Daily Papers

This paper introduces PRobELM (Plausibility Ranking Evaluation for Language Models), a benchmark designed to assess language models' ability to discern more plausible from less plausible scenarios through their parametric knowledge. While benchmarks such as TruthfulQA emphasise factual accuracy or truthfulness, and others such as COPA explore plausible scenarios without explicitly incorporating world knowledge, PRobELM seeks to bridge this gap by evaluating models' capabilities to prioritise plausible scenarios that leverage world knowledge over less plausible alternatives. This design allows us to assess the potential of language models for downstream use cases such as literature-based discovery where the focus is on identifying information that is likely but not yet known. Our benchmark is constructed from a dataset curated from Wikidata edit histories, tailored to align the temporal bounds of the training data for the evaluated models. PRobELM facilitates the evaluation of language models across multiple prompting types, including statement, text completion, and question-answering. Experiments with 10 models of various sizes and architectures on the relationship between model scales, training recency, and plausibility performance, reveal that factual accuracy does not directly correlate with plausibility performance and that up-to-date training data enhances plausibility assessment across different model architectures.

Indoor scene synthesis has become increasingly important with the rise of Embodied AI, which requires 3D environments that are not only visually realistic but also physically plausible and functionally diverse. While recent approaches have advanced visual fidelity, they often remain constrained to fixed scene categories, lack sufficient object-level detail and physical consistency, and struggle to align with complex user instructions. In this work, we present SceneWeaver, a reflective agentic framework that unifies diverse scene synthesis paradigms through tool-based iterative refinement. At its core, SceneWeaver employs a language model-based planner to select from a suite of extensible scene generation tools, ranging from data-driven generative models to visual- and LLM-based methods, guided by self-evaluation of physical plausibility, visual realism, and semantic alignment with user input. This closed-loop reason-act-reflect design enables the agent to identify semantic inconsistencies, invoke targeted tools, and update the environment over successive iterations. Extensive experiments on both common and open-vocabulary room types demonstrate that SceneWeaver not only outperforms prior methods on physical, visual, and semantic metrics, but also generalizes effectively to complex scenes with diverse instructions, marking a step toward general-purpose 3D environment generation. Project website: https://scene-weaver.github.io/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing information retrieval, with chatbots becoming an important source for answering user queries. As by their design, LLMs prioritize generating correct answers, the value of highly plausible yet incorrect answers (candidate answers) tends to be overlooked. However, such answers can still prove useful, for example, they can play a crucial role in tasks like Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and QA Robustness Assessment (QARA). Existing QA datasets primarily focus on correct answers without explicit consideration of the plausibility of other candidate answers, limiting opportunity for more nuanced evaluations of models. To address this gap, we introduce PlausibleQA, a large-scale dataset comprising 10,000 questions and 100,000 candidate answers, each annotated with plausibility scores and justifications for their selection. Additionally, the dataset includes 900,000 justifications for pairwise comparisons between candidate answers, further refining plausibility assessments. We evaluate PlausibleQA through human assessments and empirical experiments, demonstrating its utility in MCQA and QARA analysis. Our findings show that plausibility-aware approaches are effective for MCQA distractor generation and QARA. We release PlausibleQA as a resource for advancing QA research and enhancing LLM performance in distinguishing plausible distractors from correct answers.

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.

Intuitive physics understanding in video diffusion models plays an essential role in building general-purpose physically plausible world simulators, yet accurately evaluating such capacity remains a challenging task due to the difficulty in disentangling physics correctness from visual appearance in generation. To the end, we introduce LikePhys, a training-free method that evaluates intuitive physics in video diffusion models by distinguishing physically valid and impossible videos using the denoising objective as an ELBO-based likelihood surrogate on a curated dataset of valid-invalid pairs. By testing on our constructed benchmark of twelve scenarios spanning over four physics domains, we show that our evaluation metric, Plausibility Preference Error (PPE), demonstrates strong alignment with human preference, outperforming state-of-the-art evaluator baselines. We then systematically benchmark intuitive physics understanding in current video diffusion models. Our study further analyses how model design and inference settings affect intuitive physics understanding and highlights domain-specific capacity variations across physical laws. Empirical results show that, despite current models struggling with complex and chaotic dynamics, there is a clear trend of improvement in physics understanding as model capacity and inference settings scale.

Fine-tuning of pre-trained transformer models has become the standard approach for solving common NLP tasks. Most of the existing approaches rely on a randomly initialized classifier on top of such networks. We argue that this fine-tuning procedure is sub-optimal as the pre-trained model has no prior on the specific classifier labels, while it might have already learned an intrinsic textual representation of the task. In this paper, we introduce a new scoring method that casts a plausibility ranking task in a full-text format and leverages the masked language modeling head tuned during the pre-training phase. We study commonsense reasoning tasks where the model must rank a set of hypotheses given a premise, focusing on the COPA, Swag, HellaSwag and CommonsenseQA datasets. By exploiting our scoring method without fine-tuning, we are able to produce strong baselines (e.g. 80% test accuracy on COPA) that are comparable to supervised approaches. Moreover, when fine-tuning directly on the proposed scoring function, we show that our method provides a much more stable training phase across random restarts (e.g times 10 standard deviation reduction on COPA test accuracy) and requires less annotated data than the standard classifier approach to reach equivalent performances.

Large language models (LLMs) still produce plausible-sounding but ungrounded factual claims, a problem that worsens in multi-turn dialogue as context grows and early errors cascade. We introduce HalluHard, a challenging multi-turn hallucination benchmark with 950 seed questions spanning four high-stakes domains: legal cases, research questions, medical guidelines, and coding. We operationalize groundedness by requiring inline citations for factual assertions. To support reliable evaluation in open-ended settings, we propose a judging pipeline that iteratively retrieves evidence via web search. It can fetch, filter, and parse full-text sources (including PDFs) to assess whether cited material actually supports the generated content. Across a diverse set of frontier proprietary and open-weight models, hallucinations remain substantial even with web search (approx 30% for the strongest configuration, Opus-4.5 with web search), with content-grounding errors persisting at high rates. Finally, we show that hallucination behavior is shaped by model capacity, turn position, effective reasoning, and the type of knowledge required.

In any ranking system, the retrieval model outputs a single score for a document based on its belief on how relevant it is to a given search query. While retrieval models have continued to improve with the introduction of increasingly complex architectures, few works have investigated a retrieval model's belief in the score beyond the scope of a single value. We argue that capturing the model's uncertainty with respect to its own scoring of a document is a critical aspect of retrieval that allows for greater use of current models across new document distributions, collections, or even improving effectiveness for down-stream tasks. In this paper, we address this problem via an efficient Bayesian framework for retrieval models which captures the model's belief in the relevance score through a stochastic process while adding only negligible computational overhead. We evaluate this belief via a ranking based calibration metric showing that our approximate Bayesian framework significantly improves a retrieval model's ranking effectiveness through a risk aware reranking as well as its confidence calibration. Lastly, we demonstrate that this additional uncertainty information is actionable and reliable on down-stream tasks represented via cutoff prediction.

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

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

Modeling semantic plausibility requires commonsense knowledge about the world and has been used as a testbed for exploring various knowledge representations. Previous work has focused specifically on modeling physical plausibility and shown that distributional methods fail when tested in a supervised setting. At the same time, distributional models, namely large pretrained language models, have led to improved results for many natural language understanding tasks. In this work, we show that these pretrained language models are in fact effective at modeling physical plausibility in the supervised setting. We therefore present the more difficult problem of learning to model physical plausibility directly from text. We create a training set by extracting attested events from a large corpus, and we provide a baseline for training on these attested events in a self-supervised manner and testing on a physical plausibility task. We believe results could be further improved by injecting explicit commonsense knowledge into a distributional model.

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

Hypothesis ranking is a crucial component of automated scientific discovery, particularly in natural sciences where wet-lab experiments are costly and throughput-limited. Existing approaches focus on pre-experiment ranking, relying solely on large language model's internal reasoning without incorporating empirical outcomes from experiments. We introduce the task of experiment-guided ranking, which aims to prioritize candidate hypotheses based on the results of previously tested ones. However, developing such strategies is challenging due to the impracticality of repeatedly conducting real experiments in natural science domains. To address this, we propose a simulator grounded in three domain-informed assumptions, modeling hypothesis performance as a function of similarity to a known ground truth hypothesis, perturbed by noise. We curate a dataset of 124 chemistry hypotheses with experimentally reported outcomes to validate the simulator. Building on this simulator, we develop a pseudo experiment-guided ranking method that clusters hypotheses by shared functional characteristics and prioritizes candidates based on insights derived from simulated experimental feedback. Experiments show that our method outperforms pre-experiment baselines and strong ablations.

Hallucinations in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) -- where the model generates content inconsistent with the input image -- pose significant risks in real-world applications, from misinformation in visual question answering to unsafe errors in decision-making. Existing benchmarks primarily test recognition accuracy, i.e., evaluating whether models can select the correct answer among distractors. This overlooks an equally critical capability for trustworthy AI: recognizing when none of the provided options are correct, a behavior reflecting epistemic humility. We present HumbleBench, a new hallucination benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' ability to reject plausible but incorrect answers across three hallucination types: object, relation, and attribute. Built from a panoptic scene graph dataset, we leverage fine-grained scene graph annotations to extract ground-truth entities and relations, and prompt GPT-4-Turbo to generate multiple-choice questions, followed by a rigorous manual filtering process. Each question includes a "None of the above" option, requiring models not only to recognize correct visual information but also to identify when no provided answer is valid. We evaluate a variety of state-of-the-art MLLMs -- including both general-purpose and specialized reasoning models -- on HumbleBench and share valuable findings and insights with the community. By incorporating explicit false-option rejection, HumbleBench fills a key gap in current evaluation suites, providing a more realistic measure of MLLM reliability in safety-critical settings. Our code and dataset are released publicly and can be accessed at https://github.com/maifoundations/HumbleBench.

Recent advances in multi-modal generative models have enabled significant progress in instruction-based image editing. However, while these models produce visually plausible outputs, their capacity for knowledge-based reasoning editing tasks remains under-explored. In this paper, we introduce KRIS-Bench (Knowledge-based Reasoning in Image-editing Systems Benchmark), a diagnostic benchmark designed to assess models through a cognitively informed lens. Drawing from educational theory, KRIS-Bench categorizes editing tasks across three foundational knowledge types: Factual, Conceptual, and Procedural. Based on this taxonomy, we design 22 representative tasks spanning 7 reasoning dimensions and release 1,267 high-quality annotated editing instances. To support fine-grained evaluation, we propose a comprehensive protocol that incorporates a novel Knowledge Plausibility metric, enhanced by knowledge hints and calibrated through human studies. Empirical results on 10 state-of-the-art models reveal significant gaps in reasoning performance, highlighting the need for knowledge-centric benchmarks to advance the development of intelligent image editing systems.

