Daily Papers

In the domain of medical imaging, many supervised learning based methods for segmentation face several challenges such as high variability in annotations from multiple experts, paucity of labelled data and class imbalanced datasets. These issues may result in segmentations that lack the requisite precision for clinical analysis and can be misleadingly overconfident without associated uncertainty quantification. We propose the PULASki for biomedical image segmentation that accurately captures variability in expert annotations, even in small datasets. Our approach makes use of an improved loss function based on statistical distances in a conditional variational autoencoder structure (Probabilistic UNet), which improves learning of the conditional decoder compared to the standard cross-entropy particularly in class imbalanced problems. We analyse our method for two structurally different segmentation tasks (intracranial vessel and multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion) and compare our results to four well-established baselines in terms of quantitative metrics and qualitative output. Empirical results demonstrate the PULASKi method outperforms all baselines at the 5\% significance level. The generated segmentations are shown to be much more anatomically plausible than in the 2D case, particularly for the vessel task. Our method can also be applied to a wide range of multi-label segmentation tasks and and is useful for downstream tasks such as hemodynamic modelling (computational fluid dynamics and data assimilation), clinical decision making, and treatment planning.

Landmark detection plays a crucial role in medical imaging tasks that rely on precise spatial localization, including specific applications in diagnosis, treatment planning, image registration, and surgical navigation. However, manual annotation is labor-intensive and requires expert knowledge. While deep learning shows promise in automating this task, progress is hindered by limited public datasets, inconsistent benchmarks, and non-standardized baselines, restricting reproducibility, fair comparisons, and model generalizability. This work introduces nnLandmark, a self-configuring deep learning framework for 3D medical landmark detection, adapting nnU-Net to perform heatmap-based regression. By leveraging nnU-Net's automated configuration, nnLandmark eliminates the need for manual parameter tuning, offering out-of-the-box usability. It achieves state-of-the-art accuracy across two public datasets, with a mean radial error (MRE) of 1.5 mm on the Mandibular Molar Landmark (MML) dental CT dataset and 1.2 mm for anatomical fiducials on a brain MRI dataset (AFIDs), where nnLandmark aligns with the inter-rater variability of 1.5 mm. With its strong generalization, reproducibility, and ease of deployment, nnLandmark establishes a reliable baseline for 3D landmark detection, supporting research in anatomical localization and clinical workflows that depend on precise landmark identification. The code will be available soon.

Extent of resection after surgery is one of the main prognostic factors for patients diagnosed with glioblastoma. To achieve this, accurate segmentation and classification of residual tumor from post-operative MR images is essential. The current standard method for estimating it is subject to high inter- and intra-rater variability, and an automated method for segmentation of residual tumor in early post-operative MRI could lead to a more accurate estimation of extent of resection. In this study, two state-of-the-art neural network architectures for pre-operative segmentation were trained for the task. The models were extensively validated on a multicenter dataset with nearly 1000 patients, from 12 hospitals in Europe and the United States. The best performance achieved was a 61\% Dice score, and the best classification performance was about 80\% balanced accuracy, with a demonstrated ability to generalize across hospitals. In addition, the segmentation performance of the best models was on par with human expert raters. The predicted segmentations can be used to accurately classify the patients into those with residual tumor, and those with gross total resection.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (ho=0.88 for zero-shot; ho=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (appa=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.

Photoplethysmography (PPG) signals, which measure changes in blood volume in the skin using light, have recently gained attention in biometric authentication because of their non-invasive acquisition, inherent liveness detection, and suitability for low-cost wearable devices. However, PPG signal quality is challenged by motion artifacts, illumination changes, and inter-subject physiological variability, making robust feature extraction and classification crucial. This study proposes a lightweight and cost-effective biometric authentication framework based on PPG signals extracted from low-frame-rate fingertip videos. The CFIHSR dataset, comprising PPG recordings from 46 subjects at a sampling rate of 14 Hz, is employed for evaluation. The raw PPG signals undergo a standard preprocessing pipeline involving baseline drift removal, motion artifact suppression using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), bandpass filtering, Fourier-based resampling, and amplitude normalization. To generate robust representations, each one-dimensional PPG segment is converted into a two-dimensional time-frequency scalogram via the Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT), effectively capturing transient cardiovascular dynamics. We developed a hybrid deep learning model, termed CVT-ConvMixer-LSTM, by combining spatial features from the Convolutional Vision Transformer (CVT) and ConvMixer branches with temporal features from a Long Short-Term Memory network (LSTM). The experimental results on 46 subjects demonstrate an authentication accuracy of 98%, validating the robustness of the model to noise and variability between subjects. Due to its efficiency, scalability, and inherent liveness detection capability, the proposed system is well-suited for real-world mobile and embedded biometric security applications.

This study investigates the consistency of feedback ratings generated by OpenAI's GPT-4, a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence language model, across multiple iterations, time spans and stylistic variations. The model rated responses to tasks within the Higher Education (HE) subject domain of macroeconomics in terms of their content and style. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to learn more about the interrater reliability, consistency of the ratings across iterations and the correlation between ratings in terms of content and style. The results revealed a high interrater reliability with ICC scores ranging between 0.94 and 0.99 for different timespans, suggesting that GPT-4 is capable of generating consistent ratings across repetitions with a clear prompt. Style and content ratings show a high correlation of 0.87. When applying a non-adequate style the average content ratings remained constant, while style ratings decreased, which indicates that the large language model (LLM) effectively distinguishes between these two criteria during evaluation. The prompt used in this study is furthermore presented and explained. Further research is necessary to assess the robustness and reliability of AI models in various use cases.

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.

Qualitative research faces a critical reliability challenge: traditional inter-rater agreement methods require multiple human coders, are time-intensive, and often yield moderate consistency. We present a multi-perspective validation framework for LLM-based thematic analysis that combines ensemble validation with dual reliability metrics: Cohen's Kappa (κ) for inter-rater agreement and cosine similarity for semantic consistency. Our framework enables configurable analysis parameters (1-6 seeds, temperature 0.0-2.0), supports custom prompt structures with variable substitution, and provides consensus theme extraction across any JSON format. As proof-of-concept, we evaluate three leading LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) on a psychedelic art therapy interview transcript, conducting six independent runs per model. Results demonstrate Gemini achieves highest reliability (κ= 0.907, cosine=95.3%), followed by GPT-4o (κ= 0.853, cosine=92.6%) and Claude (κ= 0.842, cosine=92.1%). All three models achieve a high agreement (κ> 0.80), validating the multi-run ensemble approach. The framework successfully extracts consensus themes across runs, with Gemini identifying 6 consensus themes (50-83% consistency), GPT-4o identifying 5 themes, and Claude 4 themes. Our open-source implementation provides researchers with transparent reliability metrics, flexible configuration, and structure-agnostic consensus extraction, establishing methodological foundations for reliable AI-assisted qualitative research.

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

Medical image segmentation exhibits intra- and inter-annotator variability due to ambiguous object boundaries, annotator preferences, expertise, and tools, among other factors. Lesions with ambiguous boundaries, e.g., spiculated or infiltrative nodules, or irregular borders per the ABCD rule, are particularly prone to disagreement and are often associated with malignancy. In this work, we curate IMA++, the largest multi-annotator skin lesion segmentation dataset, on which we conduct an in-depth study of variability due to annotator, malignancy, tool, and skill factors. We find a statistically significant (p<0.001) association between inter-annotator agreement (IAA), measured using Dice, and the malignancy of skin lesions. We further show that IAA can be accurately predicted directly from dermoscopic images, achieving a mean absolute error of 0.108. Finally, we leverage this association by utilizing IAA as a "soft" clinical feature within a multi-task learning objective, yielding a 4.2% improvement in balanced accuracy averaged across multiple model architectures and across IMA++ and four public dermoscopic datasets. The code is available at https://github.com/sfu-mial/skin-IAV.

Radiological imaging is central to diagnosis, treatment planning, and clinical decision-making. Vision-language foundation models have spurred interest in automated radiology report generation (RRG), but safe deployment requires reliable clinical evaluation of generated reports. Existing metrics often rely on surface-level similarity or behave as black boxes, lacking interpretability. We introduce ICARE (Interpretable and Clinically-grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation), an interpretable evaluation framework leveraging large language model agents and dynamic multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Two agents, each with either the ground-truth or generated report, generate clinically meaningful questions and quiz each other. Agreement on answers captures preservation and consistency of findings, serving as interpretable proxies for clinical precision and recall. By linking scores to question-answer pairs, ICARE enables transparent, and interpretable assessment. Clinician studies show ICARE aligns significantly more with expert judgment than prior metrics. Perturbation analyses confirm sensitivity to clinical content and reproducibility, while model comparisons reveal interpretable error patterns.

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

Automated radiology report generation from chest X-ray (CXR) images has the potential to improve clinical efficiency and reduce radiologists' workload. However, most datasets, including the publicly available MIMIC-CXR and CheXpert Plus, consist entirely of free-form reports, which are inherently variable and unstructured. This variability poses challenges for both generation and evaluation: existing models struggle to produce consistent, clinically meaningful reports, and standard evaluation metrics fail to capture the nuances of radiological interpretation. To address this, we introduce Structured Radiology Report Generation (SRRG), a new task that reformulates free-text radiology reports into a standardized format, ensuring clarity, consistency, and structured clinical reporting. We create a novel dataset by restructuring reports using large language models (LLMs) following strict structured reporting desiderata. Additionally, we introduce SRR-BERT, a fine-grained disease classification model trained on 55 labels, enabling more precise and clinically informed evaluation of structured reports. To assess report quality, we propose F1-SRR-BERT, a metric that leverages SRR-BERT's hierarchical disease taxonomy to bridge the gap between free-text variability and structured clinical reporting. We validate our dataset through a reader study conducted by five board-certified radiologists and extensive benchmarking experiments.

Typical neural network trainings have substantial variance in test-set performance between repeated runs, impeding hyperparameter comparison and training reproducibility. We present the following results towards understanding this variation. (1) Despite having significant variance on their test-sets, we demonstrate that standard CIFAR-10 and ImageNet trainings have very little variance in their performance on the test-distributions from which those test-sets are sampled, suggesting that variance is less of a practical issue than previously thought. (2) We present a simplifying statistical assumption which closely approximates the structure of the test-set accuracy distribution. (3) We argue that test-set variance is inevitable in the following two senses. First, we show that variance is largely caused by high sensitivity of the training process to initial conditions, rather than by specific sources of randomness like the data order and augmentations. Second, we prove that variance is unavoidable given the observation that ensembles of trained networks are well-calibrated. (4) We conduct preliminary studies of distribution-shift, fine-tuning, data augmentation and learning rate through the lens of variance between runs.

