Daily Papers

Large language models often default to step-by-step computation even when efficient numerical shortcuts are available. This raises a basic question: do they exhibit number sense in a human-like behavioral sense, i.e., the ability to recognize numerical structure, apply shortcuts when appropriate, and avoid them when they are not? We introduce SenseMath, a controlled benchmark for evaluating structure-sensitive numerical reasoning in LLMs. SenseMath contains 4,800 items spanning eight shortcut categories and four digit scales, with matched strong-shortcut, weak-shortcut, and control variants. It supports three evaluation settings of increasing cognitive demand: Shortcut Use (whether models can apply shortcuts on shortcut-amenable problems); Applicability Judgment (whether they can recognize when a shortcut is appropriate or misleading); and Problem Generation (whether they can generate new problem items that correctly admit a given type of shortcut). Our evaluation across five LLMs, ranging from GPT-4o-mini to Llama-3.1-8B, shows a consistent pattern: when explicitly prompted, models readily adopt shortcut strategies and achieve substantial accuracy gains on shortcut-amenable items (up to 15%), yet under standard chain-of-thought prompting they spontaneously employ such strategies in fewer than 40% of cases, even when they demonstrably possess the requisite capability. Moreover, this competence is confined to the Use level; models systematically over-generalise shortcuts to problems where they do not apply, and fail to generate valid shortcut-bearing problems from scratch. Together, these results suggest that current LLMs exhibit procedural shortcut fluency without the structural understanding of when and why shortcuts work that underlies human number sense.

In this paper, we describe the University of Lyon 2 submission to the Strict-Small track of the BabyLM competition. The shared task is created with an emphasis on small-scale language modelling from scratch on limited-size data and human language acquisition. Dataset released for the Strict-Small track has 10M words, which is comparable to children's vocabulary size. We approach the task with an architecture search, minimizing masked language modelling loss on the data of the shared task. Having found an optimal configuration, we introduce two small-size language models (LMs) that were submitted for evaluation, a 4-layer encoder with 8 attention heads and a 6-layer decoder model with 12 heads which we term Bebeshka and Zlata, respectively. Despite being half the scale of the baseline LMs, our proposed models achieve comparable performance. We further explore the applicability of small-scale language models in tasks involving moral judgment, aligning their predictions with human values. These findings highlight the potential of compact LMs in addressing practical language understanding tasks.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has shown potential in qualitative tasks where easily defined performance measures are lacking. However, there are drawbacks when RLHF is commonly used to optimize for average human preferences, especially in generative tasks that demand diverse model responses. Meanwhile, Quality Diversity (QD) algorithms excel at identifying diverse and high-quality solutions but often rely on manually crafted diversity metrics. This paper introduces Quality Diversity through Human Feedback (QDHF), a novel approach that progressively infers diversity metrics from human judgments of similarity among solutions, thereby enhancing the applicability and effectiveness of QD algorithms in complex and open-ended domains. Empirical studies show that QDHF significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in automatic diversity discovery and matches the efficacy of QD with manually crafted diversity metrics on standard benchmarks in robotics and reinforcement learning. Notably, in open-ended generative tasks, QDHF substantially enhances the diversity of text-to-image generation from a diffusion model and is more favorably received in user studies. We conclude by analyzing QDHF's scalability, robustness, and quality of derived diversity metrics, emphasizing its strength in open-ended optimization tasks. Code and tutorials are available at https://liding.info/qdhf.

Evaluating image-text alignment while reflecting human preferences across multiple aspects is a significant issue for the development of reliable vision-language applications. It becomes especially crucial in real-world scenarios where multiple valid descriptions exist depending on contexts or user needs. However, research progress is hindered by the lack of comprehensive benchmarks and existing evaluation predictors lacking at least one of these key properties: (1) Alignment with human judgments, (2) Long-sequence processing, (3) Inference efficiency, and (4) Applicability to multi-objective scoring. To address these challenges, we propose a plug-and-play architecture to build a robust predictor, MULTI-TAP (Multi-Objective Task-Aware Predictor), capable of both multi and single-objective scoring. MULTI-TAP can produce a single overall score, utilizing a reward head built on top of a large vision-language model (LVLMs). We show that MULTI-TAP is robust in terms of application to different LVLM architectures, achieving significantly higher performance than existing metrics and even on par with the GPT-4o-based predictor, G-VEval, with a smaller size (7-8B). By training a lightweight ridge regression layer on the frozen hidden states of a pre-trained LVLM, MULTI-TAP can produce fine-grained scores for multiple human-interpretable objectives. MULTI-TAP performs better than VisionREWARD, a high-performing multi-objective reward model, in both performance and efficiency on multi-objective benchmarks and our newly released text-image-to-text dataset, EYE4ALL. Our new dataset, consisting of chosen/rejected human preferences (EYE4ALLPref) and human-annotated fine-grained scores across seven dimensions (EYE4ALLMulti), can serve as a foundation for developing more accessible AI systems by capturing the underlying preferences of users, including blind and low-vision (BLV) individuals.

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

Evaluation of language model outputs on structured writing tasks is typically conducted with a number of desirable criteria presented to human evaluators or large language models (LLMs). For instance, on a prompt like "Help me draft an academic talk on coffee intake vs research productivity", a model response may be evaluated for criteria like accuracy and coherence. However, high-quality responses should do more than just satisfy basic task requirements. An effective response to this query should include quintessential features of an academic talk, such as a compelling opening, clear research questions, and a takeaway. To help identify these implicit criteria, we introduce EvalAgent, a novel framework designed to automatically uncover nuanced and task-specific criteria. EvalAgent first mines expert-authored online guidance. It then uses this evidence to propose diverse, long-tail evaluation criteria that are grounded in reliable external sources. Our experiments demonstrate that the grounded criteria produced by EvalAgent are often implicit (not directly stated in the user's prompt), yet specific (high degree of lexical precision). Further, EvalAgent criteria are often not satisfied by initial responses but they are actionable, such that responses can be refined to satisfy them. Finally, we show that combining LLM-generated and EvalAgent criteria uncovers more human-valued criteria than using LLMs alone.

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

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

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

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

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

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.

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

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

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

Function calling is a core capability of large language models, essential for AI agents. Existing benchmarks such as the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL), tau^2-Bench (arXiv:2506.07982), and ACEBench (arXiv:2501.12851) evaluate argument correctness but do not test adherence to format instructions embedded in parameter descriptions, such as enclosing values in double quotes or using ISO date formats. We introduce IFEval-FC, a benchmark inspired by IFEval (arXiv:2311.07911) that assesses precise instruction following in function calling. IFEval-FC encodes verifiable formats directly within JSON schema descriptions, for example specifying that a value must not contain punctuation. It includes 750 test cases, each consisting of a function with an embedded format for one of its input parameters and a corresponding user query. Evaluation is fully algorithmic, ensuring objectivity, reproducibility, and scalability. Our results show that even state-of-the-art proprietary models, including GPT-5 and Claude 4.1 Opus, frequently fail to follow basic formatting rules, highlighting a practical limitation for real-world agent systems. The complete codebase and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Skripkon/IFEval-FC.