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.

The capability of Unified Multimodal Models (UMMs) to apply world knowledge across diverse tasks remains a critical, unresolved challenge. Existing benchmarks fall short, offering only siloed, single-task evaluations with limited diagnostic power. To bridge this gap, we propose AEGIS (i.e., Assessing Editing, Generation, Interpretation-Understanding for Super-intelligence), a comprehensive multi-task benchmark covering visual understanding, generation, editing, and interleaved generation. AEGIS comprises 1,050 challenging, manually-annotated questions spanning 21 topics (including STEM, humanities, daily life, etc.) and 6 reasoning types. To concretely evaluate the performance of UMMs in world knowledge scope without ambiguous metrics, we further propose Deterministic Checklist-based Evaluation (DCE), a protocol that replaces ambiguous prompt-based scoring with atomic ``Y/N'' judgments, to enhance evaluation reliability. Our extensive experiments reveal that most UMMs exhibit severe world knowledge deficits and that performance degrades significantly with complex reasoning. Additionally, simple plug-in reasoning modules can partially mitigate these vulnerabilities, highlighting a promising direction for future research. These results highlight the importance of world-knowledge-based reasoning as a critical frontier for UMMs.

Misinformation and disinformation demand fact checking that goes beyond simple evidence-based reasoning. Existing benchmarks fall short: they are largely single modality (text-only), span short time horizons, use shallow evidence, cover domains unevenly, and often omit full articles -- obscuring models' real-world capability. We present MMM-Fact, a large-scale benchmark of 125,449 fact-checked statements (1995--2025) across multiple domains, each paired with the full fact-check article and multimodal evidence (text, images, videos, tables) from four fact-checking sites and one news outlet. To reflect verification effort, each statement is tagged with a retrieval-difficulty tier -- Basic (1--5 sources), Intermediate (6--10), and Advanced (>10) -- supporting fairness-aware evaluation for multi-step, cross-modal reasoning. The dataset adopts a three-class veracity scheme (true/false/not enough information) and enables tasks in veracity prediction, explainable fact-checking, complex evidence aggregation, and longitudinal analysis. Baselines with mainstream LLMs show MMM-Fact is markedly harder than prior resources, with performance degrading as evidence complexity rises. MMM-Fact offers a realistic, scalable benchmark for transparent, reliable, multimodal fact-checking.

When language models correctly parse "The cat that the dog chased meowed," are they analyzing syntax or simply familiar with dogs chasing cats? Despite extensive benchmarking, we lack methods to distinguish structural understanding from semantic pattern matching. We introduce CenterBench, a dataset of 9,720 comprehension questions on center-embedded sentences (like "The cat [that the dog chased] meowed") where relative clauses nest recursively, creating processing demands from simple to deeply nested structures. Each sentence has a syntactically identical but semantically implausible counterpart (e.g., mailmen prescribe medicine, doctors deliver mail) and six comprehension questions testing surface understanding, syntactic dependencies, and causal reasoning. Testing six models reveals that performance gaps between plausible and implausible sentences widen systematically with complexity, with models showing median gaps up to 26.8 percentage points, quantifying when they abandon structural analysis for semantic associations. Notably, semantic plausibility harms performance on questions about resulting actions, where following causal relationships matters more than semantic coherence. Reasoning models improve accuracy but their traces show semantic shortcuts, overthinking, and answer refusal. Unlike models whose plausibility advantage systematically widens with complexity, humans shows variable semantic effects. CenterBench provides the first framework to identify when models shift from structural analysis to pattern matching.

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

With the rapid and continuous increase in academic publications, identifying high-quality research has become an increasingly pressing challenge. While recent methods leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated paper evaluation have shown great promise, they are often constrained by outdated domain knowledge and limited reasoning capabilities. In this work, we present PaperEval, a novel LLM-based framework for automated paper evaluation that addresses these limitations through two key components: 1) a domain-aware paper retrieval module that retrieves relevant concurrent work to support contextualized assessments of novelty and contributions, and 2) a latent reasoning mechanism that enables deep understanding of complex motivations and methodologies, along with comprehensive comparison against concurrently related work, to support more accurate and reliable evaluation. To guide the reasoning process, we introduce a progressive ranking optimization strategy that encourages the LLM to iteratively refine its predictions with an emphasis on relative comparison. Experiments on two datasets demonstrate that PaperEval consistently outperforms existing methods in both academic impact and paper quality evaluation. In addition, we deploy PaperEval in a real-world paper recommendation system for filtering high-quality papers, which has gained strong engagement on social media -- amassing over 8,000 subscribers and attracting over 10,000 views for many filtered high-quality papers -- demonstrating the practical effectiveness of PaperEval.

Algorithmic approaches to interpreting machine learning models have proliferated in recent years. We carry out human subject tests that are the first of their kind to isolate the effect of algorithmic explanations on a key aspect of model interpretability, simulatability, while avoiding important confounding experimental factors. A model is simulatable when a person can predict its behavior on new inputs. Through two kinds of simulation tests involving text and tabular data, we evaluate five explanations methods: (1) LIME, (2) Anchor, (3) Decision Boundary, (4) a Prototype model, and (5) a Composite approach that combines explanations from each method. Clear evidence of method effectiveness is found in very few cases: LIME improves simulatability in tabular classification, and our Prototype method is effective in counterfactual simulation tests. We also collect subjective ratings of explanations, but we do not find that ratings are predictive of how helpful explanations are. Our results provide the first reliable and comprehensive estimates of how explanations influence simulatability across a variety of explanation methods and data domains. We show that (1) we need to be careful about the metrics we use to evaluate explanation methods, and (2) there is significant room for improvement in current methods. All our supporting code, data, and models are publicly available at: https://github.com/peterbhase/InterpretableNLP-ACL2020

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs and verify moderate agreements. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality. A thorough disagreement analysis further supports a potential of fully automated ReviewScore evaluation.

As machine learning models evolve, maintaining transparency demands more human-centric explainable AI techniques. Counterfactual explanations, with roots in human reasoning, identify the minimal input changes needed to obtain a given output and, hence, are crucial for supporting decision-making. Despite their importance, the evaluation of these explanations often lacks grounding in user studies and remains fragmented, with existing metrics not fully capturing human perspectives. To address this challenge, we developed a diverse set of 30 counterfactual scenarios and collected ratings across 8 evaluation metrics from 206 respondents. Subsequently, we fine-tuned different Large Language Models (LLMs) to predict average or individual human judgment across these metrics. Our methodology allowed LLMs to achieve an accuracy of up to 63% in zero-shot evaluations and 85% (over a 3-classes prediction) with fine-tuning across all metrics. The fine-tuned models predicting human ratings offer better comparability and scalability in evaluating different counterfactual explanation frameworks.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate natural language generation tasks as automated metrics. However, the likelihood, a measure of LLM's plausibility for a sentence, can vary due to superficial differences in sentences, such as word order and sentence structure. It is therefore possible that there might be a likelihood bias if LLMs are used for evaluation: they might overrate sentences with higher likelihoods while underrating those with lower likelihoods. In this paper, we investigate the presence and impact of likelihood bias in LLM-based evaluators. We also propose a method to mitigate the likelihood bias. Our method utilizes highly biased instances as few-shot examples for in-context learning. Our experiments in evaluating the data-to-text and grammatical error correction tasks reveal that several LLMs we test display a likelihood bias. Furthermore, our proposed method successfully mitigates this bias, also improving evaluation performance (in terms of correlation of models with human scores) significantly.

Large language models are increasingly being used to assess and forecast research ideas, yet we lack scalable ways to evaluate the quality of models' judgments about these scientific ideas. Towards this goal, we introduce PoT, a semi-verifiable benchmarking framework that links scientific idea judgments to downstream signals that become observable later (e.g., citations and shifts in researchers' agendas). PoT freezes a pre-cutoff snapshot of evidence in an offline sandbox and asks models to forecast post-cutoff outcomes, enabling verifiable evaluation when ground truth arrives, scalable benchmarking without exhaustive expert annotation, and analysis of human-model misalignment against signals such as peer-review awards. In addition, PoT provides a controlled testbed for agent-based research judgments that evaluate scientific ideas, comparing tool-using agents to non-agent baselines under prompt ablations and budget scaling. Across 30,000+ instances spanning four benchmark domains, we find that, compared with non-agent baselines, higher interaction budgets generally improve agent performance, while the benefit of tool use is strongly task-dependent. By combining time-partitioned, future-verifiable targets with an offline sandbox for tool use, PoT supports scalable evaluation of agents on future-facing scientific idea judgment tasks.

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs as a reference-free metric for open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho and MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose the (1) peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments, respectively. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.

Hallucinated outputs from language models pose risks in the medical domain, especially for lay audiences making health-related decisions. Existing factuality evaluation methods, such as entailment- and question-answering-based (QA), struggle with plain language summary (PLS) generation due to elaborative explanation phenomenon, which introduces external content (e.g., definitions, background, examples) absent from the source document to enhance comprehension. To address this, we introduce PlainQAFact, a framework trained on a fine-grained, human-annotated dataset PlainFact, to evaluate the factuality of both source-simplified and elaboratively explained sentences. PlainQAFact first classifies factuality type and then assesses factuality using a retrieval-augmented QA-based scoring method. Our approach is lightweight and computationally efficient. Empirical results show that existing factuality metrics fail to effectively evaluate factuality in PLS, especially for elaborative explanations, whereas PlainQAFact achieves state-of-the-art performance. We further analyze its effectiveness across external knowledge sources, answer extraction strategies, overlap measures, and document granularity levels, refining its overall factuality assessment.

We introduce Rank1, the first reranking model trained to take advantage of test-time compute. Rank1 demonstrates the applicability within retrieval of using a reasoning language model (i.e. OpenAI's o1, Deepseek's R1, etc.) for distillation in order to rapidly improve the performance of a smaller model. We gather and open-source a dataset of more than 600,000 examples of R1 reasoning traces from queries and passages in MS MARCO. Models trained on this dataset show: (1) state-of-the-art performance on advanced reasoning and instruction following datasets; (2) work remarkably well out of distribution due to the ability to respond to user-input prompts; and (3) have explainable reasoning chains that can be given to users or RAG-based systems. Further, we demonstrate that quantized versions of these models retain strong performance while using less compute/memory. Overall, Rank1 shows that test-time compute allows for a fundamentally new type of explainable and performant reranker model for search.