To effectively optimize and personalize treatments, it is necessary to investigate the heterogeneity of treatment effects. With the wide range of users being treated over many online controlled experiments, the typical approach of manually investigating each dimension of heterogeneity becomes overly cumbersome and prone to subjective human biases. We need an efficient way to search through thousands of experiments with hundreds of target covariates and hundreds of breakdown dimensions. In this paper, we propose a systematic paradigm for detecting, surfacing and characterizing heterogeneous treatment effects. First, we detect if treatment effect variation is present in an experiment, prior to specifying any breakdowns. Second, we surface the most relevant dimensions for heterogeneity. Finally, we characterize the heterogeneity beyond just the conditional average treatment effects (CATE) by studying the conditional distributions of the estimated individual treatment effects. We show the effectiveness of our methods using simulated data and empirical studies.

While LLM-as-a-Judge is widely used in automated evaluation, existing validation practices primarily operate at the level of observed outputs, offering limited insight into whether LLM judges themselves function as stable and reliable measurement instruments. To address this limitation, we introduce a two-phase diagnostic framework for assessing reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge, grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT). The framework adopts Graded Response Model (GRM) of IRT and formalizes reliability along two complementary dimensions: (1) intrinsic consistency, defined as the stability of measurement behavior under prompt variations, and (2) human alignment, capturing correspondence with human quality assessments. We empirically examine diverse LLM judges with this framework, and show that leveraging IRT-GRM yields interpretable signals for diagnosing judgments systematically. These signals provide practical guidance for verifying reliablity of LLM-as-a-Judge and identifying potential causes of unreliability.

Previous research on radiology report generation has made significant progress in terms of increasing the clinical accuracy of generated reports. In this paper, we emphasize another crucial quality that it should possess, i.e., inter-report consistency, which refers to the capability of generating consistent reports for semantically equivalent radiographs. This quality is even of greater significance than the overall report accuracy in terms of ensuring the system's credibility, as a system prone to providing conflicting results would severely erode users' trust. Regrettably, existing approaches struggle to maintain inter-report consistency, exhibiting biases towards common patterns and susceptibility to lesion variants. To address this issue, we propose ICON, which improves the inter-report consistency of radiology report generation. Aiming at enhancing the system's ability to capture the similarities in semantically equivalent lesions, our approach involves first extracting lesions from input images and examining their characteristics. Then, we introduce a lesion-aware mix-up augmentation technique to ensure that the representations of the semantically equivalent lesions align with the same attributes, by linearly interpolating them during the training phase. Extensive experiments on three publicly available chest X-ray datasets verify the effectiveness of our approach, both in terms of improving the consistency and accuracy of the generated reports.

Human evaluation is the gold-standard for evaluating text generation models. It is also expensive, and to fit budgetary constraints, a random subset of the test data is often chosen in practice. The randomly selected data may not accurately represent test performance, making this approach economically inefficient for model comparison. Thus, in this work, we develop a suite of selectors to get the most informative datapoints for human evaluation while taking the evaluation costs into account. We show that selectors based on variance in automated metric scores, diversity in model outputs, or Item Response Theory outperform random selection. We further develop an approach to distill these selectors to the scenario where the model outputs are not yet available. In particular, we introduce source-based estimators, which predict item usefulness for human evaluation just based on the source texts. We demonstrate the efficacy of our selectors in two common NLG tasks, machine translation and summarization, and show that up to only ~50% of the test data is needed to produce the same evaluation result as the entire data. Our implementations are published in the subset2evaluate package.

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

Spontaneous speech emotion data usually contain perceptual grades where graders assign emotion score after listening to the speech files. Such perceptual grades introduce uncertainty in labels due to grader opinion variation. Grader variation is addressed by using consensus grades as groundtruth, where the emotion with the highest vote is selected. Consensus grades fail to consider ambiguous instances where a speech sample may contain multiple emotions, as captured through grader opinion uncertainty. We demonstrate that using the probability density function of the emotion grades as targets instead of the commonly used consensus grades, provide better performance on benchmark evaluation sets compared to results reported in the literature. We show that a saliency driven foundation model (FM) representation selection helps to train a state-of-the-art speech emotion model for both dimensional and categorical emotion recognition. Comparing representations obtained from different FMs, we observed that focusing on overall test-set performance can be deceiving, as it fails to reveal the models generalization capacity across speakers and gender. We demonstrate that performance evaluation across multiple test-sets and performance analysis across gender and speakers are useful in assessing usefulness of emotion models. Finally, we demonstrate that label uncertainty and data-skew pose a challenge to model evaluation, where instead of using the best hypothesis, it is useful to consider the 2- or 3-best hypotheses.

Most papers caution against using predictive models for disease stratification based on unselected radiomic features, as these features are affected by contouring variability. Instead, they advocate for the use of the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) as a measure of stability for feature selection. However, the direct effect of segmentation variability on the predictive models is rarely studied. This study investigates the impact of segmentation variability on feature stability and predictive performance in radiomics-based prediction of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) subtype using Magnetic Resonance Imaging. A total of 244 images from the Duke dataset were used, with segmentation variability introduced through modifications of manual segmentations. For each mask, explainable radiomic features were selected using the Shapley Additive exPlanations method and used to train logistic regression models. Feature stability across segmentations was assessed via ICC, Pearson's correlation, and reliability scores quantifying the relationship between feature stability and segmentation variability. Results indicate that segmentation accuracy does not significantly impact predictive performance. While incorporating peritumoral information may reduce feature reproducibility, it does not diminish feature predictive capability. Moreover, feature selection in predictive models is not inherently tied to feature stability with respect to segmentation, suggesting that an overreliance on ICC or reliability scores for feature selection might exclude valuable predictive features.

Despite rapid advancements in TTS models, a consistent and robust human evaluation framework is still lacking. For example, MOS tests fail to differentiate between similar models, and CMOS's pairwise comparisons are time-intensive. The MUSHRA test is a promising alternative for evaluating multiple TTS systems simultaneously, but in this work we show that its reliance on matching human reference speech unduly penalises the scores of modern TTS systems that can exceed human speech quality. More specifically, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of the MUSHRA test, focusing on its sensitivity to factors such as rater variability, listener fatigue, and reference bias. Based on our extensive evaluation involving 471 human listeners across Hindi and Tamil we identify two primary shortcomings: (i) reference-matching bias, where raters are unduly influenced by the human reference, and (ii) judgement ambiguity, arising from a lack of clear fine-grained guidelines. To address these issues, we propose two refined variants of the MUSHRA test. The first variant enables fairer ratings for synthesized samples that surpass human reference quality. The second variant reduces ambiguity, as indicated by the relatively lower variance across raters. By combining these approaches, we achieve both more reliable and more fine-grained assessments. We also release MANGO, a massive dataset of 47,100 human ratings, the first-of-its-kind collection for Indian languages, aiding in analyzing human preferences and developing automatic metrics for evaluating TTS systems.

Automated evaluation of free-form outputs from large language models (LLMs) is challenging because many distinct answers can be equally valid. A common practice is to use LLMs themselves as judges, but the theoretical properties of this approach are not yet well understood. We show that a geometric framework that represents both judges and candidates as points on a probability simplex can provide helpful insight on what is or is not identifiable using LLM judges. Our theoretical analysis uncovers a "phase transition" in ranking identifiability: for binary scoring systems, true rankings are identifiable even with weak judges under mild assumptions, while rankings become non-identifiable for three or more scoring levels even with infinite data, absent additional prior knowledge. This non-identifiability highlights how uncertainty in rankings stems from not only aleatoric uncertainty (i.e., inherent stochasticity in the data) but also epistemic uncertainty regarding which assumptions hold, an aspect that has received limited attention until now. To integrate both types of uncertainty, we use Bayesian inference to encode assumptions as priors and conduct sensitivity analysis of ranking estimates and credible intervals. Empirical evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that Bayesian inference yields more accurate rankings and substantially improves coverage rates. These results underscore the importance of taking a more holistic approach to uncertainty quantification when using LLMs as judges.

We investigate whether synthetic question-answer (QA) data generated by large language models (LLMs) can serve as an effective proxy for human-labeled benchmarks when such data is unavailable. We assess the reliability of synthetic benchmarks across two experiments: one varying retriever parameters while keeping the generator fixed, and another varying the generator with fixed retriever parameters. Across four datasets, of which two open-domain and two proprietary, we find that synthetic benchmarks reliably rank the RAGs varying in terms of retriever configuration, aligning well with human-labeled benchmark baselines. However, they fail to produce consistent RAG rankings when comparing generator architectures. The breakdown possibly arises from a combination of task mismatch between the synthetic and human benchmarks, and stylistic bias favoring certain generators.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has developed evaluation frameworks to assess reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address LLM internal inconsistency. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-Judge methods, leading to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge on alignment tasks by defining more theoretically interpretable evaluation metrics and explicitly mitigating LLM internal inconsistency from reliability metrics. We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges, which facilitates practitioners to choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. In the experiments, we examine effects of diverse prompt templates on LLM-judge reliability and also demonstrate our developed framework by comparing various LLM judges on two common alignment datasets (i.e., TL;DR Summarization and HH-RLHF-Helpfulness). Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

Current preference learning methods achieve high accuracy on standard benchmarks but exhibit significant performance degradation when objective quality signals are removed. We introduce WritingPreferenceBench, a dataset of 1,800 human-annotated preference pairs (1,200 English, 600 Chinese) across 8 creative writing genres, where responses are matched for objective correctness, factual accuracy, and length. On this benchmark, sequence-based reward models--the standard architecture for RLHF--achieve only 52.7% mean accuracy, while zero-shot language model judges perform at 53.9%. In contrast, generative reward models that produce explicit reasoning chains achieve 81.8% accuracy. We observe high within-model variance across genres: individual models range from 18.2% to 81.8% accuracy across different writing categories, with standard deviations averaging 10.1%. This variance persists regardless of model scale, with 27B parameter models showing no consistent improvement over 8B variants. Our results suggest that current RLHF methods primarily learn to detect objective errors rather than capture subjective quality preferences (e.g., creativity, stylistic flair, and emotional resonance), and that successful preference modeling may require intermediate reasoning representations rather than direct classification.

