Daily Papers

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.

The proliferation of memes on social media necessitates the capabilities of multimodal Large Language Models (mLLMs) to effectively understand multimodal harmfulness. Existing evaluation approaches predominantly focus on mLLMs' detection accuracy for binary classification tasks, which often fail to reflect the in-depth interpretive nuance of harmfulness across diverse contexts. In this paper, we propose MemeArena, an agent-based arena-style evaluation framework that provides a context-aware and unbiased assessment for mLLMs' understanding of multimodal harmfulness. Specifically, MemeArena simulates diverse interpretive contexts to formulate evaluation tasks that elicit perspective-specific analyses from mLLMs. By integrating varied viewpoints and reaching consensus among evaluators, it enables fair and unbiased comparisons of mLLMs' abilities to interpret multimodal harmfulness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework effectively reduces the evaluation biases of judge agents, with judgment results closely aligning with human preferences, offering valuable insights into reliable and comprehensive mLLM evaluations in multimodal harmfulness understanding. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Lbotirx/MemeArena.

Hallucinations are a common issue that undermine the reliability of large language models (LLMs). Recent studies have identified a specific subset of hallucinations, known as confabulations, which arise due to predictive uncertainty of LLMs. To detect confabulations, various methods for estimating predictive uncertainty in natural language generation (NLG) have been developed. These methods are typically evaluated by correlating uncertainty estimates with the correctness of generated text, with question-answering (QA) datasets serving as the standard benchmark. However, commonly used approximate correctness functions have substantial disagreement between each other and, consequently, in the ranking of the uncertainty estimation methods. This allows one to inflate the apparent performance of uncertainty estimation methods. We propose using several alternative risk indicators for risk correlation experiments that improve robustness of empirical assessment of UE algorithms for NLG. For QA tasks, we show that marginalizing over multiple LLM-as-a-judge variants leads to reducing the evaluation biases. Furthermore, we explore structured tasks as well as out of distribution and perturbation detection tasks which provide robust and controllable risk indicators. Finally, we propose to use an Elo rating of uncertainty estimation methods to give an objective summarization over extensive evaluation settings.

Recently, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have received much attention for their impressive capabilities. The evaluation of MLLMs is becoming critical to analyzing attributes of MLLMs and providing valuable insights. However, current benchmarks overlook the problem of prompt sensitivity - minor prompt variations may lead to significant performance fluctuations. Thus, inappropriate prompts may obscure the models' capabilities, underestimating the models' performance. Moreover, different models have different preferences for different prompts, and thus, using the same prompt for all models will cause evaluation bias. This paper analyzes this deficiency in existing benchmarks and further introduces a new evaluation framework named TP-Eval, which introduces a prompt customization method to reduce evaluation biases and tap models' potential. TP-Eval will rewrite the original prompts to different customized prompts for different models. In particular, we propose some well-designed modules for prompt customization tailored to the scenario of MLLM evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach to uncovering models' capabilities, and TP-Eval should benefit the community in developing more comprehensive and convincing MLLM evaluation benchmarks.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.

Facial expression image editing requires fine-grained control to strictly preserve human identity and background while precisely manipulating expression. However, existing editing benchmarks primarily focus on general scenarios, lacking high-quality facial images and corresponding editing instructions. Furthermore, current evaluation metrics exhibit systemic biases in this task, often favoring lazy editing or overfit editing. To bridge these gaps, we propose FED-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring rigorous testing and an accurate evaluation suite. First, we carefully construct a benchmark of 747 triplets through a cascaded and scalable pipeline, each comprising an original image, an editing instruction, and a ground-truth image for precise evaluation. Second, we introduce FED-Score, a cross-granularity evaluation protocol that disentangles assessment into three dimensions: Alignment for verifying instruction following, Fidelity for testing image quality and identity preservation, and Relative Expression Gain for quantifying the magnitude of expression changes, effectively mitigating the aforementioned evaluation biases. Third, we benchmark 18 image editing models, revealing that current approaches struggle to simultaneously achieve high fidelity and accurate expression manipulation, with fine-grained instruction following identified as the primary bottleneck. Finally, leveraging the scalable characteristic of introduced benchmark engine, we provide a 20k+ in-the-wild facial training set and demonstrate its effectiveness by fine-tuning a baseline model that achieves significant performance gains. Our benchmark and related code will be made publicly open soon.

Aligning multimodal generative models with human preferences demands reward signals that respect the compositional, multi-dimensional structure of human judgment. Prevailing RLHF approaches reduce this structure to scalar or pairwise labels, collapsing nuanced preferences into opaque parametric proxies and exposing vulnerabilities to reward hacking. While recent Rubrics-as-Reward (RaR) methods attempt to recover this structure through explicit criteria, generating rubrics that are simultaneously reliable, scalable, and data-efficient remains an open problem. We introduce Auto-Rubric as Reward (ARR), a framework that reframes reward modeling from implicit weight optimization to explicit, criteria-based decomposition. Before any pairwise comparison, ARR externalizes a VLM's internalized preference knowledge as prompt-specific rubrics, translating holistic intent into independently verifiable quality dimensions. This conversion of implicit preference structure into inspectable, interpretable constraints substantially suppresses evaluation biases including positional bias, enabling both zero-shot deployment and few-shot conditioning on minimal supervision. To extend these gains into generative training, we propose Rubric Policy Optimization (RPO), which distills ARR's structured multi-dimensional evaluation into a robust binary reward, replacing opaque scalar regression with rubric-conditioned preference decisions that stabilize policy gradients. On text-to-image generation and image editing benchmarks, ARR-RPO outperforms pairwise reward models and VLM judges, demonstrating that explicitly externalizing implicit preference knowledge into structured rubrics achieves more reliable, data-efficient multimodal alignment, revealing that the bottleneck is the absence of a factorized interface, not a deficit of knowledge.