Generating rationales that justify scoring decisions has been a promising way to facilitate explainability in automated scoring systems. However, existing methods do not match the accuracy of classifier-based methods. Plus, the generated rationales often contain hallucinated information. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework capable of generating more faithful rationales and, more importantly, matching performance with classifier-based black-box scoring systems. We first mimic the human assessment process by querying Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate a thought tree. We then summarise intermediate assessment decisions from each thought tree path for creating synthetic rationale data and rationale preference data. Finally, we utilise the generated synthetic data to calibrate LLMs through a two-step training process: supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves a 38% assessment performance improvement in the QWK score compared to prior work while producing higher-quality rationales, as recognised by human evaluators and LLMs. Our work sheds light on the effectiveness of performing preference optimization using synthetic preference data obtained from thought tree paths.

Hypothetical induction is recognized as the main reasoning type when scientists make observations about the world and try to propose hypotheses to explain those observations. Past research on hypothetical induction is under a constrained setting: (1) the observation annotations in the dataset are carefully manually handpicked sentences (resulting in a close-domain setting); and (2) the ground truth hypotheses are mostly commonsense knowledge, making the task less challenging. In this work, we tackle these problems by proposing the first dataset for social science academic hypotheses discovery, with the final goal to create systems that automatically generate valid, novel, and helpful scientific hypotheses, given only a pile of raw web corpus. Unlike previous settings, the new dataset requires (1) using open-domain data (raw web corpus) as observations; and (2) proposing hypotheses even new to humanity. A multi-module framework is developed for the task, including three different feedback mechanisms to boost performance, which exhibits superior performance in terms of both GPT-4 based and expert-based evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work showing that LLMs are able to generate novel (''not existing in literature'') and valid (''reflecting reality'') scientific hypotheses.

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

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

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

Offline evaluation of search systems depends on test collections. These benchmarks provide the researchers with a corpus of documents, topics and relevance judgements indicating which documents are relevant for each topic. While test collections are an integral part of Information Retrieval (IR) research, their creation involves significant efforts in manual annotation. Large language models (LLMs) are gaining much attention as tools for automatic relevance assessment. Recent research has shown that LLM-based assessments yield high systems ranking correlation with human-made judgements. These correlations are helpful in large-scale experiments but less informative if we want to focus on top-performing systems. Moreover, these correlations ignore whether and how LLM-based judgements impact the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to human assessments. In this work, we look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve ranking differences among top-performing systems and also how they preserve pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements. Our results show that LLM-based judgements are unfair at ranking top-performing systems. Moreover, we observe an exceedingly high rate of false positives regarding statistical differences. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of the reliability of using LLMs-based judgements for IR evaluation. We hope this will serve as a basis for other researchers to develop more reliable models for automatic relevance assessment.

Language models (LMs) are widely used by an increasing number of users, underscoring the challenge of maintaining factuality across a broad range of topics. We first present VERIFY (Verification and Evidence RetrIeval for FactualitY evaluation), a pipeline to evaluate LMs' factuality in real-world user interactions. VERIFY considers the verifiability of LM-generated content and categorizes content units as supported, unsupported, or undecidable based on the retrieved evidence from the Web. Importantly, factuality judgment by VERIFY correlates better with human evaluations than existing methods. Using VERIFY, we identify "hallucination prompts" across diverse topics, i.e., those eliciting the highest rates of incorrect and inconclusive LM responses. These prompts form FactBench, a dataset of 1K prompts across 150 fine-grained topics. Our dataset captures emerging factuality challenges in real-world LM interactions and can be regularly updated with new prompts. We benchmark widely-used LMs from GPT, Gemini, and Llama3.1 family on FactBench, yielding the following key findings: (i) Proprietary models exhibit better factuality, with performance declining from Easy to Hard hallucination prompts. (ii) Llama3.1-405B-Instruct shows comparable or lower factual accuracy than Llama3.1-70B-Instruct across all evaluation methods due to its higher subjectivity that leads to more content labeled as undecidable. (iii) Gemini1.5-Pro shows a significantly higher refusal rate, with over-refusal in 25% of cases. Our code and data are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/launch/factbench.

Progress in large language models is constrained by an evaluation bottleneck: build a benchmark, evaluate models and settings, then iterate. We therefore ask a simple question: can we forecast outcomes before running any experiments? We study text-only performance forecasting: estimating a model's score from a redacted task description and intended configuration, with no access to dataset instances. To support systematic study, we curate PRECOG, a corpus of redacted description-performance pairs spanning diverse tasks, domains, and metrics. Experiments show the task is challenging but feasible: models equipped with a retrieval module that excludes source papers achieve moderate prediction performance with well-calibrated uncertainty, reaching mean absolute error as low as 8.7 on the Accuracy subset at high-confidence thresholds. Our analysis indicates that stronger reasoning models engage in diverse, iterative querying, whereas current open-source models lag and often skip retrieval or gather evidence with limited diversity. We further test a zero-leakage setting, forecasting on newly released datasets or experiments before their papers are indexed, where GPT-5 with built-in web search still attains nontrivial prediction accuracy. Overall, our corpus and analyses offer an initial step toward open-ended anticipatory evaluation, supporting difficulty estimation and smarter experiment prioritization.

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.

While the evaluation of explanations is an important step towards trustworthy models, it needs to be done carefully, and the employed metrics need to be well-understood. Specifically model randomization testing is often overestimated and regarded as a sole criterion for selecting or discarding certain explanation methods. To address shortcomings of this test, we start by observing an experimental gap in the ranking of explanation methods between randomization-based sanity checks [1] and model output faithfulness measures (e.g. [25]). We identify limitations of model-randomization-based sanity checks for the purpose of evaluating explanations. Firstly, we show that uninformative attribution maps created with zero pixel-wise covariance easily achieve high scores in this type of checks. Secondly, we show that top-down model randomization preserves scales of forward pass activations with high probability. That is, channels with large activations have a high probility to contribute strongly to the output, even after randomization of the network on top of them. Hence, explanations after randomization can only be expected to differ to a certain extent. This explains the observed experimental gap. In summary, these results demonstrate the inadequacy of model-randomization-based sanity checks as a criterion to rank attribution methods.

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in handling complex reasoning tasks by generating step-by-step rationales.Some methods have proven effective in boosting accuracy by introducing extra verifiers to assess these paths. However, existing verifiers, typically trained on binary-labeled reasoning paths, fail to fully utilize the relative merits of intermediate steps, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the feedback provided. To overcome this limitation, we propose Tree-based Preference Learning Verifier (Tree-PLV), a novel approach that constructs reasoning trees via a best-first search algorithm and collects step-level paired data for preference training. Compared to traditional binary classification, step-level preferences more finely capture the nuances between reasoning steps, allowing for a more precise evaluation of the complete reasoning path. We empirically evaluate Tree-PLV across a range of arithmetic and commonsense reasoning tasks, where it significantly outperforms existing benchmarks. For instance, Tree-PLV achieved substantial performance gains over the Mistral-7B self-consistency baseline on GSM8K (67.55% to 82.79%), MATH (17.00% to 26.80%), CSQA (68.14% to 72.97%), and StrategyQA (82.86% to 83.25%).Additionally, our study explores the appropriate granularity for applying preference learning, revealing that step-level guidance provides feedback that better aligns with the evaluation of the reasoning process.

Despite strong performance on existing benchmarks, it remains unclear whether large language models can reason over genuinely novel scientific information. Most evaluations score end-to-end RAG pipelines, where reasoning is confounded with retrieval and toolchain choices, and the signal is further contaminated by parametric memorization and open-web volatility. We introduce DeR2, a controlled deep-research sandbox that isolates document-grounded reasoning while preserving core difficulties of deep search: multi-step synthesis, denoising, and evidence-based conclusion making. DeR2 decouples evidence access from reasoning via four regimes--Instruction-only, Concepts (gold concepts without documents), Related-only (only relevant documents), and Full-set (relevant documents plus topically related distractors)--yielding interpretable regime gaps that operationalize retrieval loss vs. reasoning loss and enable fine-grained error attribution. To prevent parametric leakage, we apply a two-phase validation that requires parametric failure without evidence while ensuring oracle-concept solvability. To ensure reproducibility, each instance provides a frozen document library (drawn from 2023-2025 theoretical papers) with expert-annotated concepts and validated rationales. Experiments across a diverse set of state-of-the-art foundation models reveal substantial variation and significant headroom: some models exhibit mode-switch fragility, performing worse with the Full-set than with Instruction-only, while others show structural concept misuse, correctly naming concepts but failing to execute them as procedures.

Words of estimative probability (WEP) are expressions of a statement's plausibility (probably, maybe, likely, doubt, likely, unlikely, impossible...). Multiple surveys demonstrate the agreement of human evaluators when assigning numerical probability levels to WEP. For example, highly likely corresponds to a median chance of 0.90+-0.08 in Fagen-Ulmschneider (2015)'s survey. In this work, we measure the ability of neural language processing models to capture the consensual probability level associated to each WEP. Firstly, we use the UNLI dataset (Chen et al., 2020) which associates premises and hypotheses with their perceived joint probability p, to construct prompts, e.g. "[PREMISE]. [WEP], [HYPOTHESIS]." and assess whether language models can predict whether the WEP consensual probability level is close to p. Secondly, we construct a dataset of WEP-based probabilistic reasoning, to test whether language models can reason with WEP compositions. When prompted "[EVENTA] is likely. [EVENTB] is impossible.", a causal language model should not express that [EVENTA&B] is likely. We show that both tasks are unsolved by off-the-shelf English language models, but that fine-tuning leads to transferable improvement.

Large Language Model (LLM) leaderboards based on benchmark rankings are regularly used to guide practitioners in model selection. Often, the published leaderboard rankings are taken at face value - we show this is a (potentially costly) mistake. Under existing leaderboards, the relative performance of LLMs is highly sensitive to (often minute) details. We show that for popular multiple choice question benchmarks (e.g. MMLU) minor perturbations to the benchmark, such as changing the order of choices or the method of answer selection, result in changes in rankings up to 8 positions. We explain this phenomenon by conducting systematic experiments over three broad categories of benchmark perturbations and identifying the sources of this behavior. Our analysis results in several best-practice recommendations, including the advantage of a hybrid scoring method for answer selection. Our study highlights the dangers of relying on simple benchmark evaluations and charts the path for more robust evaluation schemes on the existing benchmarks.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown significant potential in scientific disciplines such as biomedicine, particularly in hypothesis generation, where they can analyze vast literature, identify patterns, and suggest research directions. However, a key challenge lies in evaluating the truthfulness of generated hypotheses, as verifying their accuracy often requires substantial time and resources. Additionally, the hallucination problem in LLMs can lead to the generation of hypotheses that appear plausible but are ultimately incorrect, undermining their reliability. To facilitate the systematic study of these challenges, we introduce TruthHypo, a benchmark for assessing the capabilities of LLMs in generating truthful biomedical hypotheses, and KnowHD, a knowledge-based hallucination detector to evaluate how well hypotheses are grounded in existing knowledge. Our results show that LLMs struggle to generate truthful hypotheses. By analyzing hallucinations in reasoning steps, we demonstrate that the groundedness scores provided by KnowHD serve as an effective metric for filtering truthful hypotheses from the diverse outputs of LLMs. Human evaluations further validate the utility of KnowHD in identifying truthful hypotheses and accelerating scientific discovery. Our data and source code are available at https://github.com/Teddy-XiongGZ/TruthHypo.