Large language models for code (i.e., code LLMs) have shown strong code understanding and generation capabilities. To evaluate the capabilities of code LLMs in various aspects, many benchmarks have been proposed (e.g., HumanEval and ClassEval). Code reasoning is one of the most essential abilities of code LLMs, but existing benchmarks for code reasoning are not sufficient. Typically, they focus on predicting the input and output of a program, ignoring the evaluation of the intermediate behavior during program execution, as well as the logical consistency (e.g., the model should not give the correct output if the prediction of execution path is wrong) when performing the reasoning. To address these problems, in this paper, we propose a framework, namely REval, for evaluating code reasoning abilities and consistency of code LLMs with program execution. We utilize existing code benchmarks and adapt them to new benchmarks within our framework. A large-scale empirical study is conducted and most LLMs show unsatisfactory performance on both Runtime Behavior Reasoning (i.e., an average accuracy of 44.4%) and Incremental Consistency Evaluation (i.e., an average IC score of 10.3). Evaluation results of current code LLMs reflect the urgent need for the community to strengthen the code reasoning capability of code LLMs. Our code, data, and \newname leaderboard are available at https://r-eval.github.io.

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

The progress of AI is bottlenecked by the quality of evaluation, and powerful LLM-as-a-Judge models have proved to be a core solution. Improved judgment ability is enabled by stronger chain-of-thought reasoning, motivating the need to find the best recipes for training such models to think. In this work we introduce J1, a reinforcement learning approach to training such models. Our method converts both verifiable and non-verifiable prompts to judgment tasks with verifiable rewards that incentivize thinking and mitigate judgment bias. In particular, our approach outperforms all other existing 8B or 70B models when trained at those sizes, including models distilled from DeepSeek-R1. J1 also outperforms o1-mini, and even R1 on some benchmarks, despite training a smaller model. We provide analysis and ablations comparing Pairwise-J1 vs Pointwise-J1 models, offline vs online training recipes, reward strategies, seed prompts, and variations in thought length and content. We find that our models make better judgments by learning to outline evaluation criteria, comparing against self-generated reference answers, and re-evaluating the correctness of model responses.

The paradigm of LLM-as-a-judge is emerging as a scalable and efficient alternative to human evaluation, demonstrating strong performance on well-defined tasks. However, its reliability in open-ended tasks with dynamic environments and complex interactions remains unexplored. To bridge the gap, we introduce WebDevJudge, a systematic benchmark for assessing LLM-as-a-judge performance in web development, with support for both non-interactive evaluation based on static observations and continuous interactive evaluation with a dynamic web environment. WebDevJudge comprises human preference labels over paired web implementations, annotated with structured and query-grounded rubrics to ensure high-quality ground truth. Using this benchmark, we comprehensively evaluate various evaluators, including LLMs, MLLMs, and agentic workflows. We systematically investigate the impact of different paradigms and guidance mechanisms. Our experiments reveal a significant gap between LLM judges and human experts. In-depth analysis indicates this gap stems from fundamental model limitations, including failures in recognizing functional equivalence, verifying task feasibility, and mitigating bias. Overall, WebDevJudge presents a significant challenge to LLM-as-a-judge, offering insights to guide future research toward developing more reliable and capable automated evaluators for complicated scenarios. Code and data are available at https://github.com/lcy2723/WebDevJudge.

LLM-as-Judge frameworks are increasingly popular for AI evaluation, yet research findings on the relationship between models' generation and judgment abilities remain inconsistent. We investigate this relationship through systematic dataset- and instance-level analyses across 11 models and 21 diverse tasks. Despite both capabilities relying on the same underlying knowledge, our analyses reveal they are only weakly correlated, primarily due to LLMs' sensitivity to the responses being judged. To address this, we propose a self-reference-guided evaluation strategy that leverages a model's own answers as references. This approach significantly strengthens the correlation between generation and judgment abilities, offering a practical path to align these skills and providing a reliable proxy for model selection in evaluation tasks.

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

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

Large language models (LLMs) have witnessed rapid advancements, demonstrating remarkable capabilities. However, a notable vulnerability persists: LLMs often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs. This emphasizes the significance of possessing the Premise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises. Most existing studies assess LLMs' reasoning ability in ideal settings, largely ignoring their vulnerabilities when faced with flawed premises. Thus, we introduce the Premise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics. We conducted systematic evaluations of 15 representative LLMs. Our findings reveal: (1) Most models rely heavily on explicit prompts to detect errors, with limited autonomous critique; (2) Premise critique ability depends on question difficulty and error type, with direct contradictions being easier to detect than complex or procedural errors; (3) Reasoning ability does not consistently correlate with the premise critique ability; (4) Flawed premises trigger overthinking in reasoning models, markedly lengthening responses due to repeated attempts at resolving conflicts. These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LLMs' proactive evaluation of input validity, positioning premise critique as a foundational capability for developing reliable, human-centric systems. The code is available at https://github.com/MLGroupJLU/Premise_Critique.

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

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

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have showcased impressive code generation capabilities, primarily evaluated through language-to-code benchmarks. However, these benchmarks may not fully capture a model's code understanding abilities. We introduce CodeJudge-Eval (CJ-Eval), a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' code understanding abilities from the perspective of code judging rather than code generation. CJ-Eval challenges models to determine the correctness of provided code solutions, encompassing various error types and compilation issues. By leveraging a diverse set of problems and a fine-grained judging system, CJ-Eval addresses the limitations of traditional benchmarks, including the potential memorization of solutions. Evaluation of 12 well-known LLMs on CJ-Eval reveals that even state-of-the-art models struggle, highlighting the benchmark's ability to probe deeper into models' code understanding abilities. Our benchmark will be available at https://github.com/CodeLLM-Research/CodeJudge-Eval.

Access to the right evidence does not guarantee that large language models (LLMs) will reason with it correctly. This gap between retrieval and reasoning is especially concerning in clinical settings, where outputs must align with structured protocols. We study this gap using Written Exposure Therapy (WET) guidelines as a testbed. In evaluating model responses to curated clinician-vetted questions, we find that errors persist even when authoritative passages are provided. To address this, we propose an evaluation framework that measures accuracy, consistency, and fidelity of reasoning. Our results highlight both the potential and the risks: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can constrain outputs, but safe deployment requires assessing reasoning as rigorously as retrieval.

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.

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

Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents achieve impressive results on controlled benchmarks yet routinely produce pull requests that real maintainers reject. The root cause is not functional incorrectness but a lack of organicity: generated code ignores project-specific conventions, duplicates functionality already provided by internal APIs, and violates implicit architectural constraints accumulated over years of development. Simply exposing an agent to the latest repository snapshot is not enough: the snapshot reveals the final state of the codebase, but not the repository-specific change patterns by which that state was reached. We introduce Learning to Commit, a framework that closes this gap through Online Repository Memory. Given a repository with a strict chronological split, the agent performs supervised contrastive reflection on earlier commits: it blindly attempts to resolve each historical issue, compares its prediction against the oracle diff, and distils the gap into a continuously growing set of skills-reusable patterns capturing coding style, internal API usage, and architectural invariants. When a new PR description arrives, the agent conditions its generation on these accumulated skills, producing changes grounded in the project's own evolution rather than generic pretraining priors. Evaluation is conducted on genuinely future, merged pull requests that could not have been seen during the skill-building phase, and spans multiple dimensions including functional correctness, code-style consistency, internal API reuse rate, and modified-region plausibility. Experiments on an expert-maintained repository with rich commit history show that Online Repository Memory effectively improves organicity scores on held-out future tasks.