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

Cross-lingual evaluation of large language models (LLMs) typically conflates two sources of variance: genuine model performance differences and measurement instability. We investigate evaluation reliability by holding generation conditions constant while varying target language. Using synthetic customer-support dialogues generated with identical parameters across Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian, we test whether automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge scoring produce stable model rankings across these morphologically rich, related Finno-Ugric languages. With a small set of Estonian native speaker annotations as a reference point, we find systematic ranking instabilities: surface-level metrics (lexical diversity, surface and semantic similarity) maintain cross-language stability, but pragmatic judgments (coherence, instruction-following) exhibit rank inversions and near-zero correlations. Because generation is controlled, these inconsistencies reflect how judge scoring behaves differently across languages rather than true model differences. This controlled design provides a diagnostic probe: evaluation methods that fail to maintain stability under identical generation conditions signal transfer failure before deployment. Our findings suggest that zero-shot judge transfer is unreliable for discourse-level assessment in morphologically rich languages, motivating language-specific calibration against targeted human baselines. We release our controlled generation protocol, synthetic data, and evaluation framework to enable replication across language families at https://github.com/isaac-chung/cross-lingual-stability-judges.

We propose a general method for measuring complex variables on a continuous, interval spectrum by combining supervised deep learning with the Constructing Measures approach to faceted Rasch item response theory (IRT). We decompose the target construct, hate speech in our case, into multiple constituent components that are labeled as ordinal survey items. Those survey responses are transformed via IRT into a debiased, continuous outcome measure. Our method estimates the survey interpretation bias of the human labelers and eliminates that influence on the generated continuous measure. We further estimate the response quality of each labeler using faceted IRT, allowing responses from low-quality labelers to be removed. Our faceted Rasch scaling procedure integrates naturally with a multitask deep learning architecture for automated prediction on new data. The ratings on the theorized components of the target outcome are used as supervised, ordinal variables for the neural networks' internal concept learning. We test the use of an activation function (ordinal softmax) and loss function (ordinal cross-entropy) designed to exploit the structure of ordinal outcome variables. Our multitask architecture leads to a new form of model interpretation because each continuous prediction can be directly explained by the constituent components in the penultimate layer. We demonstrate this new method on a dataset of 50,000 social media comments sourced from YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit and labeled by 11,000 U.S.-based Amazon Mechanical Turk workers to measure a continuous spectrum from hate speech to counterspeech. We evaluate Universal Sentence Encoders, BERT, and RoBERTa as language representation models for the comment text, and compare our predictive accuracy to Google Jigsaw's Perspective API models, showing significant improvement over this standard benchmark.

The effects of speaking-style variability on automatic speaker verification were investigated using the UCLA Speaker Variability database which comprises multiple speaking styles per speaker. An x-vector/PLDA (probabilistic linear discriminant analysis) system was trained with the SRE and Switchboard databases with standard augmentation techniques and evaluated with utterances from the UCLA database. The equal error rate (EER) was low when enrollment and test utterances were of the same style (e.g., 0.98% and 0.57% for read and conversational speech, respectively), but it increased substantially when styles were mismatched between enrollment and test utterances. For instance, when enrolled with conversation utterances, the EER increased to 3.03%, 2.96% and 22.12% when tested on read, narrative, and pet-directed speech, respectively. To reduce the effect of style mismatch, we propose an entropy-based variable frame rate technique to artificially generate style-normalized representations for PLDA adaptation. The proposed system significantly improved performance. In the aforementioned conditions, the EERs improved to 2.69% (conversation -- read), 2.27% (conversation -- narrative), and 18.75% (pet-directed -- read). Overall, the proposed technique performed comparably to multi-style PLDA adaptation without the need for training data in different speaking styles per speaker.

This study investigates GPT-4's assessment of its performance in healthcare applications. A simple prompting technique was used to prompt the LLM with questions taken from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questionnaire and it was tasked to evaluate its confidence score before posing the question and after asking the question. The questionnaire was categorized into two groups-questions with feedback (WF) and questions with no feedback(NF) post-question. The model was asked to provide absolute and relative confidence scores before and after each question. The experimental findings were analyzed using statistical tools to study the variability of confidence in WF and NF groups. Additionally, a sequential analysis was conducted to observe the performance variation for the WF and NF groups. Results indicate that feedback influences relative confidence but doesn't consistently increase or decrease it. Understanding the performance of LLM is paramount in exploring its utility in sensitive areas like healthcare. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the reliability of AI, particularly of LLMs like GPT-4, within healthcare, offering insights into how feedback mechanisms might be optimized to enhance AI-assisted medical education and decision support.

Social scientists are now using large language models to create "silicon samples" - synthetic datasets intended to stand in for human respondents, aimed at revolutionising human subjects research. However, there are many analytic choices which must be made to produce these samples. Though many of these choices are defensible, their impact on sample quality is poorly understood. I map out these analytic choices and demonstrate how a very small number of decisions can dramatically change the correspondence between silicon samples and human data. Configurations (N = 252) varied substantially in their capacity to estimate (i) rank ordering of participants, (ii) response distributions, and (iii) between-scale correlations. Most critically, configurations were not consistent in quality: those that performed well on one dimension often performed poorly on another, implying that there is no "one-size-fits-all" configuration that optimises the accuracy of these samples. I call for greater attention to the threat of analytic flexibility in using silicon samples.

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.

Scaling educational assessment with large language models requires not just accuracy, but the ability to recognize when predictions are trustworthy. Instruction-tuned models tend to be overconfident, and their reliability deteriorates as curricula evolve, making fully autonomous deployment unsafe in high-stakes settings. We introduce CHiL(L)Grader, the first automated grading framework that incorporates calibrated confidence estimation into a human-in-the-loop workflow. Using post-hoc temperature scaling, confidence-based selective prediction, and continual learning, CHiL(L)Grader automates only high-confidence predictions while routing uncertain cases to human graders, and adapts to evolving rubrics and unseen questions. Across three short-answer grading datasets, CHiL(L)Grader automatically scores 35-65% of responses at expert-level quality (QWK >= 0.80). A QWK gap of 0.347 between accepted and rejected predictions confirms the effectiveness of the confidence-based routing. Each correction cycle strengthens the model's grading capability as it learns from teacher feedback. These results show that uncertainty quantification is key for reliable AI-assisted grading.

Masked autoencoders (MAEs) are increasingly applied to electronic health records (EHR) for learning general-purpose representations that support diverse clinical tasks. However, existing approaches typically rely on uniform random masking, implicitly assuming all features are equally predictable. In reality, laboratory tests exhibit substantial heterogeneity in volatility: some biomarkers (e.g., sodium) remain stable, while others (e.g., lactate) fluctuate considerably and are more difficult to model. Clinically, volatile biomarkers often signal acute pathophysiology and require more sophisticated modeling to capture their complex temporal patterns. We propose a volatility-aware pretraining strategy, Coefficient of Variation Masking (CV-Masking), that adaptively adjusts masking probabilities according to the intrinsic variability of each feature. Combined with a value-only masking objective aligned with clinical workflows, CV-Masking yields systematic improvements over random and variance-based strategies. Experiments on a large panel of laboratory tests show that CV-Masking enhances reconstruction, improves downstream predictive performance, and accelerates convergence, producing more robust and clinically meaningful EHR representations.

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

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.

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

We present the first sizeable corpus of Thai speech emotion recognition, THAI-SER, containing 41 hours and 36 minutes (27,854 utterances) from 100 recordings made in different recording environments: Zoom and two studio setups. The recordings contain both scripted and improvised sessions, acted by 200 professional actors (112 females and 88 males, aged 18 to 55) and were directed by professional directors. There are five primary emotions: neutral, angry, happy, sad, and frustrated, assigned to the actors when recording utterances. The utterances are annotated with an emotional category using crowdsourcing. To control the annotation process's quality, we also design an extensive filtering and quality control scheme to ensure that the majority agreement score remains above 0.71. We evaluate our annotated corpus using two metrics: inter-annotator reliability and human recognition accuracy. Inter-annotator reliability score was calculated using Krippendorff's alpha, where our corpus, after filtering, achieved an alpha score of 0.692, higher than a recommendation of 0.667. For human recognition accuracy, our corpus scored up to 0.772 post-filtering. We also provide the results of the model trained on the corpus evaluated on both in-corpus and cross-corpus setups. The corpus is publicly available under a Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0, as well as our codes for the experiments.

Large language models achieve high performance on many but not all downstream tasks. The interaction between pretraining data and task data is commonly assumed to determine this variance: a task with data that is more similar to a model's pretraining data is assumed to be easier for that model. We test whether distributional and example-specific similarity measures (embedding-, token- and model-based) correlate with language model performance through a large-scale comparison of the Pile and C4 pretraining datasets with downstream benchmarks. Similarity correlates with performance for multilingual datasets, but in other benchmarks, we surprisingly find that similarity metrics are not correlated with accuracy or even each other. This suggests that the relationship between pretraining data and downstream tasks is more complex than often assumed.

This paper presents synthetic Preference Optimization (PO) datasets generated using multi-agent workflows and evaluates the effectiveness and potential of these workflows in the dataset generation process. PO dataset generation requires two modules: (1) response evaluation, and (2) response generation. In the response evaluation module, the responses from Large Language Models (LLMs) are evaluated and ranked - a task typically carried out by human annotators that we automate using LLMs. We assess the response evaluation module in a 2 step process. In step 1, we assess LLMs as evaluators using three distinct prompting strategies. In step 2, we apply the winning prompting strategy to compare the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge, LLMs-as-a-Jury, and LLM Debate. In each step, we use inter-rater agreement using Cohen's Kappa between human annotators and LLMs. For the response generation module, we compare different configurations for the LLM Feedback Loop using the identified LLM evaluator configuration. We use the win rate (the fraction of times a generation framework is selected as the best by an LLM evaluator) to determine the best multi-agent configuration for generation. After identifying the best configurations for both modules, we use models from the GPT, Gemma, and Llama families to generate our PO datasets using the above pipeline. We generate two types of PO datasets, one to improve the generation capabilities of individual LLM and the other to improve the multi-agent workflow. Our evaluation shows that GPT-4o-as-a-Judge is more consistent across datasets when the candidate responses do not include responses from the GPT family. Additionally, we find that the LLM Feedback Loop, with Llama as the generator and Gemma as the reviewer, achieves a notable 71.8% and 73.8% win rate over single-agent Llama and Gemma, respectively.