The development of state-of-the-art systems in different applied areas of machine learning (ML) is driven by benchmarks, which have shaped the paradigm of evaluating generalisation capabilities from multiple perspectives. Although the paradigm is shifting towards more fine-grained evaluation across diverse tasks, the delicate question of how to aggregate the performances has received particular interest in the community. In general, benchmarks follow the unspoken utilitarian principles, where the systems are ranked based on their mean average score over task-specific metrics. Such aggregation procedure has been viewed as a sub-optimal evaluation protocol, which may have created the illusion of progress. This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields and identify the best-performing systems in research and development case studies. The Vote'n'Rank's procedures are more robust than the mean average while being able to handle missing performance scores and determine conditions under which the system becomes the winner.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have inherent limitations of faithfulness and factuality, commonly referred to as hallucinations. Several benchmarks have been developed that provide a test bed for factuality evaluation within the context of English-centric datasets, while relying on supplementary informative context like web links or text passages but ignoring the available structured factual resources. To this end, Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have been identified as a useful aid for hallucination mitigation, as they provide a structured way to represent the facts about entities and their relations with minimal linguistic overhead. We bridge the lack of KG paths and multilinguality for factual language modeling within the existing hallucination evaluation benchmarks and propose a KG-based multilingual, multihop benchmark called MultiHal framed for generative text evaluation. As part of our data collection pipeline, we mined 140k KG-paths from open-domain KGs, from which we pruned noisy KG-paths, curating a high-quality subset of 25.9k. Our baseline evaluation shows an absolute scale increase by approximately 0.12 to 0.36 points for the semantic similarity score in KG-RAG over vanilla QA across multiple languages and multiple models, demonstrating the potential of KG integration. We anticipate MultiHal will foster future research towards several graph-based hallucination mitigation and fact-checking tasks.

The unprecedented performance of large language models (LLMs) necessitates improvements in evaluations. Rather than merely exploring the breadth of LLM abilities, we believe meticulous and thoughtful designs are essential to thorough, unbiased, and applicable evaluations. Given the importance of world knowledge to LLMs, we construct a Knowledge-oriented LLM Assessment benchmark (KoLA), in which we carefully design three crucial factors: (1) For ability modeling, we mimic human cognition to form a four-level taxonomy of knowledge-related abilities, covering 19 tasks. (2) For data, to ensure fair comparisons, we use both Wikipedia, a corpus prevalently pre-trained by LLMs, along with continuously collected emerging corpora, aiming to evaluate the capacity to handle unseen data and evolving knowledge. (3) For evaluation criteria, we adopt a contrastive system, including overall standard scores for better numerical comparability across tasks and models and a unique self-contrast metric for automatically evaluating knowledge hallucination. We evaluate 21 open-source and commercial LLMs and obtain some intriguing findings. The KoLA dataset and open-participation leaderboard are publicly released at https://kola.xlore.cn and will be continuously updated to provide references for developing LLMs and knowledge-related systems.

Retrieval models are often evaluated on partially-annotated datasets. Each query is mapped to a few relevant texts and the remaining corpus is assumed to be irrelevant. As a result, models that successfully retrieve false negatives are punished in evaluation. Unfortunately, completely annotating all texts for every query is not resource efficient. In this work, we show that using partially-annotated datasets in evaluation can paint a distorted picture. We curate D-MERIT, a passage retrieval evaluation set from Wikipedia, aspiring to contain all relevant passages for each query. Queries describe a group (e.g., ``journals about linguistics'') and relevant passages are evidence that entities belong to the group (e.g., a passage indicating that Language is a journal about linguistics). We show that evaluating on a dataset containing annotations for only a subset of the relevant passages might result in misleading ranking of the retrieval systems and that as more relevant texts are included in the evaluation set, the rankings converge. We propose our dataset as a resource for evaluation and our study as a recommendation for balance between resource-efficiency and reliable evaluation when annotating evaluation sets for text retrieval.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various applications, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of natural language processing (NLP) research. However, recent evaluation frameworks often rely on the output probabilities of LLMs for predictions, primarily due to computational constraints, diverging from real-world LLM usage scenarios. While widely employed, the efficacy of these probability-based evaluation strategies remains an open research question. This study aims to scrutinize the validity of such probability-based evaluation methods within the context of using LLMs for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), highlighting their inherent limitations. Our empirical investigation reveals that the prevalent probability-based evaluation method inadequately aligns with generation-based prediction. Furthermore, current evaluation frameworks typically assess LLMs through predictive tasks based on output probabilities rather than directly generating responses, owing to computational limitations. We illustrate that these probability-based approaches do not effectively correspond with generative predictions. The outcomes of our study can enhance the understanding of LLM evaluation methodologies and provide insights for future research in this domain.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields, necessitating the development of effective methods to evaluate and compare their performance. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either based on fixed, domain-specific questions that lack the flexibility required in many real-world applications, or rely on human input, making them unscalable. To address these issues, we propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between LLMs, judged by another LLM. This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as argumentative reasoning and inconsistency recognition. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs using the debate framework and achieve rankings that align closely with popular rankings based on human input, eliminating the need for costly human crowdsourcing.

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.

Understanding natural language requires common sense, one aspect of which is the ability to discern the plausibility of events. While distributional models -- most recently pre-trained, Transformer language models -- have demonstrated improvements in modeling event plausibility, their performance still falls short of humans'. In this work, we show that Transformer-based plausibility models are markedly inconsistent across the conceptual classes of a lexical hierarchy, inferring that "a person breathing" is plausible while "a dentist breathing" is not, for example. We find this inconsistency persists even when models are softly injected with lexical knowledge, and we present a simple post-hoc method of forcing model consistency that improves correlation with human plausibility judgements.

The fluency and creativity of large pre-trained language models (LLMs) have led to their widespread use, sometimes even as a replacement for traditional search engines. Yet language models are prone to making convincing but factually inaccurate claims, often referred to as 'hallucinations.' These errors can inadvertently spread misinformation or harmfully perpetuate misconceptions. Further, manual fact-checking of model responses is a time-consuming process, making human factuality labels expensive to acquire. In this work, we fine-tune language models to be more factual, without human labeling and targeting more open-ended generation settings than past work. We leverage two key recent innovations in NLP to do so. First, several recent works have proposed methods for judging the factuality of open-ended text by measuring consistency with an external knowledge base or simply a large model's confidence scores. Second, the direct preference optimization algorithm enables straightforward fine-tuning of language models on objectives other than supervised imitation, using a preference ranking over possible model responses. We show that learning from automatically generated factuality preference rankings, generated either through existing retrieval systems or our novel retrieval-free approach, significantly improves the factuality (percent of generated claims that are correct) of Llama-2 on held-out topics compared with RLHF or decoding strategies targeted at factuality. At 7B scale, compared to Llama-2-chat, we observe 58% and 40% reduction in factual error rate when generating biographies and answering medical questions, respectively.

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

We study the ranking of individuals, teams, or objects, based on pairwise comparisons between them, using the Bradley-Terry model. Estimates of rankings within this model are commonly made using a simple iterative algorithm first introduced by Zermelo almost a century ago. Here we describe an alternative and similarly simple iteration that provably returns identical results but does so much faster -- over a hundred times faster in some cases. We demonstrate this algorithm with applications to a range of example data sets and derive a number of results regarding its convergence.

The rapid propagation of misinformation poses substantial risks to public interest. To combat misinformation, large language models (LLMs) are adapted to automatically verify claim credibility. Nevertheless, existing methods heavily rely on the embedded knowledge within LLMs and / or black-box APIs for evidence collection, leading to subpar performance with smaller LLMs or upon unreliable context. In this paper, we propose retrieval augmented fact verification through the synthesis of contrasting arguments (RAFTS). Upon input claims, RAFTS starts with evidence retrieval, where we design a retrieval pipeline to collect and re-rank relevant documents from verifiable sources. Then, RAFTS forms contrastive arguments (i.e., supporting or refuting) conditioned on the retrieved evidence. In addition, RAFTS leverages an embedding model to identify informative demonstrations, followed by in-context prompting to generate the prediction and explanation. Our method effectively retrieves relevant documents as evidence and evaluates arguments from varying perspectives, incorporating nuanced information for fine-grained decision-making. Combined with informative in-context examples as prior, RAFTS achieves significant improvements to supervised and LLM baselines without complex prompts. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through extensive experiments, where RAFTS can outperform GPT-based methods with a significantly smaller 7B LLM.

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) exhibit positional bias in how they use context, which especially complicates listwise ranking. To address this, we propose permutation self-consistency, a form of self-consistency over ranking list outputs of black-box LLMs. Our key idea is to marginalize out different list orders in the prompt to produce an order-independent ranking with less positional bias. First, given some input prompt, we repeatedly shuffle the list in the prompt and pass it through the LLM while holding the instructions the same. Next, we aggregate the resulting sample of rankings by computing the central ranking closest in distance to all of them, marginalizing out prompt order biases in the process. Theoretically, we prove the robustness of our method, showing convergence to the true ranking in the presence of random perturbations. Empirically, on five list-ranking datasets in sorting and passage reranking, our approach improves scores from conventional inference by up to 7-18% for GPT-3.5 and 8-16% for LLaMA v2 (70B), surpassing the previous state of the art in passage reranking. Our code is at https://github.com/castorini/perm-sc.

Creating test collections for offline retrieval evaluation requires human effort to judge documents' relevance. This expensive activity motivated much work in developing methods for constructing benchmarks with fewer assessment costs. In this respect, adjudication methods actively decide both which documents and the order in which experts review them, in order to better exploit the assessment budget or to lower it. Researchers evaluate the quality of those methods by measuring the correlation between the known gold ranking of systems under the full collection and the observed ranking of systems under the lower-cost one. This traditional analysis ignores whether and how the low-cost judgements impact on the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to the full collection. We fill this void by proposing a novel methodology to evaluate how the low-cost adjudication methods preserve the pairwise significant differences between systems as the full collection. In other terms, while traditional approaches look for stability in answering the question "is system A better than system B?", our proposed approach looks for stability in answering the question "is system A significantly better than system B?", which is the ultimate questions researchers need to answer to guarantee the generalisability of their results. Among other results, we found that the best methods in terms of ranking of systems correlation do not always match those preserving statistical significance.