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

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

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

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

One of the most widely used methods to evaluate LLMs are Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) tests. MCQ benchmarks enable the testing of LLM knowledge on almost any topic at scale as the results can be processed automatically. To help the LLM answer, a few examples called few shots can be included in the prompt. Moreover, the LLM can be asked to answer the question directly with the selected option or to first provide the reasoning and then the selected answer, which is known as chain of thought. In addition to checking whether the selected answer is correct, the evaluation can look at the LLM-estimated probability of its response as an indication of the confidence of the LLM in the response. In this paper, we study how the LLM confidence in its answer depends on whether the model has been asked to answer directly or to provide the reasoning before answering. The results of the evaluation of questions on a wide range of topics in seven different models show that LLMs are more confident in their answers when they provide reasoning before the answer. This occurs regardless of whether the selected answer is correct. Our hypothesis is that this behavior is due to the reasoning that modifies the probability of the selected answer, as the LLM predicts the answer based on the input question and the reasoning that supports the selection made. Therefore, LLM estimated probabilities seem to have intrinsic limitations that should be understood in order to use them in evaluation procedures. Interestingly, the same behavior has been observed in humans, for whom explaining an answer increases confidence in its correctness.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to replace costly human preference labels in pairwise evaluation. Despite their practicality, LLM judges remain prone to miscalibration and systematic biases. This paper proposes SCOPE (Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise Evaluation), a framework for selective pairwise judging with finite-sample statistical guarantees. Under exchangeability, SCOPE calibrates an acceptance threshold such that the error rate among non-abstained judgments is at most a user-specified level α. To provide SCOPE with a bias-neutral uncertainty signal, we introduce Bidirectional Preference Entropy (BPE), which queries the judge under both response positions, aggregates the implied preference probabilities to enforce invariance to response order, and converts the aggregated probability into an entropy-based uncertainty score. Across MT-Bench, RewardBench, and Chatbot Arena, BPE improves uncertainty quality over standard confidence proxies, providing a stronger selection signal that enables SCOPE to consistently meet the target risk level while retaining good coverage across judge scales. In particular, at α= 0.10, SCOPE consistently satisfies the risk bound across all benchmarks and judge scales (empirical risk approx 0.097 to 0.099), while retaining substantial coverage, reaching 0.89 on RewardBench with Qwen-14B and 0.98 on RewardBench with Qwen-32B. Compared to naïve baselines, SCOPE accepts up to 2.4times more judgments on MT-Bench with Qwen-7B under the same target risk constraint, demonstrating that BPE enables reliable and high-coverage LLM-based evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) leverage step-by-step reasoning to solve complex problems. Standard evaluation practice involves generating a complete reasoning trace and assessing the correctness of the final answer presented at its conclusion. In this paper, we challenge the reliance on the final answer by posing the following two questions: Does the final answer reliably represent the model's optimal conclusion? Can alternative reasoning paths yield different results? To answer these questions, we analyze intermediate reasoning steps, termed subthoughts, and propose a method based on our findings. Our approach involves segmenting a reasoning trace into sequential subthoughts based on linguistic cues. We start by prompting the model to generate continuations from the end-point of each intermediate subthought. We extract a potential answer from every completed continuation originating from different subthoughts. We find that aggregating these answers by selecting the most frequent one (the mode) often yields significantly higher accuracy compared to relying solely on the answer derived from the original complete trace. Analyzing the consistency among the answers derived from different subthoughts reveals characteristics that correlate with the model's confidence and correctness, suggesting potential for identifying less reliable answers. Our experiments across various LLMs and challenging mathematical reasoning datasets (AIME2024 and AIME2025) show consistent accuracy improvements, with gains reaching up to 13\% and 10\% respectively. Implementation is available at: https://github.com/hammoudhasan/SubthoughtReasoner.

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

The large language model (LLM)-as-judge paradigm has been used to meet the demand for a cheap, reliable, and fast evaluation of model outputs during AI system development and post-deployment monitoring. While judge models -- LLMs finetuned to specialize in assessing and critiquing model outputs -- have been touted as general purpose evaluators, they are typically evaluated only on non-contextual scenarios, such as instruction following. The omission of contextual settings -- those where external information is used as context to generate an output -- is surprising given the increasing prevalence of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and summarization use cases. Contextual assessment is uniquely challenging, as evaluation often depends on practitioner priorities, leading to conditional evaluation criteria (e.g., comparing responses based on factuality and then considering completeness if they are equally factual). To address the gap, we propose ContextualJudgeBench, a judge benchmark with 2,000 challenging response pairs across eight splits inspired by real-world contextual evaluation scenarios. We build our benchmark with a multi-pronged data construction pipeline that leverages both existing human annotations and model-based perturbations. Our comprehensive study across 11 judge models and 9 general purpose models, reveals that the contextual information and its assessment criteria present a significant challenge to even state-of-the-art models. For example, OpenAI's o1, the best-performing model, barely reaches 55% consistent accuracy.

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

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

We introduce DS-1000, a code generation benchmark with a thousand data science problems spanning seven Python libraries, such as NumPy and Pandas. Compared to prior works, DS-1000 incorporates three core features. First, our problems reflect diverse, realistic, and practical use cases since we collected them from StackOverflow. Second, our automatic evaluation is highly specific (reliable) -- across all Codex-002-predicted solutions that our evaluation accept, only 1.8% of them are incorrect; we achieve this with multi-criteria metrics, checking both functional correctness by running test cases and surface-form constraints by restricting API usages or keywords. Finally, we proactively defend against memorization by slightly modifying our problems to be different from the original StackOverflow source; consequently, models cannot answer them correctly by memorizing the solutions from pre-training. The current best public system (Codex-002) achieves 43.3% accuracy, leaving ample room for improvement. We release our benchmark at https://ds1000-code-gen.github.io.

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

Common-sense reasoning is a key language model capability because it encapsulates not just specific factual knowledge but rather general language and world understanding. Measuring common-sense reasoning, therefore, is crucial for language models of different sizes and applications. One of the most widely used benchmarks for evaluating such capabilities is HellaSwag; however, in this paper, we show that it has severe construct validity issues. These issues range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. Furthermore, we show that if models are evaluated only on answer texts, or with "Lorem ipsum dolor..." instead of the question, more than 65% of model predictions remain the same, and this cannot be attributed merely to contamination. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these validity issues can have severe consequences. In particular, knowing that taking benchmark scores at face value is ubiquitous, inadequate evaluation leads to ill-informed decisions about models. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate critical validity issues posed by HellaSwag and illustrate them with various evaluations using generative language models of different sizes. We argue that this benchmark does not accurately measure common-sense reasoning and, therefore, should not be used for evaluation in its current state. Based on the results of our study, we propose requirements that should be met by future common-sense reasoning benchmarks. In addition, we release GoldenSwag, a corrected subset of HellaSwag, which, to our belief, facilitates acceptable common-sense reasoning evaluation.

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

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

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.

Large Multi-modality Models (LMMs) have made significant progress in visual understanding and generation, but they still face challenges in General Visual Editing, particularly in following complex instructions, preserving appearance consistency, and supporting flexible input formats. To address this gap, we introduce RISEBench, the first benchmark for evaluating Reasoning-Informed viSual Editing (RISE). RISEBench focuses on four key reasoning types: Temporal, Causal, Spatial, and Logical Reasoning. We curate high-quality test cases for each category and propose an evaluation framework that assesses Instruction Reasoning, Appearance Consistency, and Visual Plausibility with both human judges and an LMM-as-a-judge approach. Our experiments reveal that while GPT-4o-Native significantly outperforms other open-source and proprietary models, even this state-of-the-art system struggles with logical reasoning tasks, highlighting an area that remains underexplored. As an initial effort, RISEBench aims to provide foundational insights into reasoning-aware visual editing and to catalyze future research. Though still in its early stages, we are committed to continuously expanding and refining the benchmark to support more comprehensive, reliable, and scalable evaluations of next-generation multimodal systems. Our code and data will be released at https://github.com/PhoenixZ810/RISEBench.

