-validation as we do not observe the counterfactual potential outcome for any data point. Towards this, there have been a variety of proxy metrics proposed in the literature, that depend on auxiliary nuisance models estimated from the observed data (propensity score model, outcome regression model). However, the effectiveness of these metrics has only been studied on synthetic datasets as we can access the counterfactual data for them. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis to judge the performance of these metrics introduced in the literature, and novel ones introduced in this work, where we utilize the latest advances in generative modeling to incorporate multiple realistic datasets. Our analysis suggests novel model selection strategies based on careful hyperparameter tuning of CATE estimators and causal ensembling.

Deep generative models are powerful tools that have produced impressive results in recent years. These advances have been for the most part empirically driven, making it essential that we use high quality evaluation metrics. In this paper, we provide new insights into the Inception Score, a recently proposed and widely used evaluation metric for generative models, and demonstrate that it fails to provide useful guidance when comparing models. We discuss both suboptimalities of the metric itself and issues with its application. Finally, we call for researchers to be more systematic and careful when evaluating and comparing generative models, as the advancement of the field depends upon it.

Sifting through vast textual data and summarizing key information imposes a substantial burden on how clinicians allocate their time. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown immense promise in natural language processing (NLP) tasks, their efficacy across diverse clinical summarization tasks has not yet been rigorously examined. In this work, we employ domain adaptation methods on eight LLMs, spanning six datasets and four distinct summarization tasks: radiology reports, patient questions, progress notes, and doctor-patient dialogue. Our thorough quantitative assessment reveals trade-offs between models and adaptation methods in addition to instances where recent advances in LLMs may not lead to improved results. Further, in a clinical reader study with six physicians, we depict that summaries from the best adapted LLM are preferable to human summaries in terms of completeness and correctness. Our ensuing qualitative analysis delineates mutual challenges faced by both LLMs and human experts. Lastly, we correlate traditional quantitative NLP metrics with reader study scores to enhance our understanding of how these metrics align with physician preferences. Our research marks the first evidence of LLMs outperforming human experts in clinical text summarization across multiple tasks. This implies that integrating LLMs into clinical workflows could alleviate documentation burden, empowering clinicians to focus more on personalized patient care and other irreplaceable human aspects of medicine.

The recent explosion in the capabilities of large language models has led to a wave of interest in how best to prompt a model to perform a given task. While it may be tempting to simply choose a prompt based on average performance on a validation set, this can lead to a deployment where unexpectedly poor responses are generated, especially for the worst-off users. To mitigate this prospect, we propose Prompt Risk Control, a lightweight framework for selecting a prompt based on rigorous upper bounds on families of informative risk measures. We offer methods for producing bounds on a diverse set of metrics, including quantities that measure worst-case responses and disparities in generation quality across the population of users. In addition, we extend the underlying statistical bounding techniques to accommodate the possibility of distribution shifts in deployment. Experiments on applications such as open-ended chat, medical question summarization, and code generation highlight how such a framework can foster responsible deployment by reducing the risk of the worst outcomes.

Deep research (DR) systems are increasingly used for complex information-seeking tasks, but existing works mainly focus on generating reports and summaries. In contrast, many enterprise tasks instead require an agent to identify concrete workflows which is a sequence of action-steps. For example, rather than summarizing budgeting policies, an agent should be able to determine the steps needed to answer a question such as: "How do I request new headcount given a fixed budget?". Therefore, we introduce DRFLOW, a benchmark for evaluating personalized workflows predicted by agents from heterogeneous sources. Each task requires the agent to identify relevant evidence from scattered sources, then use that evidence to predict the correct action-step sequence for the user's task. DRFLOW contains 100 tasks across five domains, with 1,246 reference workflow steps grounded in more than 3,900 sources. We define seven diagnostic metrics covering factual grounding, step recovery, structural ordering, condition resolution, and personalization. We further present DRFLOW-Agent (DRFA), a workflow-oriented reference agent to predict personalized workflow. We show that although DRFA improves over strong baseline agents (upto 10.02% average F1 score), there is substantial room for improvement remains across these workflow metrics, indicating that predicting complete and correct personalized workflows remains a challenging frontier for deep research.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning with the emergence of reasoning models like OpenAI-o1 and DeepSeek-R1. Recent research focuses on integrating reasoning capabilities into the realm of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) via outcome-supervised reinforcement learning (RL) approaches, while the correctness of intermediate think-and-search steps is usually neglected. To address this issue, we design a process-level reward module to mitigate the unawareness of intermediate reasoning steps in outcome-level supervision without additional annotation. Grounded on this, we propose Learning to Think-and-Search (LeTS), a novel framework that hybridizes stepwise process reward and outcome-based reward to current RL methods for RAG. Extensive experiments demonstrate the generalization and inference efficiency of LeTS across various RAG benchmarks. In addition, these results reveal the potential of process- and outcome-level reward hybridization in boosting LLMs' reasoning ability via RL under other scenarios. The code will be released soon.