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.

This study evaluates the performance of large language models (LLMs) as medical agents in Portuguese, aiming to develop a reliable and relevant virtual assistant for healthcare professionals. The HealthCareMagic-100k-en and MedQuAD datasets, translated from English using GPT-3.5, were used to fine-tune the ChatBode-7B model using the PEFT-QLoRA method. The InternLM2 model, with initial training on medical data, presented the best overall performance, with high precision and adequacy in metrics such as accuracy, completeness and safety. However, DrBode models, derived from ChatBode, exhibited a phenomenon of catastrophic forgetting of acquired medical knowledge. Despite this, these models performed frequently or even better in aspects such as grammaticality and coherence. A significant challenge was low inter-rater agreement, highlighting the need for more robust assessment protocols. This work paves the way for future research, such as evaluating multilingual models specific to the medical field, improving the quality of training data, and developing more consistent evaluation methodologies for the medical field.

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.

Common evaluation paradigms for language models focus on scoring single responses through accuracy metrics or proper scoring rules, failing to capture the full richness of a model's belief state. Recent work illustrates that language models hallucinate in-part because they are optimised to be good test-takers under binary scoring schemes that reward any answer over abstention. While this insight naturally leads to penalty-based approaches, they ignore crucial distinctions in how models distribute uncertainty, for example between hedging toward incorrect answers versus hedging toward "I don't know" responses. A novel evaluation metric, the Distributional Correctness Score (DCS), is introduced to solve this problem, i.e., of not considering a model's entire probability distribution over answer choices. DCS naturally distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range. Through theoretical analysis and illustrative examples, DCS is demonstrated to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing. Adapting 12 existing evaluation benchmarks to DCS's variants and measuring performance on six language models reveals that for half of the tested benchmarks scores are negative across all tested models, indicating significant tendencies towards hallucination.

Employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to assess the quality of generated responses, such as prompting instruct-tuned models or fine-tuning judge models, has become a widely adopted evaluation method. It is also known that such evaluators are vulnerable to biases, such as favoring longer responses. While it is important to overcome this problem, the specifics of these biases remain under-explored. In this work, we qualitatively identify six types of biases inherent in various judge models. We propose EvalBiasBench as a meta-evaluation collection of hand-crafted test cases for each bias type. Additionally, we present de-biasing dataset construction methods and the associated preference dataset OffsetBias. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning on our dataset significantly enhances the robustness of judge models against biases and improves performance across most evaluation scenarios. We release our datasets and the fine-tuned judge model to public.

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

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

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

In mental health counseling, a variety of earlier studies have focused on dialogue modeling. However, most of these studies give limited to no emphasis on the quality of interaction between a patient and a therapist. The therapeutic bond between a patient and a therapist directly correlates with effective mental health counseling. It involves developing the patient's trust on the therapist over the course of counseling. To assess the therapeutic bond in counseling, we introduce trust as a therapist-assistive metric. Our definition of trust involves patients' willingness and openness to express themselves and, consequently, receive better care. We conceptualize it as a dynamic trajectory observable through textual interactions during the counseling. To facilitate trust modeling, we present MENTAL-TRUST, a novel counseling dataset comprising manual annotation of 212 counseling sessions with first-of-its-kind seven expert-verified ordinal trust levels. We project our problem statement as an ordinal classification task for trust quantification and propose a new benchmark, TrustBench, comprising a suite of classical and state-of-the-art language models on MENTAL-TRUST. We evaluate the performance across a suite of metrics and lay out an exhaustive set of findings. Our study aims to unfold how trust evolves in therapeutic interactions.

Advanced LLMs have achieved near-ceiling instruction-following accuracy on benchmarks such as IFEval. However, these impressive scores do not necessarily translate to reliable services in real-world use, where users often vary their phrasing, contextual framing, and task formulations. In this paper, we study nuance-oriented reliability: whether models exhibit consistent competence across cousin prompts that convey analogous user intents but with subtle nuances. To quantify this, we introduce a new metric, reliable@k, and develop an automated pipeline that generates high-quality cousin prompts via data augmentation. Building upon this, we construct IFEval++ for systematic evaluation. Across 20 proprietary and 26 open-source LLMs, we find that current models exhibit substantial insufficiency in nuance-oriented reliability -- their performance can drop by up to 61.8% with nuanced prompt modifications. What's more, we characterize it and explore three potential improvement recipes. Our findings highlight nuance-oriented reliability as a crucial yet underexplored next step toward more dependable and trustworthy LLM behavior. Our code and benchmark are accessible: https://github.com/jianshuod/IFEval-pp.

Benchmarks measure whether a model is correct. They do not measure whether a model is reliable. This distinction is largely academic for single-shot inference, but becomes critical for agentic AI systems, where a single rephrased prompt can trigger cascading failures in multi-step execution. Yet this form of instability is not captured by existing evaluations. Hallucinations live in variance: they arise when semantically equivalent prompts activate inconsistent internal pathways, producing divergent outputs. Consistent but incorrect outputs reflect bias or missing knowledge; confident guessing reflects calibration failure. Neither constitutes hallucination under this definition. When error is variance-dominated, reducing redundant pathways improves reliability without adding knowledge. We formalize this through Semantic Stability (SS), measured via Paraphrase Consistency (PC@k): generate k paraphrases, greedy decode each, compute mode agreement. SS is a diagnostic for variance-driven unreliability, not a method for improving correctness. We show that a dense Qwen3-0.6B agrees with itself only 23.8% of the time; at 32% sparsity, agreement jumps to 55.9%. A phase diagram reveals the sweet spot where variance reduction outpaces bias accumulation, and regimes where stability collapses onto wrong answers.

Machine learning models are often used to inform real world risk assessment tasks: predicting consumer default risk, predicting whether a person suffers from a serious illness, or predicting a person's risk to appear in court. Given multiple models that perform almost equally well for a prediction task, to what extent do predictions vary across these models? If predictions are relatively consistent for similar models, then the standard approach of choosing the model that optimizes a penalized loss suffices. But what if predictions vary significantly for similar models? In machine learning, this is referred to as predictive multiplicity i.e. the prevalence of conflicting predictions assigned by near-optimal competing models. In this paper, we present a framework for measuring predictive multiplicity in probabilistic classification (predicting the probability of a positive outcome). We introduce measures that capture the variation in risk estimates over the set of competing models, and develop optimization-based methods to compute these measures efficiently and reliably for convex empirical risk minimization problems. We demonstrate the incidence and prevalence of predictive multiplicity in real-world tasks. Further, we provide insight into how predictive multiplicity arises by analyzing the relationship between predictive multiplicity and data set characteristics (outliers, separability, and majority-minority structure). Our results emphasize the need to report predictive multiplicity more widely.

We introduce CAT, a framework designed to evaluate and visualize the interplay of accuracy and response consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) under controllable input variations, using multiple-choice (MC) benchmarks as a case study. Current evaluation practices primarily focus on model capabilities such as accuracy or benchmark scores and, more recently, measuring consistency is being considered an essential property for deploying LLMs in high-stake, real-world applications. We argue in this paper that although both dimensions should still be evaluated independently, their inter-dependency also need to be considered for a more nuanced evaluation of LLMs. At the core of CAT are the Consistency-Accuracy Relation (CAR) curves, which visualize how model accuracy varies with increasing consistency requirements, as defined by the Minimum-Consistency Accuracy (MCA) metric. We further propose the Consistency-Oriented Robustness Estimate (CORE) index, a global metric that combines the area and shape of the CAR curve to quantify the trade-off between accuracy and consistency. We present a practical demonstration of our framework across a diverse set of generalist and domain-specific LLMs, evaluated on multiple MC benchmarks. We also outline how CAT can be extended beyond MC tasks to support long-form, open-ended evaluations through adaptable scoring functions.

Agentic systems are evaluated on benchmarks where agents interact with environments to solve tasks. Most papers report a pass@1 score computed from a single run per task, assuming this gives a reliable performance estimate. We test this assumption by collecting 60,000 agentic trajectories on SWE-Bench-Verified, spanning three models and two scaffolds. We find substantial variance: single-run pass@1 estimates vary by 2.2 to 6.0 percentage points depending on which run is selected, with standard deviations exceeding 1.5 percentage points even at temperature 0. This variance has critical implications: reported improvements of 2--3 percentage points may reflect evaluation noise rather than genuine algorithmic progress. Through token-level analysis, we show that trajectories diverge early, often within the first few percent of tokens, and that these small differences cascade into different solution strategies. To enable reliable evaluation of agentic systems, we recommend three concrete practices: (1) estimate pass@1 from multiple independent runs per task, especially when measuring small improvements, (2) use statistical power analysis to determine the number of runs needed to detect expected effect sizes, and (3) consider metrics like pass@k (optimistic bound) and pass^k (pessimistic bound) with k>1 to better characterize the full performance envelope. While these practices increase evaluation cost, they are essential for distinguishing genuine scientific progress from statistical noise.

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

Recent work on chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness reports single aggregate numbers (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 acknowledges hints 39% of the time), implying that faithfulness is an objective, measurable property of a model. This paper demonstrates that it is not. Three classifiers (a regex-only detector, a two-stage regex-plus-LLM pipeline, and an independent Claude Sonnet 4 judge) are applied to 10,276 influenced reasoning traces from 12 open-weight models spanning 9 families and 7B to 1T parameters. On identical data, these classifiers produce overall faithfulness rates of 74.4%, 82.6%, and 69.7%, respectively, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Per-model gaps range from 2.6 to 30.6 percentage points; all are statistically significant (McNemar's test, p < 0.001). The disagreements are systematic, not random: inter-classifier agreement measured by Cohen's kappa ranges from 0.06 ("slight") for sycophancy hints to 0.42 ("moderate") for grader hints, and the asymmetry is pronounced: for sycophancy, 883 cases are classified as faithful by the pipeline but unfaithful by the Sonnet judge, while only 2 go the other direction. Classifier choice can also reverse model rankings: Qwen3.5-27B ranks 1st under the pipeline but 7th under the Sonnet judge; OLMo-3.1-32B moves in the opposite direction, from 9th to 3rd. The root cause is that different classifiers operationalize related faithfulness constructs at different levels of stringency (lexical mention versus epistemic dependence), and these constructs yield divergent measurements on the same behavior. These results demonstrate that published faithfulness numbers cannot be meaningfully compared across studies that use different classifiers, and that future evaluations should report sensitivity ranges across multiple classification methodologies rather than single point estimates.