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

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

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

AI-based judicial assistance and case prediction have been extensively studied in criminal and civil domains, but remain largely unexplored in consumer law, especially in India. In this paper, we present Nyay-Darpan, a novel two-in-one framework that (i) summarizes consumer case files and (ii) retrieves similar case judgements to aid decision-making in consumer dispute resolution. Our methodology not only addresses the gap in consumer law AI tools but also introduces an innovative approach to evaluate the quality of the summary. The term 'Nyay-Darpan' translates into 'Mirror of Justice', symbolizing the ability of our tool to reflect the core of consumer disputes through precise summarization and intelligent case retrieval. Our system achieves over 75 percent accuracy in similar case prediction and approximately 70 percent accuracy across material summary evaluation metrics, demonstrating its practical effectiveness. We will publicly release the Nyay-Darpan framework and dataset to promote reproducibility and facilitate further research in this underexplored yet impactful domain.

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

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.

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

Standard benchmarks have become increasingly unreliable due to saturation, subjectivity, and poor generalization. We argue that evaluating model's ability to acquire information actively is important to assess model's intelligence. We propose Interactive Benchmarks, a unified evaluation paradigm that assesses model's reasoning ability in an interactive process under budget constraints. We instantiate this framework across two settings: Interactive Proofs, where models interact with a judge to deduce objective truths or answers in logic and mathematics; and Interactive Games, where models reason strategically to maximize long-horizon utilities. Our results show that interactive benchmarks provide a robust and faithful assessment of model intelligence, revealing that there is still substantial room to improve in interactive scenarios. Project page: https://github.com/interactivebench/interactivebench

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

Large Language Models (LLM) have achieved remarkable performances in general domains and are now extending into the expert domain of law. Several benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate LLMs' legal capabilities. However, these benchmarks fail to evaluate open-ended and provision-grounded Question Answering (QA). To address this, we introduce a Korean Benchmark for Legal EXplainable QA (KoBLEX), designed to evaluate provision-grounded, multi-hop legal reasoning. KoBLEX includes 226 scenario-based QA instances and their supporting provisions, created using a hybrid LLM-human expert pipeline. We also propose a method called Parametric provision-guided Selection Retrieval (ParSeR), which uses LLM-generated parametric provisions to guide legally grounded and reliable answers. ParSeR facilitates multi-hop reasoning on complex legal questions by generating parametric provisions and employing a three-stage sequential retrieval process. Furthermore, to better evaluate the legal fidelity of the generated answers, we propose Legal Fidelity Evaluation (LF-Eval). LF-Eval is an automatic metric that jointly considers the question, answer, and supporting provisions and shows a high correlation with human judgments. Experimental results show that ParSeR consistently outperforms strong baselines, achieving the best results across multiple LLMs. Notably, compared to standard retrieval with GPT-4o, ParSeR achieves +37.91 higher F1 and +30.81 higher LF-Eval. Further analyses reveal that ParSeR efficiently delivers consistent performance across reasoning depths, with ablations confirming the effectiveness of ParSeR.

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

We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by 0.81%, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by 38.7%, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by 4.59%, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is an umbrella of different components, design decisions, and domain-specific adaptations to enhance the capabilities of large language models and counter their limitations regarding hallucination and outdated and missing knowledge. Since it is unclear which design decisions lead to a satisfactory performance, developing RAG systems is often experimental and needs to follow a systematic and sound methodology to gain sound and reliable results. However, there is currently no generally accepted methodology for RAG evaluation despite a growing interest in this technology. In this paper, we propose a first blueprint of a methodology for a sound and reliable evaluation of RAG systems and demonstrate its applicability on a real-world software engineering research task: the validation of configuration dependencies across software technologies. In summary, we make two novel contributions: (i) A novel, reusable methodological design for evaluating RAG systems, including a demonstration that represents a guideline, and (ii) a RAG system, which has been developed following this methodology, that achieves the highest accuracy in the field of dependency validation. For the blueprint's demonstration, the key insights are the crucial role of choosing appropriate baselines and metrics, the necessity for systematic RAG refinements derived from qualitative failure analysis, as well as the reporting practices of key design decision to foster replication and evaluation.

Existing LLM-as-a-Judge systems suffer from three fundamental limitations: limited adaptivity to task- and domain-specific evaluation criteria, systematic biases driven by non-semantic cues such as position, length, format, and model provenance, and evaluation inconsistency that leads to contradictory judgments across different evaluation modes (e.g., pointwise versus pairwise). To address these issues, we propose FairJudge, an adaptive, debiased, and consistent LLM-as-a-Judge. Unlike prior approaches that treat the judge as a static evaluator, FairJudge models judging behavior itself as a learnable and regularized policy. From a data-centric perspective, we construct a high-information-density judging dataset that explicitly injects supervision signals aligned with evaluation behavior. Building on this dataset, we adopt a curriculum-style SFT-DPO-GRPO training paradigm that progressively aligns rubric adherence, bias mitigation, and cross-mode consistency, while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Experimental results on multiple internal and public benchmarks show that FairJudge consistently improves agreement and F1, reduces non-semantic biases, and outperforms substantially larger instruction-tuned LLMs. All resources will be publicly released after acceptance to facilitate future research.

This research introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to assess large language models' (LLMs) ability to acknowledge uncertainty on 675 fundamentally unsolvable problems. Using a curated dataset of graduate-level grand challenge questions with intentionally unknowable answers, we evaluated twelve state-of-the-art LLMs, including both open and closed-source models, on their propensity to admit ignorance rather than generate plausible but incorrect responses. The best models scored in 62-68% accuracy ranges for admitting the problem solution was unknown in fields ranging from biology to philosophy and mathematics. We observed an inverse relationship between problem difficulty and model accuracy, with GPT-4 demonstrating higher rates of uncertainty acknowledgment on more challenging problems (35.8%) compared to simpler ones (20.0%). This pattern indicates that models may be more prone to generate speculative answers when problems appear more tractable. The study also revealed significant variations across problem categories, with models showing difficulty in acknowledging uncertainty in invention and NP-hard problems while performing relatively better on philosophical and psychological challenges. These results contribute to the growing body of research on artificial general intelligence (AGI) assessment by highlighting the importance of uncertainty recognition as a critical component of future machine intelligence evaluation. This impossibility test thus extends previous theoretical frameworks for universal intelligence testing by providing empirical evidence of current limitations in LLMs' ability to recognize their own knowledge boundaries, suggesting new directions for improving model training architectures and evaluation approaches.

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

The rapid deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires careful consideration of their effect on cybersecurity. Our work aims to improve the selection process of LLMs that are suitable for facilitating Secure Coding (SC). This raises challenging research questions, such as (RQ1) Which functionality can streamline the LLM evaluation? (RQ2) What should the evaluation measure? (RQ3) How to attest that the evaluation process is impartial? To address these questions, we introduce LLMSecCode, an open-source evaluation framework designed to assess LLM SC capabilities objectively. We validate the LLMSecCode implementation through experiments. When varying parameters and prompts, we find a 10% and 9% difference in performance, respectively. We also compare some results to reliable external actors, where our results show a 5% difference. We strive to ensure the ease of use of our open-source framework and encourage further development by external actors. With LLMSecCode, we hope to encourage the standardization and benchmarking of LLMs' capabilities in security-oriented code and tasks.