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.

AI evaluation suites often report many scores without checking whether those scores carry independent information. We introduce Effective Dimensionality (ED), the participation ratio of a centered benchmark-score spectrum, as a fast, population-conditional upper-bound diagnostic of measurement breadth. Applied at per-instance granularity to 22 benchmarks across 8 domains and more than 8,400 model evaluations, ED reveals substantial redundancy: the six-score Open LLM Leaderboard behaves like roughly two effective measurement axes (ED = 1.7), BBH and MMLU-Pro are near-interchangeable (rho = 0.96, stable across seven subpopulations), and measurement breadth varies more than 20x across current benchmarks. We show that relative ED rankings are stable under matched-dimension controls and that ED can flag redundant suite components, monitor performance-conditional compression, and guide benchmark maintenance. Because binary spectra overestimate absolute latent dimensionality, we interpret ED as a screening statistic rather than a literal factor count and complement it with null, reliability, and saturation analyses. We provide a 22-benchmark reference atlas and a four-step diagnostic workflow that benchmark maintainers can run with a score matrix and a few lines of code.

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.

Natural language generation (NLG) spans a broad range of tasks, each of which serves for specific objectives and desires different properties of generated text. The complexity makes automatic evaluation of NLG particularly challenging. Previous work has typically focused on a single task and developed individual evaluation metrics based on specific intuitions. In this paper, we propose a unifying perspective that facilitates the design of metrics for a wide range of language generation tasks and quality aspects. Based on the nature of information change from input to output, we classify NLG tasks into compression (e.g., summarization), transduction (e.g., text rewriting), and creation (e.g., dialog). The information alignment, or overlap, between input, context, and output text plays a common central role in characterizing the generation. Using the uniform concept of information alignment, we develop a family of interpretable metrics for various NLG tasks and aspects, often without need of gold reference data. To operationalize the metrics, we train self-supervised models to approximate information alignment as a prediction task. Experiments show the uniformly designed metrics achieve stronger or comparable correlations with human judgement compared to state-of-the-art metrics in each of diverse tasks, including text summarization, style transfer, and knowledge-grounded dialog. With information alignment as the intermediate representation, we deliver a composable library for easy NLG evaluation and future metric design.

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.

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.

Process reward models (PRMs) have become a key component for LLMs, as their step-level feedback supports both post-training and test-time reasoning. However, training strong PRMs remains costly: human step annotation is difficult to scale, while Monte Carlo estimation is computationally expensive and can drift from the intrinsic correctness of steps. To get effective PRMs at low cost, we introduce TIPS (Thinking-Induced Process Supervision), an outcome-only reinforcement learning (RL) framework for training generative PRMs. In TIPS, the model generates a chain-of-thought (CoT) followed by step-level labels and an outcome label. The reward depends solely on whether the predicted outcome matches the ground truth, and the resulting group-relative advantage is used to optimize the entire generated response. Intuitively, when checking intermediate steps helps determine the outcome, more accurate checks can lead to better outcome judgments and higher rewards. Outcome-only RL can therefore reinforce step-level verification without explicit process supervision. We validate the effectiveness of TIPS across math and agent benchmarks and four backbone families. Notably, TIPS-Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507 reaches 85.2 F1 on ProcessBench with only 3.2K outcome-labeled trajectories, surpassing all evaluated trained PRMs and strong prompt-only judges such as GPT-5.4-Instruct and Claude-4.7-Opus, while still trailing o1-mini. Code and data are available at https://github.com/RUCBM/TIPS.

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

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.