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

Modern ML systems ingest data aggregated from diverse sources, such as synthetic, human-annotated, and live customer traffic. Understanding which examples are important to the performance of a learning algorithm is crucial for efficient model training. Recently, a growing body of literature has given rise to various "influence scores," which use training artifacts such as model confidence or checkpointed gradients to identify important subsets of data. However, these methods have primarily been developed in computer vision settings, and it remains unclear how well they generalize to language-based tasks using pretrained models. In this paper, we explore the applicability of influence scores in language classification tasks. We evaluate a diverse subset of these scores on the SNLI dataset by quantifying accuracy changes in response to pruning training data through random and influence-score-based sampling. We then stress-test one of the scores -- "variance of gradients" (VoG) from Agarwal et al. (2022) -- in an NLU model stack that was exposed to dynamic user speech patterns in a voice assistant type of setting. Our experiments demonstrate that in many cases, encoder-based language models can be finetuned on roughly 50% of the original data without degradation in performance metrics. Along the way, we summarize lessons learned from applying out-of-the-box implementations of influence scores, quantify the effects of noisy and class-imbalanced data, and offer recommendations on score-based sampling for better accuracy and training efficiency.

If the same neural network architecture is trained multiple times on the same dataset, will it make similar linguistic generalizations across runs? To study this question, we fine-tuned 100 instances of BERT on the Multi-genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) dataset and evaluated them on the HANS dataset, which evaluates syntactic generalization in natural language inference. On the MNLI development set, the behavior of all instances was remarkably consistent, with accuracy ranging between 83.6% and 84.8%. In stark contrast, the same models varied widely in their generalization performance. For example, on the simple case of subject-object swap (e.g., determining that "the doctor visited the lawyer" does not entail "the lawyer visited the doctor"), accuracy ranged from 0.00% to 66.2%. Such variation is likely due to the presence of many local minima that are equally attractive to a low-bias learner such as a neural network; decreasing the variability may therefore require models with stronger inductive biases.

The ability to estimate the quality of scientific papers is central to how both humans and AI systems will advance scientific knowledge in the future. However, existing LLM-based estimation methods suffer from high inference cost, whereas the faster direct score regression approach is limited by scale inconsistencies. We present NAIPv2, a debiased and efficient framework for paper quality estimation. NAIPv2 employs pairwise learning within domain-year groups to reduce inconsistencies in reviewer ratings and introduces the Review Tendency Signal (RTS) as a probabilistic integration of reviewer scores and confidences. To support training and evaluation, we further construct NAIDv2, a large-scale dataset of 24,276 ICLR submissions enriched with metadata and detailed structured content. Trained on pairwise comparisons but enabling efficient pointwise prediction at deployment, NAIPv2 achieves state-of-the-art performance (78.2% AUC, 0.432 Spearman), while maintaining scalable, linear-time efficiency at inference. Notably, on unseen NeurIPS submissions, it further demonstrates strong generalization, with predicted scores increasing consistently across decision categories from Rejected to Oral. These findings establish NAIPv2 as a debiased and scalable framework for automated paper quality estimation, marking a step toward future scientific intelligence systems. Code and dataset are released at https://sway.cloud.microsoft/Pr42npP80MfPhvj8.

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

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

Text-to-audio (TTA) generation is advancing rapidly, but evaluation remains challenging because human listening studies are expensive and existing automatic metrics capture only limited aspects of perceptual quality. We introduce AudioEval, a large-scale TTA evaluation dataset with 4,200 generated audio samples (11.7 hours) from 24 systems and 126,000 ratings collected from both experts and non-experts across five dimensions: enjoyment, usefulness, complexity, quality, and text alignment. Using AudioEval, we benchmark diverse automatic evaluators to compare perspective- and dimension-level differences across model families. We also propose Qwen-DisQA as a strong reference baseline: it jointly processes prompts and generated audio to predict multi-dimensional ratings for both annotator groups, modeling rater disagreement via distributional prediction and achieving strong performance. We will release AudioEval to support future research in TTA evaluation.

Machine learning (ML) holds great potential for accurately forecasting treatment outcomes over time, which could ultimately enable the adoption of more individualized treatment strategies in many practical applications. However, a significant challenge that has been largely overlooked by the ML literature on this topic is the presence of informative sampling in observational data. When instances are observed irregularly over time, sampling times are typically not random, but rather informative -- depending on the instance's characteristics, past outcomes, and administered treatments. In this work, we formalize informative sampling as a covariate shift problem and show that it can prohibit accurate estimation of treatment outcomes if not properly accounted for. To overcome this challenge, we present a general framework for learning treatment outcomes in the presence of informative sampling using inverse intensity-weighting, and propose a novel method, TESAR-CDE, that instantiates this framework using Neural CDEs. Using a simulation environment based on a clinical use case, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in learning under informative sampling.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values and intents critically involves the use of human or AI feedback. While dense feedback annotations are expensive to acquire and integrate, sparse feedback presents a structural design choice between ratings (e.g., score Response A on a scale of 1-7) and rankings (e.g., is Response A better than Response B?). In this work, we analyze the effect of this design choice for the alignment and evaluation of LLMs. We uncover an inconsistency problem wherein the preferences inferred from ratings and rankings significantly disagree 60% for both human and AI annotators. Our subsequent analysis identifies various facets of annotator biases that explain this phenomena, such as human annotators would rate denser responses higher while preferring accuracy during pairwise judgments. To our surprise, we also observe that the choice of feedback protocol also has a significant effect on the evaluation of aligned LLMs. In particular, we find that LLMs that leverage rankings data for alignment (say model X) are preferred over those that leverage ratings data (say model Y), with a rank-based evaluation protocol (is X/Y's response better than reference response?) but not with a rating-based evaluation protocol (score Rank X/Y's response on a scale of 1-7). Our findings thus shed light on critical gaps in methods for evaluating the real-world utility of language models and their strong dependence on the feedback protocol used for alignment. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Hritikbansal/sparse_feedback.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

Patient education materials for solid-organ transplantation vary substantially across U.S. centers, yet no systematic method exists to quantify this heterogeneity at scale. We introduce a framework that grounds the same patient questions in different centers' handbooks using retrieval-augmented language models and compares the resulting answers using a five-label consistency taxonomy. Applied to 102 handbooks from 23 centers and 1,115 benchmark questions, the framework quantifies heterogeneity across four dimensions: question, topic, organ, and center. We find that 20.8% of non-absent pairwise comparisons exhibit clinically meaningful divergence, concentrated in condition monitoring and lifestyle topics. Coverage gaps are even more prominent: 96.2% of question-handbook pairs miss relevant content, with reproductive health at 95.1% absence. Center-level divergence profiles are stable and interpretable, where heterogeneity reflects systematic institutional differences, likely due to patient diversity. These findings expose an information gap in transplant patient education materials, with document-grounded medical question answering highlighting opportunities for content improvement.

Deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are predominantly evaluated by comparing their relative performance on a large suite of tasks. Most published results on deep RL benchmarks compare point estimates of aggregate performance such as mean and median scores across tasks, ignoring the statistical uncertainty implied by the use of a finite number of training runs. Beginning with the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), the shift towards computationally-demanding benchmarks has led to the practice of evaluating only a small number of runs per task, exacerbating the statistical uncertainty in point estimates. In this paper, we argue that reliable evaluation in the few run deep RL regime cannot ignore the uncertainty in results without running the risk of slowing down progress in the field. We illustrate this point using a case study on the Atari 100k benchmark, where we find substantial discrepancies between conclusions drawn from point estimates alone versus a more thorough statistical analysis. With the aim of increasing the field's confidence in reported results with a handful of runs, we advocate for reporting interval estimates of aggregate performance and propose performance profiles to account for the variability in results, as well as present more robust and efficient aggregate metrics, such as interquartile mean scores, to achieve small uncertainty in results. Using such statistical tools, we scrutinize performance evaluations of existing algorithms on other widely used RL benchmarks including the ALE, Procgen, and the DeepMind Control Suite, again revealing discrepancies in prior comparisons. Our findings call for a change in how we evaluate performance in deep RL, for which we present a more rigorous evaluation methodology, accompanied with an open-source library rliable, to prevent unreliable results from stagnating the field.

Large Language Models (LLMs) should refuse to answer questions beyond their knowledge. This capability, which we term knowledge-aware refusal, is crucial for factual reliability. However, existing metrics fail to faithfully measure this ability. On the one hand, simple refusal-based metrics are biased by refusal rates and yield inconsistent scores when models exhibit different refusal tendencies. On the other hand, existing calibration metrics are proxy-based, capturing the performance of auxiliary calibration processes rather than the model's actual refusal behavior. In this work, we propose the Refusal Index (RI), a principled metric that measures how accurately LLMs refuse questions they do not know. We define RI as Spearman's rank correlation between refusal probability and error probability. To make RI practically measurable, we design a lightweight two-pass evaluation method that efficiently estimates RI from observed refusal rates across two standard evaluation runs. Extensive experiments across 16 models and 5 datasets demonstrate that RI accurately quantifies a model's intrinsic knowledge-aware refusal capability in factual tasks. Notably, RI remains stable across different refusal rates and provides consistent model rankings independent of a model's overall accuracy and refusal rates. More importantly, RI provides insight into an important but previously overlooked aspect of LLM factuality: while LLMs achieve high accuracy on factual tasks, their refusal behavior can be unreliable and fragile. This finding highlights the need to complement traditional accuracy metrics with the Refusal Index for comprehensive factuality evaluation.

Benchmarks shape scientific conclusions about model capabilities and steer model development. This creates a feedback loop: stronger benchmarks drive better models, and better models demand more discriminative benchmarks. Ensuring benchmark reliability is therefore essential for trustworthy evaluation and meaningful progress. In this work, we study benchmark reliability from a distributional perspective and introduce benchmark harmony, which measures how uniformly a model's performance is distributed across the subdomains of a benchmark. We posit that high harmony is a desirable benchmark property, indicating that the aggregate metric reflects uniform competence across subdomains. Across 19 multiple-choice benchmarks and five model families, we map each benchmark onto a mean-variance plane of harmony computed across models, where high mean and low variance signal more reliable evaluation. Our analysis shows that less harmonious benchmarks can give misleading results, since overall accuracy may be disproportionately influenced by specific subdomains. For instance, ARC-Easy is overwhelmed by questions on Biological Concepts, overshadowing other critical subdomains such as Geography, Physics, Chemistry, and Environmental Science. By recommending that harmony should be reported alongside accuracy, we reframe evaluation from simple performance averages to a more robust, distributionally reliable measurement of performance.

Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations that sound plausible yet fail to reflect the underlying decision process, undermining trust in high-stakes clinical use. Existing evaluations rarely catch this misalignment, prioritizing answer accuracy or adherence to formats. We present a clinically grounded framework for chest X-ray visual question answering (VQA) that probes CoT faithfulness via controlled text and image modifications across three axes: clinical fidelity, causal attribution, and confidence calibration. In a reader study (n=4), evaluator-radiologist correlations fall within the observed inter-radiologist range for all axes, with strong alignment for attribution (Kendall's tau_b=0.670), moderate alignment for fidelity (tau_b=0.387), and weak alignment for confidence tone (tau_b=0.091), which we report with caution. Benchmarking six VLMs shows that answer accuracy and explanation quality are decoupled, acknowledging injected cues does not ensure grounding, and text cues shift explanations more than visual cues. While some open-source models match final answer accuracy, proprietary models score higher on attribution (25.0% vs. 1.4%) and often on fidelity (36.1% vs. 31.7%), highlighting deployment risks and the need to evaluate beyond final answer accuracy.

This study presents PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth), a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy that occurs under social pressure exerted on users through authority and persuasion in large language models (LLMs) the phenomenon of sycophancy (excessive conformity). PARROT (i) isolates causal effects by comparing the neutral version of the same question with an authoritatively false version using a double-blind evaluation, (ii) quantifies confidence shifts toward the correct and imposed false responses using log-likelihood-based calibration tracking, and (iii) systematically classifies failure modes (e.g., robust correct, sycophantic agreement, reinforced error, stubborn error, self-correction, etc.) using an eight-state behavioral taxonomy. We evaluated 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates. Findings show marked heterogeneity: advanced models (e.g., GPT-5, GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5) exhibit low "follow rates" (leq 11%, GPT-5: 4\%) and minimal accuracy loss, while older/smaller models show severe epistemic collapse (GPT-4: 80\%, Qwen 2.5-1.5B: 94\%). The danger is not limited to response changes; weak models reduce confidence in the correct response while increasing confidence in the imposed incorrect response. While international law and global knowledge at the domain level exhibit high fragility, elementary mathematics is relatively resilient. Consequently, we argue that the goal of "resistance to overfitting pressure" should be addressed as a primary objective alongside accuracy, harm avoidance, and privacy for safe deployment in the real world.

One core capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to follow natural language instructions. However, the evaluation of such abilities is not standardized: Human evaluations are expensive, slow, and not objectively reproducible, while LLM-based auto-evaluation is potentially biased or limited by the ability of the evaluator LLM. To overcome these issues, we introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. It focuses on a set of "verifiable instructions" such as "write in more than 400 words" and "mention the keyword of AI at least 3 times". We identified 25 types of those verifiable instructions and constructed around 500 prompts, with each prompt containing one or more verifiable instructions. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/instruction_following_eval

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

Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks. Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth? Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate LLMs' ability to quantify ground-truth outcome uncertainty. In this work, we focus on the use of LLMs as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks. We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using LLMs, and evaluate them against US Census data products. A flexible API enables the use of different prompting schemes, local or web-hosted models, and diverse census columns that can be used to compose custom prediction tasks. We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks. We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated. Base models consistently overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and produce over-confident risk scores. In fact, instruction-tuning polarizes answer distribution regardless of true underlying data uncertainty. This reveals a general inability of instruction-tuned LLMs to express data uncertainty using multiple-choice answers. A separate experiment using verbalized chat-style risk queries yields substantially improved calibration across instruction-tuned models. These differences in ability to quantify data uncertainty cannot be revealed in realizable settings, and highlight a blind-spot in the current evaluation ecosystem that folktexts covers.

The alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values increasingly relies on using other LLMs as automated judges, or ``autoraters''. However, their reliability is limited by a foundational issue: they are trained on discrete preference labels, forcing a single ground truth onto tasks that are often subjective, ambiguous, or nuanced. We argue that a reliable autorater must learn to model the full distribution of preferences defined by a target population. In this paper, we propose a general framework for calibrating probabilistic autoraters to any given preference distribution. We formalize the problem and present two learning methods tailored to different data conditions: 1) a direct supervised fine-tuning for dense, probabilistic labels, and 2) a reinforcement learning approach for sparse, binary labels. Our empirical results show that finetuning autoraters with a distribution-matching objective leads to verbalized probability predictions that are better aligned with the target preference distribution, with improved calibration and significantly lower positional bias, all while preserving performance on objective tasks.

Prompt optimization improves language models without updating their weights by searching for a better system prompt, but its effectiveness varies widely across tasks. We study what makes a task amenable to prompt optimization. We show that the reward variance across different system prompts can be decomposed into two components: variance among responses, which captures generation stochasticity, and variance among system prompts, which captures differences in system prompt quality. Prompt optimization succeeds when variance among system prompts is sufficiently large, but fails when variance among responses dominates the variance of the system prompts. Surprisingly, we further show that scaling to more user prompts can hurt optimization by reducing variance among system prompts, especially on heterogeneous datasets where different user prompts favor different system prompts. Motivated by this insight, we propose p1, a simple user prompt filtering method that selects a small subset of user prompts with high variance across candidate system prompts. This subset of user prompts allows one to distinguish a good system prompt from a bad one, making system optimization easier. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks show that p1 substantially improves prompt optimization over training on the full dataset and outperforms strong baselines such as GEPA. Notably, training on only two prompts from AIME 24 yields a system prompt that generalizes well to other reasoning benchmarks.

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

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.

Synthesizing supervised finetuning (SFT) data from language models (LMs) to teach smaller models multilingual tasks has become increasingly common. However, teacher model selection is often ad hoc, typically defaulting to the largest available option, even though such models may have significant capability gaps in non-English languages. This practice can result in poor-quality synthetic data and suboptimal student downstream performance. In this work, we systematically characterize what makes an effective multilingual teacher. We measure intrinsic measures of data quality with extrinsic student model performance in a metric we call Polyglot Score; evaluating 10 LMs across 6 typologically diverse languages, generating over 1.4M SFT examples and training 240 student models. Among the models tested, Gemma 3 27B and Aya Expanse 32B emerge as consistently effective teachers across different student base model families. Further analyses reveal that model scale alone does not significantly predict teacher effectiveness; instead, data qualities such as prompt diversity, length, and response fluency capture over 93.3% of variance in intrinsic data quality and predict student performance. Finally, we provide practical recommendations, including matching the model families of teacher-student pairs and translating from or responding to existing prompts, which can yield improvements for less-resourced languages. We hope that our work advances data-centric research in multilingual synthetic data and LM development.

Text-to-image (T2I) models are remarkable at generating realistic images based on textual descriptions. However, textual prompts are inherently underspecified: they do not specify all possible attributes of the required image. This raises two key questions: Do T2I models generate diverse outputs on underspecified prompts? How can we automatically measure diversity? We propose GRADE: Granular Attribute Diversity Evaluation, an automatic method for quantifying sample diversity. GRADE leverages the world knowledge embedded in large language models and visual question-answering systems to identify relevant concept-specific axes of diversity (e.g., ``shape'' and ``color'' for the concept ``cookie''). It then estimates frequency distributions of concepts and their attributes and quantifies diversity using (normalized) entropy. GRADE achieves over 90% human agreement while exhibiting weak correlation to commonly used diversity metrics. We use GRADE to measure the overall diversity of 12 T2I models using 400 concept-attribute pairs, revealing that all models display limited variation. Further, we find that these models often exhibit default behaviors, a phenomenon where the model consistently generates concepts with the same attributes (e.g., 98% of the cookies are round). Finally, we demonstrate that a key reason for low diversity is due to underspecified captions in training data. Our work proposes a modern, semantically-driven approach to measure sample diversity and highlights the stunning homogeneity in outputs by T2I models.

This study investigates the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) as tools for grading master-level student essays. Utilizing a sample of 60 essays in political science, the study compares the accuracy of grades suggested by the GPT-4 model with those awarded by university teachers. Results indicate that while GPT-4 aligns with human grading standards on mean scores, it exhibits a risk-averse grading pattern and its interrater reliability with human raters is low. Furthermore, modifications in the grading instructions (prompt engineering) do not significantly alter AI performance, suggesting that GPT-4 primarily assesses generic essay characteristics such as language quality rather than adapting to nuanced grading criteria. These findings contribute to the understanding of AI's potential and limitations in higher education, highlighting the need for further development to enhance its adaptability and sensitivity to specific educational assessment requirements.

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.

The composition of pre-training datasets for large language models (LLMs) remains largely undisclosed, hindering transparency and efforts to optimize data quality, a critical driver of model performance. Current data selection methods, such as natural language quality assessments, diversity-based filters, and classifier-based approaches, are limited by single-dimensional evaluation or redundancy-focused strategies. To address these gaps, we propose four dimensions to evaluate data quality: professionalism, readability, reasoning, and cleanliness. We further introduce Meta-rater,a multi-dimensional data selection method that integrates these dimensions with existing quality metrics through learned optimal weightings. Meta-rater employs proxy models to train a regression model that predicts validation loss, enabling the identification of optimal combinations of quality scores. Experiments demonstrate that Meta-rater doubles convergence speed for 1.3B parameter models and improves downstream task performance by 3.23, with advantages that scale to models as large as 7.2B parameters. Our work establishes that holistic, multi-dimensional quality integration significantly outperforms conventional single-dimension approaches, offering a scalable paradigm for enhancing pre-training efficiency and model capability. To advance future research, we release scripts, data, and models at https://github.com/opendatalab/Meta-rater.