Reasoning benchmarks have played a crucial role in the progress of language models. Yet rigorous evaluation remains a significant challenge as static question-answer pairs provide only a snapshot of performance, compressing complex behavior into a single accuracy metric. This limitation is especially true in complex, rule-bound domains such as law, where existing benchmarks are costly to build and ill suited for isolating specific failure modes. To address this, we introduce OpenExempt, a framework and benchmark for diagnostic evaluation of legal reasoning. The OpenExempt Framework uses expert-crafted symbolic representations of U.S. Bankruptcy Code statutes to dynamically generate a large space of natural language reasoning tasks and their machine-computable solutions on demand. This gives users fine-grained control over task complexity and scope, allowing individual reasoning skills to be probed in isolation. Using this system, we construct the OpenExempt Benchmark, a diagnostic benchmark for legal reasoning with 9,765 samples across nine evaluation suites designed to carefully probe model capabilities. Experiments on 13 diverse language models reveal sharp performance cliffs that emerge only under longer reasoning paths and in the presence of obfuscating statements. We release the framework and benchmark publicly to support research aimed at understanding and improving the next generation of reasoning systems.

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.

We introduce AbGen, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in designing ablation studies for scientific research. AbGen consists of 1,500 expert-annotated examples derived from 807 NLP papers. In this benchmark, LLMs are tasked with generating detailed ablation study designs for a specified module or process based on the given research context. Our evaluation of leading LLMs, such as DeepSeek-R1-0528 and o4-mini, highlights a significant performance gap between these models and human experts in terms of the importance, faithfulness, and soundness of the ablation study designs. Moreover, we demonstrate that current automated evaluation methods are not reliable for our task, as they show a significant discrepancy when compared to human assessment. To better investigate this, we develop AbGen-Eval, a meta-evaluation benchmark designed to assess the reliability of commonly used automated evaluation systems in measuring LLM performance on our task. We investigate various LLM-as-Judge systems on AbGen-Eval, providing insights for future research on developing more effective and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for complex scientific tasks.

Efficient and accurate evaluation is crucial for the continuous improvement of large language models (LLMs). Among various assessment methods, subjective evaluation has garnered significant attention due to its superior alignment with real-world usage scenarios and human preferences. However, human-based evaluations are costly and lack reproducibility, making precise automated evaluators (judgers) vital in this process. In this report, we introduce CompassJudger-1, the first open-source all-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. It is capable of: 1. Performing unitary scoring and two-model comparisons as a reward model; 2. Conducting evaluations according to specified formats; 3. Generating critiques; 4. Executing diverse tasks like a general LLM. To assess the evaluation capabilities of different judge models under a unified setting, we have also established JudgerBench, a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks and covers a wide range of topics. CompassJudger-1 offers a comprehensive solution for various evaluation tasks while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to diverse requirements. Both CompassJudger and JudgerBench are released and available to the research community athttps://github.com/open-compass/CompassJudger. We believe that by open-sourcing these tools, we can foster collaboration and accelerate progress in LLM evaluation methodologies.

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

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

Selecting the best code solution from multiple generated ones is an essential task in code generation, which can be achieved by using some reliable validators (e.g., developer-written test cases) for assistance. Since reliable test cases are not always available and can be expensive to build in practice, researchers propose to automatically generate test cases to assess code solutions. However, when both code solutions and test cases are plausible and not reliable, selecting the best solution becomes challenging. Although some heuristic strategies have been proposed to tackle this problem, they lack a strong theoretical guarantee and it is still an open question whether an optimal selection strategy exists. Our work contributes in two ways. First, we show that within a Bayesian framework, the optimal selection strategy can be defined based on the posterior probability of the observed passing states between solutions and tests. The problem of identifying the best solution is then framed as an integer programming problem. Second, we propose an efficient approach for approximating this optimal (yet uncomputable) strategy, where the approximation error is bounded by the correctness of prior knowledge. We then incorporate effective prior knowledge to tailor code generation tasks. Both theoretical and empirical studies confirm that existing heuristics are limited in selecting the best solutions with plausible test cases. Our proposed approximated optimal strategy B4 significantly surpasses existing heuristics in selecting code solutions generated by large language models (LLMs) with LLM-generated tests, achieving a relative performance improvement by up to 50% over the strongest heuristic and 246% over the random selection in the most challenging scenarios. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/ZJU-CTAG/B4.

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

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.

As LLM-based agents are deployed in production systems, understanding their behavioral consistency (whether they produce similar action sequences when given identical tasks) becomes critical for reliability. We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. Comparing Claude~4.5~Sonnet, GPT-5, and Llama-3.1-70B across 50 runs each (10 tasks times 5 runs), we find that across models, higher consistency aligns with higher accuracy: Claude achieves the lowest variance (CV: 15.2\%) and highest accuracy (58\%), GPT-5 is intermediate (CV: 32.2\%, accuracy: 32\%), and Llama shows the highest variance (CV: 47.0\%) with lowest accuracy (4\%). However, within a model, consistency can amplify both correct and incorrect interpretations. Our analysis reveals a critical nuance: consistency amplifies outcomes rather than guaranteeing correctness. 71\% of Claude's failures stem from "consistent wrong interpretation": making the same incorrect assumption across all runs. Interestingly, GPT-5 achieves similar early strategic agreement as Claude (diverging at step 3.4 vs.\ 3.2) but exhibits 2.1times higher variance, suggesting that divergence timing alone does not determine consistency. These findings suggest that for production deployment, interpretation accuracy matters more than execution consistency, with implications for agent evaluation and training.

Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing work often employs off-the-shelf retrieval models whose design is based on the probability ranking principle. We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence. We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever(FER) that optimizes the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier. As a feedback signal we use the divergence in utility between how effectively the verifier utilizes the retrieved evidence and the ground-truth evidence to produce the final claim label. Empirical studies demonstrate the superiority of FER over prevailing baselines.

Critique, as a natural language description for assessing the quality of model-generated content, has been proven to play an essential role in the training, evaluation, and refinement of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, there is a lack of principled understanding in evaluating the quality of the critique itself. In this paper, we pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which is a framework to evaluate the critique from two aspects, i.e., factuality as precision score and comprehensiveness as recall score. We calculate the harmonic mean of precision and recall as the overall rating called F1 score. To obtain a reliable evaluation outcome, we propose Atomic Information Units (AIUs), which describe the critique in a more fine-grained manner. MetaCritique takes each AIU into account and aggregates each AIU's judgment for the overall score. Moreover, given the evaluation process involves intricate reasoning, our MetaCritique provides a natural language rationale to support each judgment. We construct a meta-evaluation dataset containing 300 critiques (2653 AIUs) across four tasks (question answering, reasoning, entailment, and summarization), and we conduct a comparative study to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness. Experiments also show superior critique judged by MetaCritique leads to better refinement, indicating generative artificial intelligence indeed has the potential to be significantly advanced with our MetaCritique. We will release relevant code and meta-evaluation datasets at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/MetaCritique.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

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

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

The rapid deployment of AI agents in commercial settings has outpaced the development of evaluation methodologies that reflect production realities. Existing benchmarks measure agent capabilities through retrospectively curated tasks with well-specified requirements and deterministic metrics -- conditions that diverge fundamentally from production environments where requirements contain implicit constraints, inputs are heterogeneous multi-modal documents with information fragmented across sources, tasks demand undeclared domain expertise, outputs are long-horizon professional deliverables, and success is judged by domain experts whose standards evolve over time. We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business, spanning six O*NET (Occupational Information Network) domains. Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products -- Claude Code, Codex, etc. -- as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation. Our evaluation framework covers multiple paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reference-driven metrics, formal verification, rubric-based assessment, automated UI testing, etc.), with individual domains composing multiple paradigms. Beyond the benchmark itself, we contribute a requirement-to-benchmark construction framework -- a systematic methodology that transforms authentic production requirements into executable evaluation tasks in minimal time. This framework standardizes the entire pipeline from requirement to evaluation, providing a reproducible, modular process that any organization can adopt to construct production-grounded benchmarks for their own domains.