Battles, or side-by-side comparisons in so called arenas that elicit human preferences, have emerged as a popular approach to assessing the output quality of LLMs. Recently, this idea has been extended to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. While undoubtedly representing an advance in evaluation, battles have at least two drawbacks, particularly in the context of complex information-seeking queries: they are neither explanatory nor diagnostic. Recently, the nugget evaluation methodology has emerged as a promising approach to evaluate the quality of RAG answers. Nuggets decompose long-form LLM-generated answers into atomic facts, highlighting important pieces of information necessary in a "good" response. In this work, we apply our AutoNuggetizer framework to analyze data from roughly 7K Search Arena battles provided by LMArena in a fully automatic manner. Our results show a significant correlation between nugget scores and human preferences, showcasing promise in our approach to explainable and diagnostic system evaluations.

As AI tools become increasingly common for research ideation, robust evaluation is critical to ensure the validity and usefulness of generated ideas. We introduce ScholarEval, a retrieval augmented evaluation framework that assesses research ideas based on two fundamental criteria: soundness - the empirical validity of proposed methods based on existing literature, and contribution - the degree of advancement made by the idea across different dimensions relative to prior research. To evaluate ScholarEval, we introduce ScholarIdeas, the first expert-annotated dataset of multi-domain research ideas and reviews, comprised of 117 ideas across four disciplines: artificial intelligence, neuroscience, biochemistry, and ecology. Our evaluation shows that ScholarEval achieves significantly higher coverage of points mentioned in the human expert annotated rubrics in ScholarIdeas compared to all baselines. Furthermore, ScholarEval is consistently preferred over our strongest baseline o4-mini-deep-research, a reasoning and search-enabled agentic system by OpenAI, in terms of evaluation actionability, depth, and evidence support. Our large-scale user study also shows that ScholarEval significantly outperforms deep research in literature engagement, idea refinement, and usefulness. We openly release our code, dataset, and ScholarEval tool for the community to use and build on.

The ability to research and synthesize knowledge is central to human expertise and progress. An emerging class of systems promises these exciting capabilities through generative research synthesis, performing retrieval over the live web and synthesizing discovered sources into long-form, cited summaries. However, evaluating such systems remains an open challenge: existing question-answering benchmarks focus on short-form factual responses, while expert-curated datasets risk staleness and data contamination. Both fail to capture the complexity and evolving nature of real research synthesis tasks. In this work, we introduce DeepScholar-bench, a live benchmark and holistic, automated evaluation framework designed to evaluate generative research synthesis. DeepScholar-bench draws queries from recent, high-quality ArXiv papers and focuses on a real research synthesis task: generating the related work sections of a paper by retrieving, synthesizing, and citing prior research. Our evaluation framework holistically assesses performance across three key dimensions, knowledge synthesis, retrieval quality, and verifiability. We also develop DeepScholar-base, a reference pipeline implemented efficiently using the LOTUS API. Using the DeepScholar-bench framework, we perform a systematic evaluation of prior open-source systems, search AI's, OpenAI's DeepResearch, and DeepScholar-base. We find that DeepScholar-base establishes a strong baseline, attaining competitive or higher performance than each other method. We also find that DeepScholar-bench remains far from saturated, with no system exceeding a score of 19% across all metrics. These results underscore the difficulty of DeepScholar-bench, as well as its importance for progress towards AI systems capable of generative research synthesis. We make our code available at https://github.com/guestrin-lab/deepscholar-bench.

Automatic evaluation benchmarks such as MT-Bench, Arena-Hard, and Auto-Arena are seeing growing adoption for the evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing research has primarily focused on approximating human-based model rankings using limited data and LLM-as-a-Judge. However, the fundamental premise of these studies, which attempts to replicate human rankings, is flawed. Specifically, these benchmarks typically offer only overall scores, limiting their utility to leaderboard rankings, rather than providing feedback that can guide model optimization and support model profiling. Therefore, we advocate for an evaluation paradigm shift from approximating human-based model rankings to providing feedback with analytical value. To this end, we introduce Feedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results, thereby enabling thorough identification of a model's specific strengths and weaknesses. Such feedback not only supports the targeted optimization of the model but also enhances the understanding of its behavior. Feedbacker comprises three key components: an extensible tree-based query taxonomy builder, an automated query synthesis scheme, and a suite of visualization and analysis tools. Furthermore, we propose a novel LLM-as-a-Judge method: PC2 (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) pointwise evaluation. This method derives evaluation criteria by pre-comparing the differences between several auxiliary responses, achieving the accuracy of pairwise evaluation while maintaining the time complexity of pointwise evaluation. Finally, leveraging the evaluation results of 17 mainstream LLMs, we demonstrate the usage of Feedbacker and highlight its effectiveness and potential. Our homepage project is available at https://liudan193.github.io/Feedbacker.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has shown impressive capabilities in mitigating hallucinations in large language models (LLMs). However, LLMs struggle to handle misleading retrievals and often fail to maintain their own reasoning when exposed to conflicting or selectively-framed evidence, making them vulnerable to real-world misinformation. In such real-world retrieval scenarios, misleading and conflicting information is rampant, particularly in the political domain, where evidence is often selectively framed, incomplete, or polarized. However, existing RAG benchmarks largely assume a clean retrieval setting, where models succeed by accurately retrieving and generating answers from gold-standard documents. This assumption fails to align with real-world conditions, leading to an overestimation of RAG system performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce RAGuard, a fact-checking dataset designed to evaluate the robustness of RAG systems against misleading retrievals. Unlike prior benchmarks that rely on synthetic noise, our dataset constructs its retrieval corpus from Reddit discussions, capturing naturally occurring misinformation. It categorizes retrieved evidence into three types: supporting, misleading, and irrelevant, providing a realistic and challenging testbed for assessing how well RAG systems navigate different retrieval information. Our benchmark experiments reveal that when exposed to misleading retrievals, all tested LLM-powered RAG systems perform worse than their zero-shot baselines (i.e., no retrieval at all), highlighting their susceptibility to noisy environments. To the best of our knowledge, RAGuard is the first benchmark to systematically assess RAG robustness against misleading evidence. We expect this benchmark will drive future research toward improving RAG systems beyond idealized datasets, making them more reliable for real-world applications.

Despite its simplicity and efficacy, the high token expenditure of self-consistency can limit its practical utility. Here we investigate if self-consistency can be made more token-efficient for long chain-of-thought reasoning tasks, while preserving its parallelism, through early hypothesis pruning. Concretely, we generate all solutions in parallel, but periodically prune intermediate hypotheses that are deemed unnecessary based on two lightweight indicators: (a) the model's own confidence in individual hypotheses, and (b) lexical coverage of all current hypotheses by candidate subsets that are under consideration for continued retention. We design a fast weighted set cover algorithm that utilizes the two indicators; our evaluation of five LLMs on three math benchmarks shows that this method can improve token efficiency for all models, by 10-35% in many cases.

Existing language model evaluations primarily measure general capabilities, yet reliable use of these models across a range of domains demands factual accuracy and recognition of knowledge gaps. We introduce AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to measure both factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions. Questions are derived from authoritative academic and industry sources, and cover 42 economically relevant topics within six different domains. The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall that jointly penalizes hallucinations and rewards abstention when uncertain, with 0 equating to a model that answers questions correctly as much as it does incorrectly. Among evaluated models, Claude 4.1 Opus attains the highest score (4.8), making it one of only three models to score above zero. These results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models. Performance also varies by domain, with the models from three different research labs leading across the six domains. This performance variability suggests models should be chosen according to the demands of the use case rather than general performance for tasks where knowledge is important.

Evaluation and ranking of large language models (LLMs) has become an important problem with the proliferation of these models and their impact. Evaluation methods either require human responses which are expensive to acquire or use pairs of LLMs to evaluate each other which can be unreliable. In this paper, we provide a novel perspective where, given a dataset of prompts (viz. questions, instructions, etc.) and a set of LLMs, we rank them without access to any ground truth or reference responses. Inspired by real life where both an expert and a knowledgeable person can identify a novice our main idea is to consider triplets of models, where each one of them evaluates the other two, correctly identifying the worst model in the triplet with high probability. We also analyze our idea and provide sufficient conditions for it to succeed. Applying this idea repeatedly, we propose two methods to rank LLMs. In experiments on different generative tasks (summarization, multiple-choice, and dialog), our methods reliably recover close to true rankings without reference data. This points to a viable low-resource mechanism for practical use.

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

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

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) has increased significantly with users frequently asking questions to chatbots. In the time when information is readily accessible, it is crucial to stimulate and preserve human cognitive abilities and maintain strong reasoning skills. This paper addresses such challenges by promoting the use of hints as an alternative or a supplement to direct answers. We first introduce a manually constructed hint dataset, WikiHint, which is based on Wikipedia and includes 5,000 hints created for 1,000 questions. We then finetune open-source LLMs such as LLaMA-3.1 for hint generation in answer-aware and answeragnostic contexts. We assess the effectiveness of the hints with human participants who answer questions with and without the aid of hints. Additionally, we introduce a lightweight evaluation method, HintRank, to evaluate and rank hints in both answeraware and answer-agnostic settings. Our findings show that (a) the dataset helps generate more effective hints, (b) including answer information along with questions generally improves quality of generated hints, and (c) encoder-based models perform better than decoder-based models in hint ranking.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on various quantitative reasoning and knowledge benchmarks. However, many of these benchmarks are losing utility as LLMs get increasingly high scores, despite not yet reaching expert performance in these domains. We introduce ARB, a novel benchmark composed of advanced reasoning problems in multiple fields. ARB presents a more challenging test than prior benchmarks, featuring problems in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, and law. As a subset of ARB, we introduce a challenging set of math and physics problems which require advanced symbolic reasoning and domain knowledge. We evaluate recent models such as GPT-4 and Claude on ARB and demonstrate that current models score well below 50% on more demanding tasks. In order to improve both automatic and assisted evaluation capabilities, we introduce a rubric-based evaluation approach, allowing GPT-4 to score its own intermediate reasoning steps. Further, we conduct a human evaluation of the symbolic subset of ARB, finding promising agreement between annotators and GPT-4 rubric evaluation scores.