Generative models have demonstrated remarkable capability in synthesizing high-quality text, images, and videos. For video generation, contemporary text-to-video models exhibit impressive capabilities, crafting visually stunning videos. Nonetheless, evaluating such videos poses significant challenges. Current research predominantly employs automated metrics such as FVD, IS, and CLIP Score. However, these metrics provide an incomplete analysis, particularly in the temporal assessment of video content, thus rendering them unreliable indicators of true video quality. Furthermore, while user studies have the potential to reflect human perception accurately, they are hampered by their time-intensive and laborious nature, with outcomes that are often tainted by subjective bias. In this paper, we investigate the limitations inherent in existing metrics and introduce a novel evaluation pipeline, the Text-to-Video Score (T2VScore). This metric integrates two pivotal criteria: (1) Text-Video Alignment, which scrutinizes the fidelity of the video in representing the given text description, and (2) Video Quality, which evaluates the video's overall production caliber with a mixture of experts. Moreover, to evaluate the proposed metrics and facilitate future improvements on them, we present the TVGE dataset, collecting human judgements of 2,543 text-to-video generated videos on the two criteria. Experiments on the TVGE dataset demonstrate the superiority of the proposed T2VScore on offering a better metric for text-to-video generation.

Large Language Models (LLM) benchmarks tell us when models fail, but not why they fail. A wrong answer on a reasoning dataset may stem from formatting issues, calculation errors, or dataset noise rather than weak reasoning. Without disentangling such causes, benchmarks remain incomplete and cannot reliably guide model improvement. We introduce ErrorMap, the first method to chart the sources of LLM failure. It extracts a model's unique "failure signature", clarifies what benchmarks measure, and broadens error identification to reduce blind spots. This helps developers debug models, aligns benchmark goals with outcomes, and supports informed model selection. ErrorMap works on any model or dataset with the same logic. Applying our method to 35 datasets and 83 models we generate ErrorAtlas, a taxonomy of model errors, revealing recurring failure patterns. ErrorAtlas highlights error types that are currently underexplored in LLM research, such as omissions of required details in the output and question misinterpretation. By shifting focus from where models succeed to why they fail, ErrorMap and ErrorAtlas enable advanced evaluation - one that exposes hidden weaknesses and directs progress. Unlike success, typically measured by task-level metrics, our approach introduces a deeper evaluation layer that can be applied globally across models and tasks, offering richer insights into model behavior and limitations. We make the taxonomy and code publicly available with plans to periodically update ErrorAtlas as new benchmarks and models emerge.

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

Search agents powered by large language models can autonomously decompose queries, retrieve information, and synthesize answers through multi-step reasoning. However, the rapid growth of training methods has outpaced controlled comparison: existing works differ in retrieval corpora, reward designs, and training protocols, making it unclear what actually drives improvements. We present a controlled empirical study that isolates three under-explored dimensions of search agent training. First, we identify a critical data-coverage issue in the widely used Wikipedia 2018 corpus and show that correcting it alone yields larger gains than the differences between training algorithms. Second, we systematically compare outcome-based and process-based reward methods across three base models, finding that the simplest outcome-based approach achieves competitive or superior performance in most settings, and that process-level credit assignment can over-correct agent behavior. Third, we analyze training data diversity, off-policy data utilization, and search budget scaling, distilling practical guidelines for training effective search agents. Our code is available at https://github.com/YiboZhao624/SearchAgentReview.

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.

Probabilistic models are typically trained using task-agnostic objectives like log-loss, which can lead to significant errors in downstream estimation. This disconnect is especially critical in Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) for causal inference, where propensity score errors near 0 and 1 often lead to high bias and variance. We propose a principled framework for deriving task-specific strictly proper scoring rules by matching the local curvature of the downstream error metric. We apply this to the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) estimation, deriving a closed-form loss and its corresponding canonical probability mapping that can be readily integrated with any model like a neural network or a gradient boosting algorithm. Extensive evaluations on causal inference benchmarks demonstrate that our tailored objective consistently outperforms standard likelihood-based and covariate-balancing approaches.

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.

Although large language models can translate some historical languages surprisingly well, their usefulness in digital humanities workflows is limited by the lack of reliable evaluation. We investigate whether existing automatic evaluation metrics developed for modern languages are reliable in this setting, using translation from Classical Chinese to English as a test case. We introduce a diagnostic framework based on minimal pairs capturing error types salient in scholarly use, probing both reference-based and reference-free metrics for error sensitivity and tolerance to valid variation. We find that all metrics exhibit blind spots, however MetricX24 performs best overall. Our findings highlight the need for more robust and interpretable metrics for historically and culturally distinct translation settings.