Frontier model progress is often measured by academic benchmarks, which offer a limited view of performance in real-world professional contexts. Existing evaluations often fail to assess open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes domains like Legal and Finance, where practical returns are paramount. To address this, we introduce Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench), a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law. We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it, to our knowledge, the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains. We recruit 182 qualified professionals, holding JDs, CFAs, or 6+ years of experience, who contributed tasks inspired by their actual workflows. This process yields significant diversity, with tasks spanning 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions. Our expert-curated rubrics are validated through a rigorous quality pipeline, including independent expert validation. Subsequent evaluation of 20 leading models reveals substantial room for improvement, with top scores of only 0.39 (Finance) and 0.37 (Legal) on our Hard subsets. We further catalog associated economic impacts of the prompts and analyze performance using human-annotated rubric categories. Our analysis shows that models with similar overall scores can diverge significantly on specific capabilities. Common failure modes include inaccurate judgments, a lack of process transparency and incomplete reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption.

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

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

Recent failures such as Google Gemini generating people of color in Nazi-era uniforms illustrate how AI outputs can be factually plausible yet socially harmful. AI models are increasingly evaluated for "fairness," yet existing benchmarks often conflate two fundamentally different dimensions: factual correctness and normative fairness. A model may generate responses that are factually accurate but socially unfair, or conversely, appear fair while distorting factual reality. We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation. We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments. Our queries are constructed from 19 statistics and are grounded in cognitive psychology, drawing on representativeness bias, attribution bias, and ingroup-outgroup bias to explain why models often misalign fact and fairness. Experiments across ten frontier models reveal different levels of fact-fair trade-offs. By reframing fairness evaluation, we provide both a new theoretical lens and a practical benchmark to advance the responsible model assessments. Our test suite is publicly available at https://github.com/uclanlp/Fact-or-Fair.

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

LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaaJ) now underpins scalable evaluation, yet we lack a decisive test of a judge's qualification: can it recover a conversation's latent objective and know when that inference is trustworthy? LLMs degrade under irrelevant or long context; multi-turn jailbreaks further hide goals across turns. We introduce ObjexMT, a benchmark for objective extraction and metacognition. Given a multi-turn transcript, a model must return a one-sentence base objective and a self-reported confidence. Accuracy is computed via LLM-judge semantic similarity to gold objectives, converted to binary correctness by a single human-aligned threshold calibrated once on N = 100 items (tau^*=0.61). Metacognition is evaluated with ECE, Brier, Wrong-at-High-Conf, and risk-coverage. Across gpt-4.1, claude-sonnet-4, and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 on SafeMTData_Attack600, SafeMTData_1K, MHJ, and CoSafe, claude-sonnet-4 attains the best objective-extraction accuracy (0.515) and calibration (ECE 0.296; Brier 0.324); gpt-4.1 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 tie at 0.441 but are overconfident (mean confidence approx0.88 vs. accuracy approx0.44; Wrong-at-0.90 approx48-52%). Performance varies by dataset (approx0.167-0.865). ObjexMT thus supplies an actionable test for LLM judges: when objectives are not explicit, judges often misinfer them with high confidence. We recommend exposing objectives when feasible and gating decisions by confidence otherwise. Code and data at https://github.com/hyunjun1121/ObjexMT_dataset.

Reasoning abilities of LLMs have been a key focus in recent years. One challenging reasoning domain with interesting nuances is legal reasoning, which requires careful application of rules, and precedents while balancing deductive and analogical reasoning, and conflicts between rules. Although there have been a few works on using LLMs for legal reasoning, their focus has been on overall accuracy. In this paper, we dig deeper to do a step-by-step analysis and figure out where they commit errors. We use the college-level Multiple Choice Question-Answering (MCQA) task from the Civil Procedure dataset and propose a new error taxonomy derived from initial manual analysis of reasoning chains with respect to several LLMs, including two objective measures: soundness and correctness scores. We then develop an LLM-based automated evaluation framework to identify reasoning errors and evaluate the performance of LLMs. The computation of soundness and correctness on the dataset using the auto-evaluator framework reveals several interesting insights. Furthermore, we show that incorporating the error taxonomy as feedback in popular prompting techniques marginally increases LLM performance. Our work will also serve as an evaluation framework that can be used in detailed error analysis of reasoning chains for logic-intensive complex tasks.

Generating step-by-step "how-to" procedures is a key LLM capability: how-to advice is commonly requested in chatbots, and step-by-step planning is critical for reasoning over complex tasks. Yet, measuring and improving procedural validity at scale on real-world tasks remains challenging and understudied. To address this, we introduce How2Everything, a scalable framework to evaluate and improve goal-conditioned procedure generation. Our framework includes How2Mine, which mines 351K procedures from 980K web pages across 14 topics and readily scales to larger corpora. From this pool we build How2Bench, a 7K-example evaluation set balanced across topics. To reliably score model outputs, we develop How2Score, an evaluation protocol that uses an LLM judge to detect whether a generation contains any critical failure that would prevent achieving the goal. For low-cost, reproducible evaluation, we distill a frontier model into an open 8B model, achieving 80.5% agreement with human annotators. How2Bench reveals clear scaling trends across model sizes and training stages, providing signal early in pretraining. Finally, RL using How2Score as a reward improves performance on How2Bench by >10 points across three models without systematic regressions on standard benchmarks, with gains robust to superficial source-document memorization or format compliance. Taken together, How2Everything shows how pretraining web data can support a closed loop of capability evaluation and improvement at scale.

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

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

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

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

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

Critiques are important for enhancing the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), enabling both self-improvement and constructive feedback for others by identifying flaws and suggesting improvements. However, evaluating the critique capabilities of LLMs presents a significant challenge due to the open-ended nature of the task. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark designed to assess the critique capabilities of LLMs. Unlike existing benchmarks, which typically function in an open-loop fashion, our approach employs a closed-loop methodology that evaluates the quality of corrections generated from critiques. Moreover, the benchmark incorporates features such as self-critique, cross-critique, and iterative critique, which are crucial for distinguishing the abilities of advanced reasoning models from more classical ones. We implement this benchmark using eight challenging reasoning tasks. We have several interesting findings. First, despite demonstrating comparable performance in direct chain-of-thought generation, classical LLMs significantly lag behind the advanced reasoning-based model o1-mini across all critique scenarios. Second, in self-critique and iterative critique settings, classical LLMs may even underperform relative to their baseline capabilities. We hope that this benchmark will serve as a valuable resource to guide future advancements. The code and data are available at https://github.com/tangzhy/RealCritic.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.