A new generation of AI models generates step-by-step reasoning text before producing an answer. This text appears to offer a human-readable window into their computation process, and is increasingly relied upon for transparency and interpretability. However, it is unclear whether human understanding of this text matches the model's actual computational process. In this paper, we investigate a necessary condition for correspondence: the ability of humans to identify which steps in a reasoning text causally influence later steps. We evaluated humans on this ability by composing questions based on counterfactual measurements and found a significant discrepancy: participant accuracy was only 29.3%, barely above chance (25%), and remained low (42%) even when evaluating the majority vote on questions with high agreement. Our results reveal a fundamental gap between how humans interpret reasoning texts and how models use it, challenging its utility as a simple interpretability tool. We argue that reasoning texts should be treated as an artifact to be investigated, not taken at face value, and that understanding the non-human ways these models use language is a critical research direction.

As the issue of robustness in AI systems becomes vital, statistical learning techniques that are reliable even in presence of partly contaminated data have to be developed. Preference data, in the form of (complete) rankings in the simplest situations, are no exception and the demand for appropriate concepts and tools is all the more pressing given that technologies fed by or producing this type of data (e.g. search engines, recommending systems) are now massively deployed. However, the lack of vector space structure for the set of rankings (i.e. the symmetric group S_n) and the complex nature of statistics considered in ranking data analysis make the formulation of robustness objectives in this domain challenging. In this paper, we introduce notions of robustness, together with dedicated statistical methods, for Consensus Ranking the flagship problem in ranking data analysis, aiming at summarizing a probability distribution on S_n by a median ranking. Precisely, we propose specific extensions of the popular concept of breakdown point, tailored to consensus ranking, and address the related computational issues. Beyond the theoretical contributions, the relevance of the approach proposed is supported by an experimental study.

Recent advances in reasoning-centric models promise improved robustness through mechanisms such as chain-of-thought prompting and test-time scaling. However, their ability to withstand misleading user input remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct a systematic evaluation of three state-of-the-art reasoning models, i.e., OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash, across three multimodal benchmarks: MMMU, MathVista, and CharXiv. Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops (25-29% on average) following gaslighting negation prompts, indicating that even top-tier reasoning models struggle to preserve correct answers under manipulative user feedback. Built upon the insights of the evaluation and to further probe this vulnerability, we introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark specifically designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief under gaslighting negation prompt. Constructed by filtering and curating 1,025 challenging samples from the existing benchmarks, GaslightingBench-R induces even more dramatic failures, with accuracy drops exceeding 53% on average. Our findings reveal fundamental limitations in the robustness of reasoning models, highlighting the gap between step-by-step reasoning and belief persistence.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse specialized benchmarks necessitates a shift from fragmented, task-specific metrics to a holistic, competitive ranking system that effectively aggregates performance across multiple ability dimensions. Primarily using static scoring, current evaluation methods are fundamentally limited. They struggle to determine the proper mix ratio across diverse benchmarks, and critically, they fail to capture a model's dynamic competitive fitness or its vulnerability when confronted with sequential, high-stakes tasks. To address this, we introduce the novel Competitive Swiss-System Dynamics (CSD) framework. CSD simulates a multi-round, sequential contest where models are dynamically paired across a curated sequence of benchmarks based on their accumulated win-loss record. And Monte Carlo Simulation (N=100,000 iterations) is used to approximate the statistically robust Expected Win Score (E[S_m]), which eliminates the noise of random pairing and early-round luck. Furthermore, we implement a Failure Sensitivity Analysis by parameterizing the per-round elimination quantity (T_k), which allows us to profile models based on their risk appetite--distinguishing between robust generalists and aggressive specialists. We demonstrate that CSD provides a more nuanced and context-aware ranking than traditional aggregate scoring and static pairwise models, representing a vital step towards risk-informed, next-generation LLM evaluation.

Spatial reasoning plays a vital role in both human cognition and machine intelligence, prompting new research into language models' (LMs) capabilities in this regard. However, existing benchmarks reveal shortcomings in evaluating qualitative spatial reasoning (QSR). These benchmarks typically present oversimplified scenarios or unclear natural language descriptions, hindering effective evaluation. We present a novel benchmark for assessing QSR in LMs, which is grounded in realistic 3D simulation data, offering a series of diverse room layouts with various objects and their spatial relationships. This approach provides a more detailed and context-rich narrative for spatial reasoning evaluation, diverging from traditional, toy-task-oriented scenarios. Our benchmark encompasses a broad spectrum of qualitative spatial relationships, including topological, directional, and distance relations. These are presented with different viewing points, varied granularities, and density of relation constraints to mimic real-world complexities. A key contribution is our logic-based consistency-checking tool, which enables the assessment of multiple plausible solutions, aligning with real-world scenarios where spatial relationships are often open to interpretation. Our benchmark evaluation of advanced LMs reveals their strengths and limitations in spatial reasoning. They face difficulties with multi-hop spatial reasoning and interpreting a mix of different view descriptions, pointing to areas for future improvement.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been applied to forecasting tasks, with some works claiming these systems match or exceed human performance. In this paper, we argue that, as a community, we should be careful about such conclusions as evaluating LLM forecasters presents unique challenges. We identify two broad categories of issues: (1) difficulty in trusting evaluation results due to many forms of temporal leakage, and (2) difficulty in extrapolating from evaluation performance to real-world forecasting. Through systematic analysis and concrete examples from prior work, we demonstrate how evaluation flaws can raise concerns about current and future performance claims. We argue that more rigorous evaluation methodologies are needed to confidently assess the forecasting abilities of LLMs.

As LLM-based judges become integral to industry applications, obtaining well-calibrated uncertainty estimates efficiently has become critical for production deployment. However, existing techniques, such as verbalized confidence and multi-generation methods, are often either poorly calibrated or computationally expensive. We introduce linear probes trained with a Brier score-based loss to provide calibrated uncertainty estimates from reasoning judges' hidden states, requiring no additional model training. We evaluate our approach on both objective tasks (reasoning, mathematics, factuality, coding) and subjective human preference judgments. Our results demonstrate that probes achieve superior calibration compared to existing methods with approx10x computational savings, generalize robustly to unseen evaluation domains, and deliver higher accuracy on high-confidence predictions. However, probes produce conservative estimates that underperform on easier datasets but may benefit safety-critical deployments prioritizing low false-positive rates. Overall, our work demonstrates that interpretability-based uncertainty estimation provides a practical and scalable plug-and-play solution for LLM judges in production.

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

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.

Search-augmented language models combine web search with Large Language Models (LLMs) to improve response groundedness and freshness. However, analyzing these systems remains challenging: existing datasets are limited in scale and narrow in scope, often constrained to static, single-turn, fact-checking questions. In this work, we introduce Search Arena, a crowd-sourced, large-scale, human-preference dataset of over 24,000 paired multi-turn user interactions with search-augmented LLMs. The dataset spans diverse intents and languages, and contains full system traces with around 12,000 human preference votes. Our analysis reveals that user preferences are influenced by the number of citations, even when the cited content does not directly support the attributed claims, uncovering a gap between perceived and actual credibility. Furthermore, user preferences vary across cited sources, revealing that community-driven platforms are generally preferred and static encyclopedic sources are not always appropriate and reliable. To assess performance across different settings, we conduct cross-arena analyses by testing search-augmented LLMs in a general-purpose chat environment and conventional LLMs in search-intensive settings. We find that web search does not degrade and may even improve performance in non-search settings; however, the quality in search settings is significantly affected if solely relying on the model's parametric knowledge. We open-sourced the dataset to support future research in this direction. Our dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/lmarena/search-arena.

Summarization evaluation remains an open research problem: current metrics such as ROUGE are known to be limited and to correlate poorly with human judgments. To alleviate this issue, recent work has proposed evaluation metrics which rely on question answering models to assess whether a summary contains all the relevant information in its source document. Though promising, the proposed approaches have so far failed to correlate better than ROUGE with human judgments. In this paper, we extend previous approaches and propose a unified framework, named QuestEval. In contrast to established metrics such as ROUGE or BERTScore, QuestEval does not require any ground-truth reference. Nonetheless, QuestEval substantially improves the correlation with human judgments over four evaluation dimensions (consistency, coherence, fluency, and relevance), as shown in the extensive experiments we report.

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.

Reasoning-intensive ranking models built on Large Language Models (LLMs) have made notable progress, but existing approaches often rely on large-scale LLMs and explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, resulting in high computational cost and latency that limit real-world use. To address this, we propose TFRank, an efficient pointwise reasoning ranker based on small-scale LLMs. To improve ranking performance, TFRank effectively integrates CoT data, fine-grained score supervision, and multi-task training. Furthermore, it achieves an efficient ``Think-Free" reasoning capability by employing a ``think-mode switch'' and pointwise format constraints. Specifically, this allows the model to leverage explicit reasoning during training while delivering precise relevance scores for complex queries at inference without generating any reasoning chains. Experiments show that TFRank (e.g., 1.7B) achieves performance comparable to models with four times more parameters on the BRIGHT benchmark, and demonstrates strong competitiveness on the BEIR benchmark. Further analysis shows that TFRank achieves an effective balance between performance and efficiency, providing a practical solution for integrating advanced reasoning into real-world systems. Our code and data are released in the repository: https://github.com/JOHNNY-fans/TFRank.

Researchers have successfully applied large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT to reranking in an information retrieval context, but to date, such work has mostly been built on proprietary models hidden behind opaque API endpoints. This approach yields experimental results that are not reproducible and non-deterministic, threatening the veracity of outcomes that build on such shaky foundations. To address this significant shortcoming, we present RankVicuna, the first fully open-source LLM capable of performing high-quality listwise reranking in a zero-shot setting. Experimental results on the TREC 2019 and 2020 Deep Learning Tracks show that we can achieve effectiveness comparable to zero-shot reranking with GPT-3.5 with a much smaller 7B parameter model, although our effectiveness remains slightly behind reranking with GPT-4. We hope our work provides the foundation for future research on reranking with modern LLMs. All the code necessary to reproduce our results is available at https://github.com/castorini/rank_llm.

A key component of fact verification is thevevidence retrieval, often from multiple documents. Recent approaches use dense representations and condition the retrieval of each document on the previously retrieved ones. The latter step is performed over all the documents in the collection, requiring storing their dense representations in an index, thus incurring a high memory footprint. An alternative paradigm is retrieve-and-rerank, where documents are retrieved using methods such as BM25, their sentences are reranked, and further documents are retrieved conditioned on these sentences, reducing the memory requirements. However, such approaches can be brittle as they rely on heuristics and assume hyperlinks between documents. We propose a novel retrieve-and-rerank method for multi-hop retrieval, that consists of a retriever that jointly scores documents in the knowledge source and sentences from previously retrieved documents using an autoregressive formulation and is guided by a proof system based on natural logic that dynamically terminates the retrieval process if the evidence is deemed sufficient. This method is competitive with current state-of-the-art methods on FEVER, HoVer and FEVEROUS-S, while using 5 to 10 times less memory than competing systems. Evaluation on an adversarial dataset indicates improved stability of our approach compared to commonly deployed threshold-based methods. Finally, the proof system helps humans predict model decisions correctly more often than using the evidence alone.