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

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

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are nondeterministic, the same input can generate different outputs, some of which may be incorrect or hallucinated. If run again, the LLM may correct itself and produce the correct answer. Unfortunately, most LLM-powered systems resort to single results which, correct or not, users accept. Having the LLM produce multiple outputs may help identify disagreements or alternatives. However, it is not obvious how the user will interpret conflicts or inconsistencies. To this end, we investigate how users perceive the AI model and comprehend the generated information when they receive multiple, potentially inconsistent, outputs. Through a preliminary study, we identified five types of output inconsistencies. Based on these categories, we conducted a study (N=252) in which participants were given one or more LLM-generated passages to an information-seeking question. We found that inconsistency within multiple LLM-generated outputs lowered the participants' perceived AI capacity, while also increasing their comprehension of the given information. Specifically, we observed that this positive effect of inconsistencies was most significant for participants who read two passages, compared to those who read three. Based on these findings, we present design implications that, instead of regarding LLM output inconsistencies as a drawback, we can reveal the potential inconsistencies to transparently indicate the limitations of these models and promote critical LLM usage.

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

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

Recent work has highlighted the culturally-contingent nature of commonsense knowledge. We introduce AMAMMER{epsilon}, a test set of 525 multiple-choice questions designed to evaluate the commonsense knowledge of English LLMs, relative to the cultural contexts of Ghana and the United States. To create AMAMMER{epsilon}, we select a set of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from existing commonsense datasets and rewrite them in a multi-stage process involving surveys of Ghanaian and U.S. participants. In three rounds of surveys, participants from both pools are solicited to (1) write correct and incorrect answer choices, (2) rate individual answer choices on a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) select the best answer choice from the newly-constructed MCQ items, in a final validation step. By engaging participants at multiple stages, our procedure ensures that participant perspectives are incorporated both in the creation and validation of test items, resulting in high levels of agreement within each pool. We evaluate several off-the-shelf English LLMs on AMAMMER{epsilon}. Uniformly, models prefer answers choices that align with the preferences of U.S. annotators over Ghanaian annotators. Additionally, when test items specify a cultural context (Ghana or the U.S.), models exhibit some ability to adapt, but performance is consistently better in U.S. contexts than Ghanaian. As large resources are devoted to the advancement of English LLMs, our findings underscore the need for culturally adaptable models and evaluations to meet the needs of diverse English-speaking populations around the world.

Feature embeddings acquired from pretrained models are widely used in medical applications of deep learning to assess the characteristics of datasets; e.g. to determine the quality of synthetic, generated medical images. The Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) is one popular synthetic image quality metric that relies on the assumption that the characteristic features of the data can be detected and encoded by an InceptionV3 model pretrained on ImageNet1K (natural images). While it is widely known that this makes it less effective for applications involving medical images, the extent to which the metric fails to capture meaningful differences in image characteristics is not obviously known. Here, we use Monte Carlo dropout to compute the predictive variance in the FID as well as a supplemental estimate of the predictive variance in the feature embedding model's latent representations. We show that the magnitudes of the predictive variances considered exhibit varying degrees of correlation with the extent to which test inputs (ImageNet1K validation set augmented at various strengths, and other external datasets) are out-of-distribution relative to its training data, providing some insight into the effectiveness of their use as indicators of the trustworthiness of the FID.

Speech technology remains out of reach for most of the over 2300 languages in Africa. We present the first systematic assessment of large-scale synthetic voice corpora for African ASR. We apply a three-step process: LLM-driven text creation, TTS voice synthesis, and ASR fine-tuning. Eight out of ten languages for which we create synthetic text achieved readability scores above 5 out of 7. We evaluated ASR improvement for three (Hausa, Dholuo, Chichewa) and created more than 2,500 hours of synthetic voice data at below 1% of the cost of real data. Fine-tuned Wav2Vec-BERT-2.0 models trained on 250h real and 250h synthetic Hausa matched a 500h real-data-only baseline, while 579h real and 450h to 993h synthetic data created the best performance. We also present gender-disaggregated ASR performance evaluation. For very low-resource languages, gains varied: Chichewa WER improved about 6.5% relative with a 1:2 real-to-synthetic ratio; a 1:1 ratio for Dholuo showed similar improvements on some evaluation data, but not on others. Investigating intercoder reliability, ASR errors and evaluation datasets revealed the need for more robust reviewer protocols and more accurate evaluation data. All data and models are publicly released to invite further work to improve synthetic data for African languages.

As large-language models have been increasingly used as automatic raters for evaluating free-form content, including document summarization, dialog, and story generation, work has been dedicated to evaluating such models by measuring their correlations with human judgment. For sample-level performance, methods which operate by using pairwise comparisons between machine-generated text perform well but often lack the ability to assign absolute scores to individual summaries, an ability crucial for use cases that require thresholding. In this work, we propose a direct-scoring method which uses synthetic summaries to act as pairwise machine rankings at test time. We show that our method performs comparably to state-of-the-art pairwise evaluators in terms of axis-averaged sample-level correlations on the SummEval (+0.03), TopicalChat (-0.03), and HANNA (+0.05) meta-evaluation benchmarks, and release the synthetic in-context summaries as data to facilitate future work.

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

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its efficiency, effectiveness, and the quality of published papers. We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes, focusing on before- and after-rebuttal scores and reviewer-author interactions. We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects. Combining quantitative analyses with LLM-based categorization of review texts and rebuttal discussions, we identify common strengths and weaknesses for each rating group, as well as trends in rebuttal strategies that are most strongly associated with score changes. Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal, pointing to a degree of reviewer influence. Rebuttals play a valuable role in improving outcomes for borderline papers, where thoughtful author responses can meaningfully shift reviewer perspectives. More broadly, our study offers evidence-based insights to improve the peer review process, guiding authors on effective rebuttal strategies and helping the community design fairer and more efficient review processes. Our code and score changes data are available at https://github.com/papercopilot/iclr-insights.

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

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), the Elo rating system, originally designed for ranking players in dynamic games such as chess, is increasingly being used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) through "A vs B" paired comparisons. However, while popular, the system's suitability for assessing entities with constant skill levels, such as LLMs, remains relatively unexplored. We study two fundamental axioms that evaluation methods should adhere to: reliability and transitivity. We conduct extensive evaluation of Elo behaviour, illustrating that individual Elo computations exhibit volatility and delving into the impact of varying the Elo rating system's hyperparameters. We show that these axioms are not always satisfied raising questions about the reliability of current comparative evaluations of LLMs. If the current use of Elo scores is intended to substitute the costly head-to-head comparison of LLMs, it is crucial to ensure the ranking is as robust as possible. Guided by the axioms, our findings offer concrete guidelines for enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluation methods, suggesting a need for reassessment of existing comparative approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) appear to bias their survey answers toward certain values. Nonetheless, some argue that LLMs are too inconsistent to simulate particular values. Are they? To answer, we first define value consistency as the similarity of answers across (1) paraphrases of one question, (2) related questions under one topic, (3) multiple-choice and open-ended use-cases of one question, and (4) multilingual translations of a question to English, Chinese, German, and Japanese. We apply these measures to a few large (>=34b), open LLMs including llama-3, as well as gpt-4o, using eight thousand questions spanning more than 300 topics. Unlike prior work, we find that models are relatively consistent across paraphrases, use-cases, translations, and within a topic. Still, some inconsistencies remain. Models are more consistent on uncontroversial topics (e.g., in the U.S., "Thanksgiving") than on controversial ones ("euthanasia"). Base models are both more consistent compared to fine-tuned models and are uniform in their consistency across topics, while fine-tuned models are more inconsistent about some topics ("euthanasia") than others ("women's rights") like our human subjects (n=165).

We conduct a large empirical evaluation to investigate the landscape of distributional robustness in question answering. Our investigation spans over 350 models and 16 question answering datasets, including a diverse set of architectures, model sizes, and adaptation methods (e.g., fine-tuning, adapter tuning, in-context learning, etc.). We find that, in many cases, model variations do not affect robustness and in-distribution performance alone determines out-of-distribution performance. Moreover, our findings indicate that i) zero-shot and in-context learning methods are more robust to distribution shifts than fully fine-tuned models; ii) few-shot prompt fine-tuned models exhibit better robustness than few-shot fine-tuned span prediction models; iii) parameter-efficient and robustness enhancing training methods provide no significant robustness improvements. In addition, we publicly release all evaluations to encourage researchers to further analyze robustness trends for question answering models.

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) especially ChatGPT have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored. Existing works study the virtual personalities of LLMs but rarely explore the possibility of analyzing human personalities via LLMs. This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests. Specifically, we first devise unbiased prompts by randomly permuting options in MBTI questions and adopt the average testing result to encourage more impartial answer generation. Then, we propose to replace the subject in question statements to enable flexible queries and assessments on different subjects from LLMs. Finally, we re-formulate the question instructions in a manner of correctness evaluation to facilitate LLMs to generate clearer responses. The proposed framework enables LLMs to flexibly assess personalities of different groups of people. We further propose three evaluation metrics to measure the consistency, robustness, and fairness of assessment results from state-of-the-art LLMs including ChatGPT and InstructGPT. Our experiments reveal ChatGPT's ability to assess human personalities, and the average results demonstrate that it can achieve more consistent and fairer assessments in spite of lower robustness against prompt biases compared with InstructGPT.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) effectiveness is usually evaluated by means of benchmarks such as MMLU, ARC-C, or HellaSwag, where questions are presented in their original wording, thus in a fixed, standardized format. However, real-world applications involve linguistic variability, requiring models to maintain their effectiveness across diverse rewordings of the same question or query. In this study, we systematically assess the robustness of LLMs to paraphrased benchmark questions and investigate whether benchmark-based evaluations provide a reliable measure of model capabilities. We systematically generate various paraphrases of all the questions across six different common benchmarks, and measure the resulting variations in effectiveness of 34 state-of-the-art LLMs, of different size and effectiveness. Our findings reveal that while LLM rankings remain relatively stable across paraphrased inputs, absolute effectiveness scores change, and decline significantly. This suggests that LLMs struggle with linguistic variability, raising concerns about their generalization abilities and evaluation methodologies. Furthermore, the observed performance drop challenges the reliability of benchmark-based evaluations, indicating that high benchmark scores may not fully capture a model's robustness to real-world input variations. We discuss the implications of these findings for LLM evaluation methodologies, emphasizing the need for robustness-aware benchmarks that better reflect practical deployment scenarios.