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

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

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

Evaluation efforts such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR and FIRE, alongside public leaderboard such as MS MARCO, are intended to encourage research and track our progress, addressing big questions in our field. However, the goal is not simply to identify which run is "best", achieving the top score. The goal is to move the field forward by developing new robust techniques, that work in many different settings, and are adopted in research and practice. This paper uses the MS MARCO and TREC Deep Learning Track as our case study, comparing it to the case of TREC ad hoc ranking in the 1990s. We show how the design of the evaluation effort can encourage or discourage certain outcomes, and raising questions about internal and external validity of results. We provide some analysis of certain pitfalls, and a statement of best practices for avoiding such pitfalls. We summarize the progress of the effort so far, and describe our desired end state of "robust usefulness", along with steps that might be required to get us there.

When a phone-use agent avoids harm, does that show safety, or simply inability to act? Existing evaluations often cannot tell. A harmful outcome may be avoided because the agent recognized the risk and chose the safe action, or because it failed to understand the screen or execute any relevant action at all. These cases have different causes and call for different fixes, yet current benchmarks often merge them under task success, refusal, or final harmful outcome. We address this problem with PhoneSafety, a benchmark of 700 safety-critical moments drawn from real phone interactions across more than 130 apps. Each instance isolates the next decision at a risky moment and asks a simple question: does the model take the safe action, take the unsafe action, or fail to do anything useful? We evaluate eight representative phone-use agents under this framework. Our results reveal two main patterns. First, stronger general phone-use ability does not reliably imply safer choices at risky moments. Models that perform better on ordinary app tasks are not always the ones that behave more safely when the next action matters. Second, failures to do anything useful behave like a capability signal rather than a safety signal: they are concentrated in more visually and operationally demanding settings and remain stable when the evaluation protocol changes. Across models, failures split into two recurring patterns: unsafe choices in settings where the model can act but chooses wrongly, and inability to act in more visually and operationally demanding screens. Overall, a harmless outcome is not enough to count as evidence of safety. Evaluating phone-use agents requires separating unsafe judgment from inability to act.

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

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.

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.

Despite the remarkable coherence of Large Language Models (LLMs), existing evaluation methods often suffer from fluency bias and rely heavily on multiple-choice formats, making it difficult to assess factual accuracy and complex reasoning effectively. LLMs thus frequently generate factually inaccurate responses, especially in complex reasoning tasks, highlighting two prominent challenges: (1) the inadequacy of existing methods to evaluate reasoning and factual accuracy effectively, and (2) the reliance on human evaluators for nuanced judgment, as illustrated by Williams and Huckle (2024)[1], who found manual grading indispensable despite automated grading advancements. To address evaluation gaps in open-ended reasoning tasks, we introduce the EQUATOR Evaluator (Evaluation of Question Answering Thoroughness in Open-ended Reasoning). This framework combines deterministic scoring with a focus on factual accuracy and robust reasoning assessment. Using a vector database, EQUATOR pairs open-ended questions with human-evaluated answers, enabling more precise and scalable evaluations. In practice, EQUATOR significantly reduces reliance on human evaluators for scoring and improves scalability compared to Williams and Huckle's (2004)[1] methods. Our results demonstrate that this framework significantly outperforms traditional multiple-choice evaluations while maintaining high accuracy standards. Additionally, we introduce an automated evaluation process leveraging smaller, locally hosted LLMs. We used LLaMA 3.2B, running on the Ollama binaries to streamline our assessments. This work establishes a new paradigm for evaluating LLM performance, emphasizing factual accuracy and reasoning ability, and provides a robust methodological foundation for future research.

Understanding research papers remains challenging for foundation models due to specialized scientific discourse and complex figures and tables, yet existing benchmarks offer limited fine-grained evaluation at scale. To address this gap, we introduce RPC-Bench, a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers, containing 15K human-verified QA pairs. We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts. We also define an elaborate LLM-human interaction annotation framework to support large-scale labeling and quality control. Following the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, we develop a scalable framework that evaluates models on correctness-completeness and conciseness, with high agreement to human judgment. Experiments reveal that even the strongest models (GPT-5) achieve only 68.2% correctness-completeness, dropping to 37.46% after conciseness adjustment, highlighting substantial gaps in precise academic paper understanding. Our code and data are available at https://rpc-bench.github.io/.

While programming is one of the most broadly applicable skills in modern society, modern machine learning models still cannot code solutions to basic problems. Despite its importance, there has been surprisingly little work on evaluating code generation, and it can be difficult to accurately assess code generation performance rigorously. To meet this challenge, we introduce APPS, a benchmark for code generation. Unlike prior work in more restricted settings, our benchmark measures the ability of models to take an arbitrary natural language specification and generate satisfactory Python code. Similar to how companies assess candidate software developers, we then evaluate models by checking their generated code on test cases. Our benchmark includes 10,000 problems, which range from having simple one-line solutions to being substantial algorithmic challenges. We fine-tune large language models on both GitHub and our training set, and we find that the prevalence of syntax errors is decreasing exponentially as models improve. Recent models such as GPT-Neo can pass approximately 20% of the test cases of introductory problems, so we find that machine learning models are now beginning to learn how to code. As the social significance of automatic code generation increases over the coming years, our benchmark can provide an important measure for tracking advancements.

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

The acceleration in the adoption of AI-based automated decision-making systems poses a challenge for evaluating the fairness of algorithmic decisions, especially in the absence of ground truth. When designing interventions, uplift modeling is used extensively to identify candidates that are likely to benefit from treatment. However, these models remain particularly susceptible to fairness evaluation due to the lack of ground truth on the outcome measure since a candidate cannot be in both treatment and control simultaneously. In this article, we propose a framework that overcomes the missing ground truth problem by generating surrogates to serve as a proxy for counterfactual labels of uplift modeling campaigns. We then leverage the surrogate ground truth to conduct a more comprehensive binary fairness evaluation. We show how to apply the approach in a comprehensive study from a real-world marketing campaign for promotional offers and demonstrate its enhancement for fairness evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with maintaining accuracy across a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps in mathematical reasoning, leading to error propagation that undermines the final result. The current methodology to mitigate this issue primarily involves using a verifier model to assess the correctness of generated solution candidates, focusing either on the overall reasoning path or on an incomplete reasoning path. By rethinking this approach, we argue that assessing potentials of incomplete reasoning paths could be more advantageous as it guides towards correct final answers, transforming the task into a planning problem. Our proposed verifier, the Outcome-supervision Value Model (OVM), employs outcome supervision for training, offering an efficient and intuitive method for planning by prioritizing steps that lead to accurate conclusions over mere per-step correctness. Furthermore, the OVM eschews the need for labor-intensive annotations on step-level correctness, enhancing its scalability. Our experiments on two multi-step mathematical reasoning datasets, GSM8K and Game of 24, demonstrate the superior performance of the OVM model. Notably, in GSM8K, our OVM-7B model achieves state-of-the-art results among LLMs up to 13B parameters; especially it does not utilize GPT-4 or code execution. These findings offer a novel perspective on the role of outcome supervision in training verifiers for multi-step reasoning tasks and provide theoretical justification for its advantage in value estimation for planning.