Before deploying a language model (LM) within a given domain, it is important to measure its tendency to generate factually incorrect information in that domain. Existing factual generation evaluation methods focus on facts sampled from the LM itself, and thus do not control the set of evaluated facts and might under-represent rare and unlikely facts. We propose FACTOR: Factual Assessment via Corpus TransfORmation, a scalable approach for evaluating LM factuality. FACTOR automatically transforms a factual corpus of interest into a benchmark evaluating an LM's propensity to generate true facts from the corpus vs. similar but incorrect statements. We use our framework to create two benchmarks: Wiki-FACTOR and News-FACTOR. We show that: (i) our benchmark scores increase with model size and improve when the LM is augmented with retrieval; (ii) benchmark score correlates with perplexity, but the two metrics do not always agree on model ranking; and (iii) when perplexity and benchmark score disagree, the latter better reflects factuality in open-ended generation, as measured by human annotators. We make our data and code publicly available in https://github.com/AI21Labs/factor.

Text-based explainable recommendation aims to generate natural-language explanations that justify item recommendations, to improve user trust and system transparency. Although recent advances leverage LLMs to produce fluent outputs, a critical question remains underexplored: are these explanations factually consistent with the available evidence? We introduce a comprehensive framework for evaluating the factual consistency of text-based explainable recommenders. We design a prompting-based pipeline that uses LLMs to extract atomic explanatory statements from reviews, thereby constructing a ground truth that isolates and focuses on their factual content. Applying this pipeline to five categories from the Amazon Reviews dataset, we create augmented benchmarks for fine-grained evaluation of explanation quality. We further propose statement-level alignment metrics that combine LLM- and NLI-based approaches to assess both factual consistency and relevance of generated explanations. Across extensive experiments on six state-of-the-art explainable recommendation models, we uncover a critical gap: while models achieve high semantic similarity scores (BERTScore F1: 0.81-0.90), all our factuality metrics reveal alarmingly low performance (LLM-based statement-level precision: 4.38%-32.88%). These findings underscore the need for factuality-aware evaluation in explainable recommendation and provide a foundation for developing more trustworthy explanation systems.

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

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

Assessing factuality of text generated by large language models (LLMs) is an emerging yet crucial research area, aimed at alerting users to potential errors and guiding the development of more reliable LLMs. Nonetheless, the evaluators assessing factuality necessitate suitable evaluation themselves to gauge progress and foster advancements. This direction remains under-explored, resulting in substantial impediments to the progress of factuality evaluators. To mitigate this issue, we introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. In this benchmark, we collect responses generated from LLMs and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Contrary to previous studies that primarily concentrate on the factuality of world knowledge (e.g.~information from Wikipedia), felm focuses on factuality across diverse domains, spanning from world knowledge to math and reasoning. Our annotation is based on text segments, which can help pinpoint specific factual errors. The factuality annotations are further supplemented by predefined error types and reference links that either support or contradict the statement. In our experiments, we investigate the performance of several LLM-based factuality evaluators on felm, including both vanilla LLMs and those augmented with retrieval mechanisms and chain-of-thought processes. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.

Preference learning has gained significant attention in tasks involving subjective human judgments, such as speech emotion recognition (SER) and image aesthetic assessment. While pairwise frameworks such as RankNet offer robust modeling of relative preferences, they are inherently limited to local comparisons and struggle to capture global ranking consistency. To address these limitations, we propose RankList, a novel listwise preference learning framework that generalizes RankNet to structured list-level supervision. Our formulation explicitly models local and non-local ranking constraints within a probabilistic framework. The paper introduces a log-sum-exp approximation to improve training efficiency. We further extend RankList with skip-wise comparisons, enabling progressive exposure to complex list structures and enhancing global ranking fidelity. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our method across diverse modalities. On benchmark SER datasets (MSP-Podcast, IEMOCAP, BIIC Podcast), RankList achieves consistent improvements in Kendall's Tau and ranking accuracy compared to standard listwise baselines. We also validate our approach on aesthetic image ranking using the Artistic Image Aesthetics dataset, highlighting its broad applicability. Through ablation and cross-domain studies, we show that RankList not only improves in-domain ranking but also generalizes better across datasets. Our framework offers a unified, extensible approach for modeling ordered preferences in subjective learning scenarios.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a popular solution to mitigate the hallucination issues of large language models. However, existing studies on RAG seldom address the issue of predictive uncertainty, i.e., how likely it is that a RAG model's prediction is incorrect, resulting in uncontrollable risks in real-world applications. In this work, we emphasize the importance of risk control, ensuring that RAG models proactively refuse to answer questions with low confidence. Our research identifies two critical latent factors affecting RAG's confidence in its predictions: the quality of the retrieved results and the manner in which these results are utilized. To guide RAG models in assessing their own confidence based on these two latent factors, we develop a counterfactual prompting framework that induces the models to alter these factors and analyzes the effect on their answers. We also introduce a benchmarking procedure to collect answers with the option to abstain, facilitating a series of experiments. For evaluation, we introduce several risk-related metrics and the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

Ranking is a fundamental and popular problem in search. However, existing ranking algorithms usually restrict the granularity of ranking to full passages or require a specific dense index for each desired level of granularity. Such lack of flexibility in granularity negatively affects many applications that can benefit from more granular ranking, such as sentence-level ranking for open-domain question-answering, or proposition-level ranking for attribution. In this work, we introduce the idea of any-granularity ranking, which leverages multi-vector embeddings to rank at varying levels of granularity while maintaining encoding at a single (coarser) level of granularity. We propose a multi-granular contrastive loss for training multi-vector approaches, and validate its utility with both sentences and propositions as ranking units. Finally, we demonstrate the application of proposition-level ranking to post-hoc citation addition in retrieval-augmented generation, surpassing the performance of prompt-driven citation generation.

Fake news detection becomes particularly challenging in real-time scenarios, where emerging events often lack sufficient supporting evidence. Existing approaches often rely heavily on external evidence and therefore struggle to generalize under evidence scarcity. To address this issue, we propose Evaluation-Aware Selection of Experts (EASE), a novel framework for real-time fake news detection that dynamically adapts its decision-making process according to the assessed sufficiency of available evidence. EASE introduces a sequential evaluation mechanism comprising three independent perspectives: (1) Evidence-based evaluation, which assesses evidence and incorporates it into decision-making only when the evidence is sufficiently supportive; (2) Reasoning-based evaluation, which leverages the world knowledge of large language models (LLMs) and applies them only when their reliability is adequately established; and (3) Sentiment-based fallback, which integrates sentiment cues when neither evidence nor reasoning is reliable. To enhance the accuracy of evaluation processes, EASE employs instruction tuning with pseudo labels to guide each evaluator in justifying its perspective-specific knowledge through interpretable reasoning. Furthermore, the expert modules integrate the evaluators' justified assessments with the news content to enable evaluation-aware decision-making, thereby enhancing overall detection accuracy. Moreover, we introduce RealTimeNews-25, a new benchmark comprising recent news for evaluating model generalization on emerging news with limited evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EASE not only achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, but also significantly improves generalization to real-time news. The code and dataset are available: https://github.com/wgyhhhh/EASE.

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.

We introduce RFC Bench, a benchmark for evaluating large language models on financial misinformation under realistic news. RFC Bench operates at the paragraph level and captures the contextual complexity of financial news where meaning emerges from dispersed cues. The benchmark defines two complementary tasks: reference free misinformation detection and comparison based diagnosis using paired original perturbed inputs. Experiments reveal a consistent pattern: performance is substantially stronger when comparative context is available, while reference free settings expose significant weaknesses, including unstable predictions and elevated invalid outputs. These results indicate that current models struggle to maintain coherent belief states without external grounding. By highlighting this gap, RFC Bench provides a structured testbed for studying reference free reasoning and advancing more reliable financial misinformation detection in real world settings.

Despite impressive visual fidelity, modern video generative models frequently produce sequences that violate intuitive physical laws, such as objects floating, teleporting, or morphing in ways that defy causality. While humans can easily detect such implausibilities, there remains no robust method for quantitatively assessing physical realism in video. In this work, we explore whether Video-Language Models (VLMs) can be trained to serve as reliable judges of physical plausibility. We find that existing VLMs struggle to identify physics violations, exposing fundamental limitations in their temporal and causal reasoning. To address this, we introduce TRAVL, a fine-tuning recipe that combines a balanced training dataset with a trajectory-aware attention module to improve motion encoding and discrimination in VLMs. To evaluate physical reasoning more rigorously, we propose ImplausiBench, a benchmark of 300 videos (150 real, 150 generated) that removes linguistic biases and isolates visual-temporal understanding. Performance is reported both with gold-standard human judgments and stricter LLM-as-judge metrics. Together, TRAVL and ImplausiBench offer a unified framework for probing and improving physical plausibility in multimodal models, shedding light on a challenging and underexplored aspect of visual-temporal understanding.

Generative search engines directly generate responses to user queries, along with in-line citations. A prerequisite trait of a trustworthy generative search engine is verifiability, i.e., systems should cite comprehensively (high citation recall; all statements are fully supported by citations) and accurately (high citation precision; every cite supports its associated statement). We conduct human evaluation to audit four popular generative search engines -- Bing Chat, NeevaAI, perplexity.ai, and YouChat -- across a diverse set of queries from a variety of sources (e.g., historical Google user queries, dynamically-collected open-ended questions on Reddit, etc.). We find that responses from existing generative search engines are fluent and appear informative, but frequently contain unsupported statements and inaccurate citations: on average, a mere 51.5% of generated sentences are fully supported by citations and only 74.5% of citations support their associated sentence. We believe that these results are concerningly low for systems that may serve as a primary tool for information-seeking users, especially given their facade of trustworthiness. We hope that our results further motivate the development of trustworthy generative search engines and help researchers and users better understand the shortcomings of existing commercial systems.