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

Multi-modal generative document parsing systems challenge traditional evaluation: unlike deterministic OCR or layout models, they often produce semantically correct yet structurally divergent outputs. Conventional metrics-CER, WER, IoU, or TEDS-misclassify such diversity as error, penalizing valid interpretations and obscuring system behavior. We introduce SCORE (Structural and COntent Robust Evaluation), an interpretation-agnostic framework that integrates (i) adjusted edit distance for robust content fidelity, (ii) token-level diagnostics to distinguish hallucinations from omissions, (iii) table evaluation with spatial tolerance and semantic alignment, and (iv) hierarchy-aware consistency checks. Together, these dimensions enable evaluation that embraces representational diversity while enforcing semantic rigor. Across 1,114 pages spanning a holistic benchmark and a field dataset, SCORE consistently revealed cross-dataset performance patterns missed by standard metrics. In 2-5% of pages with ambiguous table structures, traditional metrics penalized systems by 12-25% on average, leading to distorted rankings. SCORE corrected these cases, recovering equivalence between alternative but valid interpretations. Moreover, by normalizing generative outputs into a format-agnostic representation, SCORE reproduces traditional scores (e.g., table F1 up to 0.93) without requiring object-detection pipelines, demonstrating that generative parsing alone suffices for comprehensive evaluation. By exposing how interpretive diversity impacts evaluation outcomes and providing multi-dimensional, interpretable diagnostics, SCORE establishes foundational principles for semantically grounded, fair, and practical benchmarking of modern document parsing systems.

Disagreements are common in online discussions. Disagreement may foster collaboration and improve the quality of a discussion under some conditions. Although there exist methods for recognizing disagreement, a deeper understanding of factors that influence disagreement is lacking in the literature. We investigate a hypothesis that differences in personal values are indicative of disagreement in online discussions. We show how state-of-the-art models can be used for estimating values in online discussions and how the estimated values can be aggregated into value profiles. We evaluate the estimated value profiles based on human-annotated agreement labels. We find that the dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases. We also find that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance.

There is a growing literature on reasoning by large language models (LLMs), but the discussion on the uncertainty in their responses is still lacking. Our aim is to assess the extent of confidence that LLMs have in their answers and how it correlates with accuracy. Confidence is measured (i) qualitatively in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider, and (ii) quantitatively in terms of self-reported confidence score. We investigate the performance of three LLMs -- GPT4o, GPT4-turbo and Mistral -- on two benchmark sets of questions on causal judgement and formal fallacies and a set of probability and statistical puzzles and paradoxes. Although the LLMs show significantly better performance than random guessing, there is a wide variability in their tendency to change their initial answers. There is a positive correlation between qualitative confidence and accuracy, but the overall accuracy for the second answer is often worse than for the first answer. There is a strong tendency to overstate the self-reported confidence score. Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability. The material effects of prompting on qualitative confidence and the strong tendency for overconfidence indicate that current LLMs do not have any internally coherent sense of confidence.

Machine learning approaches often require training and evaluation datasets with a clear separation between positive and negative examples. This risks simplifying and even obscuring the inherent subjectivity present in many tasks. Preserving such variance in content and diversity in datasets is often expensive and laborious. This is especially troubling when building safety datasets for conversational AI systems, as safety is both socially and culturally situated. To demonstrate this crucial aspect of conversational AI safety, and to facilitate in-depth model performance analyses, we introduce the DICES (Diversity In Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety) dataset that contains fine-grained demographic information about raters, high replication of ratings per item to ensure statistical power for analyses, and encodes rater votes as distributions across different demographics to allow for in-depth explorations of different aggregation strategies. In short, the DICES dataset enables the observation and measurement of variance, ambiguity, and diversity in the context of conversational AI safety. We also illustrate how the dataset offers a basis for establishing metrics to show how raters' ratings can intersects with demographic categories such as racial/ethnic groups, age groups, and genders. The goal of DICES is to be used as a shared resource and benchmark that respects diverse perspectives during safety evaluation of conversational AI systems.

This paper proposes one of the first clinical applications of multimodal large language models (LLMs) as an assistant for radiologists to check errors in their reports. We created an evaluation dataset from two real-world radiology datasets (MIMIC-CXR and IU-Xray), with 1,000 subsampled reports each. A subset of original reports was modified to contain synthetic errors by introducing various type of mistakes. The evaluation contained two difficulty levels: SIMPLE for binary error-checking and COMPLEX for identifying error types. LLaVA (Large Language and Visual Assistant) variant models, including our instruction-tuned model, were used for the evaluation. Additionally, a domain expert evaluation was conducted on a small test set. At the SIMPLE level, the LLaVA v1.5 model outperformed other publicly available models. Instruction tuning significantly enhanced performance by 47.4% and 25.4% on MIMIC-CXR and IU-Xray data, respectively. The model also surpassed the domain experts accuracy in the MIMIC-CXR dataset by 1.67%. Notably, among the subsets (N=21) of the test set where a clinician did not achieve the correct conclusion, the LLaVA ensemble mode correctly identified 71.4% of these cases. This study marks a promising step toward utilizing multi-modal LLMs to enhance diagnostic accuracy in radiology. The ensemble model demonstrated comparable performance to clinicians, even capturing errors overlooked by humans. Nevertheless, future work is needed to improve the model ability to identify the types of inconsistency.

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 NLP community has long advocated for the construction of multi-annotator datasets to better capture the nuances of language interpretation, subjectivity, and ambiguity. This paper conducts a retrospective study to show how performance scores can vary when a dataset expands from a single annotation per instance to multiple annotations. We propose a novel multi-annotator simulation process to generate datasets with varying annotation budgets. We show that similar datasets with the same annotation budget can lead to varying performance gains. Our findings challenge the popular belief that models trained on multi-annotation examples always lead to better performance than models trained on single or few-annotation examples.

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

This article studies the change in the prediction accuracy of a response variable when the number of predictors increases, and all variables follow a multivariate normal distribution. Assuming that the correlations between variables are independently drawn, I show that adding variables leads to globally increasing returns to scale when the mean of the correlation distribution is zero. The speed of learning depends positively on the variance of the correlation distribution. I use simulations to study the more complex case of correlation distributions with a non-zero mean and find a pattern of decreasing returns followed by increasing returns to scale - as long as the variance of correlations is not degenerate, in which case globally decreasing returns emerge. I train a collaborative filtering algorithm using the MovieLens 1M dataset to analyze returns from adding variables in a more realistic setting and find globally increasing returns to scale across 2,000 variables. The results suggest significant scale advantages from additional variables in prediction tasks.

Evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in following instructions has heavily relied on a powerful LLM as the judge, introducing unresolved biases that deviate the judgments from human judges. In this work, we reevaluate various choices for automatic evaluation on a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We experiment with methods that leverage human-written responses and observe that they enhance the reliability of automatic evaluations across a wide range of tasks, resulting in up to a 3.2% improvement in agreement with human judges. We also discovered that human-written responses offer an orthogonal perspective to model-generated responses in following instructions and should be used as an additional context when comparing model responses. Based on these observations, we develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF), comprising 4,258 samples across 11 task categories with a composite evaluation setup, employing a composite evaluation setup that selects the most reliable method for each category. In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. Finally, we study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template. We host a live leaderboard that evaluates LLMs on the private evaluation set of HREF.

Training Large Language Models (LLMs) with Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) aligns model outputs more closely with human preferences. This involves an evaluator model ranking multiple candidate responses to user prompts. However, the rankings from popular evaluator models such as GPT-4 can be inconsistent. We propose the Repeat Ranking method - where we evaluate the same responses multiple times and train only on those responses which are consistently ranked. Using 2,714 prompts in 62 languages, we generated responses from 7 top multilingual LLMs and had GPT-4 rank them five times each. Evaluating on MT-Bench chat benchmarks in six languages, our method outperformed the standard practice of training on all available prompts. Our work highlights the quality versus quantity trade-off in RLAIF dataset generation and offers a stackable strategy for enhancing dataset and thus model quality.

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

Analyzing outcomes in long-term cancer survivor studies can be complex. The effects of predictors on the failure process may be difficult to assess over longer periods of time, as the commonly used assumption of proportionality of hazards holding over an extended period is often questionable. In this manuscript, we compare seven different survival models that estimate the hazard rate and the effects of proportional and non-proportional covariates. In particular, we focus on an extension of the the multi-resolution hazard (MRH) estimator, combining a non-proportional hierarchical MRH approach with a data-driven pruning algorithm that allows for computational efficiency and produces robust estimates even in times of few observed failures. Using data from a large-scale randomized prostate cancer clinical trial, we examine patterns of biochemical failure and estimate the time-varying effects of androgen deprivation therapy treatment and other covariates. We compare the impact of different modeling strategies and smoothness assumptions on the estimated treatment effect. Our results show that the benefits of treatment diminish over time, possibly with implications for future treatment protocols.

The purpose of this work is to contribute to the understanding and improvement of deep neural networks in the field of vocal quality. A neural network that predicts the perceptual assessment of overall severity of dysphonia in GRBAS scale is obtained. The design focuses on amplitude perturbations, frequency perturbations, and noise. Results are compared with performance of human raters on the same data. Both the precision and the mean absolute error of the neural network are close to human intra-rater performance, exceeding inter-rater performance.

Large language models (LLMs) hold immense promise to serve complex health information needs but also have the potential to introduce harm and exacerbate health disparities. Reliably evaluating equity-related model failures is a critical step toward developing systems that promote health equity. In this work, we present resources and methodologies for surfacing biases with potential to precipitate equity-related harms in long-form, LLM-generated answers to medical questions and then conduct an empirical case study with Med-PaLM 2, resulting in the largest human evaluation study in this area to date. Our contributions include a multifactorial framework for human assessment of LLM-generated answers for biases, and EquityMedQA, a collection of seven newly-released datasets comprising both manually-curated and LLM-generated questions enriched for adversarial queries. Both our human assessment framework and dataset design process are grounded in an iterative participatory approach and review of possible biases in Med-PaLM 2 answers to adversarial queries. Through our empirical study, we find that the use of a collection of datasets curated through a variety of methodologies, coupled with a thorough evaluation protocol that leverages multiple assessment rubric designs and diverse rater groups, surfaces biases that may be missed via narrower evaluation approaches. Our experience underscores the importance of using diverse assessment methodologies and involving raters of varying backgrounds and expertise. We emphasize that while our framework can identify specific forms of bias, it is not sufficient to holistically assess whether the deployment of an AI system promotes equitable health outcomes. We hope the broader community leverages and builds on these tools and methods towards realizing a shared goal of LLMs that promote accessible and equitable healthcare for all.