This research introduces the Judge's Verdict Benchmark, a novel two-step methodology to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for response accuracy evaluation tasks. We assess how well 54 LLMs can replicate human judgment when scoring responses from RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) or Agentic pipelines against ground truth answers. Our methodology progresses from traditional correlation analysis to comprehensive Cohen's Kappa analysis that measures actual agreement patterns. The two-step approach includes: (1) a correlation test that filters judges with strong alignment, followed by (2) a human-likeness test using z-scores to identify two distinct judgment patterns: human-like judgment (|z| < 1) that mimics natural human variation, and super-consistent judgment (z > 1) that exceeds typical human-to-human agreement levels. This methodology reveals that 27 out of 54 tested LLMs achieve Tier 1 performance: 23 models exhibit human-like patterns that preserve the nuances of human judgment, while 4 models demonstrate super-consistent behavior, a pattern that could indicate either enhanced reliability or oversimplification of complex judgments. Testing 43 open-source models (1B-405B parameters) and 11 closed models (GPT, Gemini, Claude variants), we demonstrate that judge excellence is not solely dependent on model size but on specific training strategies. Our key contributions include: (1) establishing that correlation alone is insufficient for judge evaluation, (2) introducing a "Turing Test for judges" based on agreement patterns, and (3) providing a standardized benchmark for classifying LLM judges into distinct performance tiers for different evaluation needs.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is typically optimized for topical relevance, yet its success ultimately depends on whether retrieved passages are useful for a large language model (LLM) to generate correct and complete answers. We argue that such utility is often LLM-specific rather than universal, due to differences in models' knowledge, reasoning, and ability to leverage evidence. We formalize LLM-specific utility as the performance improvement of a target LLM when a passage is provided, compared to answering without evidence. To systematically study LLM-specific utility, we construct a benchmark of LLM-specific gold utilitarian passages for four LLMs (Qwen3-8B/14B/32B and Llama3.1-8B) on three QA datasets (Natural Questions, TriviaQA, and MS MARCO-FQA). Our analysis shows that utilitarian passages are model-dependent and non-transferable: each LLM performs best with its own utilitarian evidence, while evidence optimized for other LLMs is consistently suboptimal. Human-annotated evidence remains a strong general baseline but does not fully match individual LLM utility needs. We further introduce the LLM-specific utility judgment task and find that existing utility-aware selection and scoring methods largely capture model-agnostic usefulness and struggle to reliably estimate LLM-specific utility. Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of current utility-aware retrieval and motivate generator-tailored evidence selection for improving RAG.

In current NLP research, large-scale language models and their abilities are widely being discussed. Some recent works have also found notable failures of these models. Often these failure examples involve complex reasoning abilities. This work focuses on a simple commonsense ability, reasoning about when an action (or its effect) is feasible. To this end, we introduce FeasibilityQA, a question-answering dataset involving binary classification (BCQ) and multi-choice multi-correct questions (MCQ) that test understanding of feasibility. We show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-3, GPT-2, and T5 struggle to answer the feasibility questions correctly. Specifically, on MCQ and BCQ questions, GPT-3 achieves an accuracy of just (19%, 62%) and (25%, 64%) in zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively. We also evaluate models by providing relevant knowledge statements required to answer the question. We find that the additional knowledge leads to a 7% gain in performance, but the overall performance still remains low. These results make one wonder how much commonsense knowledge about action feasibility is encoded in state-of-the-art models and how well they can reason about it.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal standards facilitate robust communication of inherently vague and underspecified goals. Instructions (in the case of language models, "prompts") that employ legal standards will allow AI agents to develop shared understandings of the spirit of a directive that generalize expectations regarding acceptable actions to take in unspecified states of the world. Standards have built-in context that is lacking from other goal specification languages, such as plain language and programming languages. Through an empirical study on thousands of evaluation labels we constructed from U.S. court opinions, we demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) are beginning to exhibit an "understanding" of one of the most relevant legal standards for AI agents: fiduciary obligations. Performance comparisons across models suggest that, as LLMs continue to exhibit improved core capabilities, their legal standards understanding will also continue to improve. OpenAI's latest LLM has 78% accuracy on our data, their previous release has 73% accuracy, and a model from their 2020 GPT-3 paper has 27% accuracy (worse than random). Our research is an initial step toward a framework for evaluating AI understanding of legal standards more broadly, and for conducting reinforcement learning with legal feedback (RLLF).

AI agents deployed as persistent assistants must maintain correct beliefs as their information environment evolves. In practice, evidence is scattered across heterogeneous sources that often contradict one another, new information can invalidate earlier conclusions, and user preferences surface through corrections rather than explicit instructions. Existing benchmarks largely assume static, single-authority settings and do not evaluate whether agents can keep up with this complexity. We introduce ClawArena, a benchmark for evaluating AI agents in evolving information environments. Each scenario maintains a complete hidden ground truth while exposing the agent only to noisy, partial, and sometimes contradictory traces across multi-channel sessions, workspace files, and staged updates. Evaluation is organized around three coupled challenges: multi-source conflict reasoning, dynamic belief revision, and implicit personalization, whose interactions yield a 14-category question taxonomy. Two question formats, multi-choice (set-selection) and shell-based executable checks, test both reasoning and workspace grounding. The current release contains 64 scenarios across 8 professional domains, totaling 1{,}879 evaluation rounds and 365 dynamic updates. Experiments on five agent frameworks and five language models show that both model capability (15.4% range) and framework design (9.2%) substantially affect performance, that self-evolving skill frameworks can partially close model-capability gaps, and that belief revision difficulty is determined by update design strategy rather than the mere presence of updates. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/ClawArena.

Large Language Models have been recently exploited as judges for complex natural language processing tasks, such as Q&A. The basic idea is to delegate to an LLM the assessment of the "quality" of the output provided by an automated technique for tasks for which: (i) quantitative metrics would only tell part of the story, and; (ii) a large-scale human-based evaluation would be too expensive. LLMs-as-a-judge, if proven effective for a specific task, can also unlock new possibilities for automation, with several LLMs proposing a solution for a given instance of the task and others judging and deciding what is the best output to show the user. We study the effectiveness of LLMs-as-a-judge for two code-related tasks, namely code generation and code summarization. The rationale for choosing these tasks is two-fold. First, quantitative metrics are usually not enough for the assessment of code summarizers/generators. For example, it is well documented that metrics such as BLEU are quite weak proxies for the quality of the generated summaries. Second, even state-of-the-art techniques still struggle with handling complex instances of these tasks, making them good candidates for benefiting from more advanced solutions envisioning collaboration among LLMs. For code generation, we check whether eight LLMs are able to judge the correctness of 1,405 Java methods and 1,281 Python functions generated by the same LLMs or implemented by humans. For code summarization, we compare the judgment of five LLMs to those provided by nine humans for ~1.2k summaries, related to both Java and Python functions. Our findings show that GPT-4-turbo is the best LLM in terms of judging capabilities for both tasks, with "smaller" LLMs featuring tens of billions parameters not being able to cope with judging tasks. However, even the best-performing LLM frequently misjudges the correctness of the code and summary quality.

Evaluating user interface (UI) design effectiveness extends beyond aesthetics to influencing user behavior, a principle central to Design Persuasiveness. A/B testing is the predominant method for determining which UI variations drive higher user engagement, but it is costly and time-consuming. While recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can process automated UI analysis, current approaches focus on isolated design attributes rather than comparative persuasiveness-the key factor in optimizing user interactions. To address this, we introduce WiserUI-Bench, a benchmark designed for Pairwise UI Design Persuasiveness Assessment task, featuring 300 real-world UI image pairs labeled with A/B test results and expert rationales. Additionally, we propose G-FOCUS, a novel inference-time reasoning strategy that enhances VLM-based persuasiveness assessment by reducing position bias and improving evaluation accuracy. Experimental results show that G-FOCUS surpasses existing inference strategies in consistency and accuracy for pairwise UI evaluation. Through promoting VLM-driven evaluation of UI persuasiveness, our work offers an approach to complement A/B testing, propelling progress in scalable UI preference modeling and design optimization. Code and data will be released publicly.