Ranking passages by prompting a large language model (LLM) can achieve promising performance in modern information retrieval (IR) systems. A common approach is to sort the ranking list by prompting LLMs for pairwise comparison. However, sorting-based methods require consistent comparisons to correctly sort the passages, which we show that LLMs often violate. We identify two kinds of intrinsic inconsistency in LLM-based pairwise comparisons: order inconsistency which leads to conflicting results when switching the passage order, and transitive inconsistency which leads to non-transitive triads among all preference pairs. In this paper, we propose LLM-RankFusion, an LLM-based ranking framework that mitigates these inconsistencies and produces a robust ranking list. LLM-RankFusion mitigates order inconsistency using in-context learning (ICL) to demonstrate order-agnostic comparisons and calibration to estimate the underlying preference probability between two passages. We then address transitive inconsistency by aggregating the ranking results from multiple rankers. In our experiments, we empirically show that LLM-RankFusion can significantly reduce inconsistent pairwise comparison results, and improve the ranking quality by making the final ranking list more robust.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where reasoning, such as multi-step problem solving and chain-of-thought, is essential. Yet, current evaluation practices overwhelmingly report single-run accuracy while ignoring the intrinsic uncertainty that naturally arises from stochastic decoding. This omission creates a blind spot because practitioners cannot reliably assess whether a method's reported performance is stable, reproducible, or cost-consistent. We introduce ReasonBENCH, the first benchmark designed to quantify the underlying instability in LLM reasoning. ReasonBENCH provides (i) a modular evaluation library that standardizes reasoning frameworks, models, and tasks, (ii) a multi-run protocol that reports statistically reliable metrics for both quality and cost, and (iii) a public leaderboard to encourage variance-aware reporting. Across tasks from different domains, we find that the vast majority of reasoning strategies and models exhibit high instability. Notably, even strategies with similar average performance can display confidence intervals up to four times wider, and the top-performing methods often incur higher and less stable costs. Such instability compromises reproducibility across runs and, consequently, the reliability of reported performance. To better understand these dynamics, we further analyze the impact of prompts, model families, and scale on the trade-off between solve rate and stability. Our results highlight reproducibility as a critical dimension for reliable LLM reasoning and provide a foundation for future reasoning methods and uncertainty quantification techniques. ReasonBENCH is publicly available at https://github.com/au-clan/ReasonBench .

Large language models (LLMs) have shown substantial capacity for generating fluent, contextually appropriate responses. However, they can produce hallucinated outputs, especially when a user query includes one or more false premises-claims that contradict established facts. Such premises can mislead LLMs into offering fabricated or misleading details. Existing approaches include pretraining, fine-tuning, and inference-time techniques that often rely on access to logits or address hallucinations after they occur. These methods tend to be computationally expensive, require extensive training data, or lack proactive mechanisms to prevent hallucination before generation, limiting their efficiency in real-time applications. We propose a retrieval-based framework that identifies and addresses false premises before generation. Our method first transforms a user's query into a logical representation, then applies retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to assess the validity of each premise using factual sources. Finally, we incorporate the verification results into the LLM's prompt to maintain factual consistency in the final output. Experiments show that this approach effectively reduces hallucinations, improves factual accuracy, and does not require access to model logits or large-scale fine-tuning.

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.

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

Using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate text quality has recently gained popularity. Some prior works explore the idea of using LLMs for evaluation, while they differ in some details of the evaluation process. In this paper, we analyze LLM evaluation (Chiang and Lee, 2023) and G-Eval (Liu et al., 2023), and we discuss how those details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal. Last, we reveal that asking the LLM to explain its own ratings consistently improves the correlation between the ChatGPT and human ratings and pushes state-of-the-art (SoTA) correlations on two meta-evaluation datasets.

We consider the problem of recommending relevant content to users of an internet platform in the form of lists of items, called slates. We introduce a variational Bayesian Recurrent Neural Net recommender system that acts on time series of interactions between the internet platform and the user, and which scales to real world industrial situations. The recommender system is tested both online on real users, and on an offline dataset collected from a Norwegian web-based marketplace, FINN.no, that is made public for research. This is one of the first publicly available datasets which includes all the slates that are presented to users as well as which items (if any) in the slates were clicked on. Such a data set allows us to move beyond the common assumption that implicitly assumes that users are considering all possible items at each interaction. Instead we build our likelihood using the items that are actually in the slate, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches theoretically and in experiments. We also introduce a hierarchical prior for the item parameters based on group memberships. Both item parameters and user preferences are learned probabilistically. Furthermore, we combine our model with bandit strategies to ensure learning, and introduce `in-slate Thompson Sampling' which makes use of the slates to maximise explorative opportunities. We show experimentally that explorative recommender strategies perform on par or above their greedy counterparts. Even without making use of exploration to learn more effectively, click rates increase simply because of improved diversity in the recommended slates.

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has shown promising practical results. However, their low interpretability often leads to errors in unforeseen circumstances, limiting their utility. Many works have focused on creating comprehensive evaluation systems, but previous benchmarks have primarily assessed problem-solving abilities while neglecting the response's uncertainty, which may result in unreliability. Recent methods for measuring LLM reliability are resource-intensive and unable to test black-box models. To address this, we propose UBENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM reliability. UBENCH includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. Experimental results show that UBENCH has achieved state-of-the-art performance, while its single-sampling method significantly saves computational resources compared to baseline methods that require multiple samplings. Additionally, based on UBENCH, we evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding, closely followed by GPT-4. We also explore the impact of Chain-of-Thought prompts, role-playing prompts, option order, and temperature on LLM reliability, analyzing the varying effects on different LLMs.

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

Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs), with rapid advances from both academic and industrial labs. However, this progress often outpaces methodological rigor, with many evaluations relying on benchmarking practices that lack transparency, robustness, or statistical grounding. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices - including decoding parameters, random seeds, prompt formatting, and even hardware and software-framework configurations. Performance gains reported in recent studies frequently hinge on unclear comparisons or unreported sources of variance. To address these issues, we propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards. Using this framework, we reassess recent methods and find that reinforcement learning (RL) approaches yield only modest improvements - far below prior claims - and are prone to overfitting, especially on small-scale benchmarks like AIME24. In contrast, supervised finetuning (SFT) methods show consistently stronger generalization. To foster reproducibility, we release all code, prompts, and model outputs, for reasoning benchmarks, establishing more rigorous foundations for future work.

This work introduces RARE (Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning Enhancement), a versatile extension to the mutual reasoning framework (rStar), aimed at enhancing reasoning accuracy and factual integrity across large language models (LLMs) for complex, knowledge-intensive tasks such as commonsense and medical reasoning. RARE incorporates two innovative actions within the Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) framework: A6, which generates search queries based on the initial problem statement, performs information retrieval using those queries, and augments reasoning with the retrieved data to formulate the final answer; and A7, which leverages information retrieval specifically for generated sub-questions and re-answers these sub-questions with the relevant contextual information. Additionally, a Retrieval-Augmented Factuality Scorer is proposed to replace the original discriminator, prioritizing reasoning paths that meet high standards of factuality. Experimental results with LLaMA 3.1 show that RARE enables open-source LLMs to achieve competitive performance with top open-source models like GPT-4 and GPT-4o. This research establishes RARE as a scalable solution for improving LLMs in domains where logical coherence and factual integrity are critical.

Given questions regarding some prototypical situation such as Name something that people usually do before they leave the house for work? a human can easily answer them via acquired experiences. There can be multiple right answers for such questions, with some more common for a situation than others. This paper introduces a new question answering dataset for training and evaluating common sense reasoning capabilities of artificial intelligence systems in such prototypical situations. The training set is gathered from an existing set of questions played in a long-running international game show FAMILY- FEUD. The hidden evaluation set is created by gathering answers for each question from 100 crowd-workers. We also propose a generative evaluation task where a model has to output a ranked list of answers, ideally covering all prototypical answers for a question. After presenting multiple competitive baseline models, we find that human performance still exceeds model scores on all evaluation metrics with a meaningful gap, supporting the challenging nature of the task.

Evaluating the truthfulness of online content is critical for combating misinformation. This study examines the efficiency and effectiveness of crowdsourced truthfulness assessments through a comparative analysis of two approaches: one involving full-length webpages as evidence for each claim, and another using summaries for each evidence document generated with a large language model. Using an A/B testing setting, we engage a diverse pool of participants tasked with evaluating the truthfulness of statements under these conditions. Our analysis explores both the quality of assessments and the behavioral patterns of participants. The results reveal that relying on summarized evidence offers comparable accuracy and error metrics to the Standard modality while significantly improving efficiency. Workers in the Summary setting complete a significantly higher number of assessments, reducing task duration and costs. Additionally, the Summary modality maximizes internal agreement and maintains consistent reliance on and perceived usefulness of evidence, demonstrating its potential to streamline large-scale truthfulness evaluations.

Forecasting future links is a central task in temporal graph (TG) reasoning, requiring models to leverage historical interactions to predict upcoming ones. Traditional neural approaches, such as temporal graph neural networks, achieve strong performance but lack explainability and cannot be applied to unseen graphs without retraining. Recent studies have begun to explore using large language models (LLMs) for graph reasoning, but most of them are constrained to static graphs or small synthetic TGs and lack the evaluation of the quality of reasoning traces generated by LLMs. In this work, we present Reasoning-Enhanced Learning for Temporal Graphs (ReaL-TG), a reinforcement learning framework that fine-tunes LLMs to perform explainable link forecasting on real-world TGs. ReaL-TG uses outcome-based reward to encourage models to self-explore reasoning strategies from graph structure and to produce explanations that directly justify their predictions. To enable evaluation on LLM-generated reasoning traces, we propose a new evaluation protocol combining ranking metrics with an LLM-as-a-Judge system that assesses both the quality of reasoning and the impact of hallucinations. Experiments with ReaL-TG-4B, obtained by fine-tuning Qwen3-4B under our framework, show that it outperforms much larger frontier LLMs, including GPT-5 mini, on ranking metrics, while producing high-quality explanations confirmed by both the LLM judge and human evaluation.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in autonomous information retrieval and report generation, showing great potential to assist humans in complex research tasks. Current evaluation frameworks primarily rely on LLM-generated references or LLM-derived evaluation dimensions. While these approaches offer scalability, they often lack the reliability of expert-verified content and struggle to provide objective, fine-grained assessments of critical dimensions. To bridge this gap, we introduce Wiki Live Challenge (WLC), a live benchmark that leverages the newest Wikipedia Good Articles (GAs) as expert-level references. Wikipedia's strict standards for neutrality, comprehensiveness, and verifiability serve as a great challenge for DRAs, with GAs representing the pinnacle of which. We curate a dataset of 100 recent Good Articles and propose Wiki Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising a fine-grained evaluation method with 39 criteria for writing quality and rigorous metrics for factual verifiability. Extensive experiments on various DRA systems demonstrate a significant gap between current DRAs and human expert-level Wikipedia articles, validating the effectiveness of WLC in advancing agent research. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/WangShao2000/Wiki_Live_Challenge