Code-switching (CSW), the alternation of languages and scripts within a single utterance, remains a fundamental challenge for multiling ual NLP, even amidst the rapid advances of large language models (LLMs). Most LLMs still struggle with mixed-language inputs, limited CSW datasets, and evaluation biases, hindering deployment in multilingual societies. This survey provides the first comprehensive analysis of CSW-aware LLM research, reviewing unique_references studies spanning five research areas, 12 NLP tasks, 30+ datasets, and 80+ languages. We classify recent advances by architecture, training strategy, and evaluation methodology, outlining how LLMs have reshaped CSW modeling and what challenges persist. The paper concludes with a roadmap emphasizing the need for inclusive datasets, fair evaluation, and linguistically grounded models to achieve truly multilingual intelligence. A curated collection of all resources is maintained at https://github.com/lingo-iitgn/awesome-code-mixing/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to semi-automate some process mining (PM) analyses. While commercial models are already adequate for many analytics tasks, the competitive level of open-source LLMs in PM tasks is unknown. In this paper, we propose PM-LLM-Benchmark, the first comprehensive benchmark for PM focusing on domain knowledge (process-mining-specific and process-specific) and on different implementation strategies. We focus also on the challenges in creating such a benchmark, related to the public availability of the data and on evaluation biases by the LLMs. Overall, we observe that most of the considered LLMs can perform some process mining tasks at a satisfactory level, but tiny models that would run on edge devices are still inadequate. We also conclude that while the proposed benchmark is useful for identifying LLMs that are adequate for process mining tasks, further research is needed to overcome the evaluation biases and perform a more thorough ranking of the competitive LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as part of compound AI systems that coordinate multiple modules (e.g., retrievers, tools, verifiers) over long-horizon workflows. Recent approaches that propagate textual feedback globally (e.g., TextGrad) make it feasible to optimize such pipelines, but we find that performance degrades as system depth grows. In particular, long-horizon agentic workflows exhibit two depth-scaling failure modes: 1) exploding textual gradient, where textual feedback grows exponentially with depth, leading to prohibitively long message and amplifies evaluation biases; and 2) vanishing textual gradient, where limited long-context ability causes models overemphasize partial feedback and compression of lengthy feedback causes downstream messages to lose specificity gradually as they propagate many hops upstream. To mitigate these issues, we introduce Textual Equilibrium Propagation (TEP), a local learning principle inspired by Equilibrium Propagation in energy-based models. TEP includes two phases: 1) a free phase where a local LLM critics iteratively refine prompts until reaching equilibrium (no further improvements are suggested); and 2) a nudged phase which applies proximal prompt edits with bounded modification intensity, using task-level objectives that propagate via forward signaling rather than backward feedback chains. This design supports local prompt optimization followed by controlled adaptation toward global goals without the computational burden and signal degradation of global textual backpropagation. Across long-horizon QA benchmarks and multi-agent tool-use dataset, TEP consistently improves accuracy and efficiency over global propagation methods such as TextGrad. The gains grows with depth, while preserving the practicality of black-box LLM components in deep compound AI system.

Reward modeling is essential for aligning Large Language Models(LLMs) with human preferences, yet conventional reward models suffer from poor interpretability and heavy reliance on costly expert annotations. While recent rubric-based approaches enhance evaluation transparency, they lack systematic quality control, yielding noisy and redundant criteria, failing to mitigate persistent biases (e.g., verbosity, position) in LLM evaluators, and creating a scalability-reliability trade-off. To address these limitations, we propose CDRRM (Contrast-Driven Rubric Reward Model), a framework built on a novel Contrast-then-Synthesis paradigm for high-quality rubric generation and guided preference judgment. CDRRM first conducts multi-dimensional contrastive profiling on preference pairs to identify causal discriminative factors, then synthesizes these insights into compact, context-aware rubrics to guide preference judg- ments. Extensive experiments on three authoritative benchmarks (RewardBench, RMBench, RMB) demonstrate that CDRRM achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse domains and effectively mitigates aforementioned evaluation biases. Notably, our approach delivers exceptional data efficiency: training the rubric generator on only 3k high-quality samples empowers a frozen pre-trained judge model to outperform fully fine-tuned baselines. This work offers a scalable, interpretable, and data-efficient path for reward modeling.

With recent advancements in the area of Natural Language Processing, the focus is slowly shifting from a purely English-centric view towards more language-specific solutions, including German. Especially practical for businesses to analyze their growing amount of textual data are text summarization systems, which transform long input documents into compressed and more digestible summary texts. In this work, we assess the particular landscape of German abstractive text summarization and investigate the reasons why practically useful solutions for abstractive text summarization are still absent in industry. Our focus is two-fold, analyzing a) training resources, and b) publicly available summarization systems. We are able to show that popular existing datasets exhibit crucial flaws in their assumptions about the original sources, which frequently leads to detrimental effects on system generalization and evaluation biases. We confirm that for the most popular training dataset, MLSUM, over 50% of the training set is unsuitable for abstractive summarization purposes. Furthermore, available systems frequently fail to compare to simple baselines, and ignore more effective and efficient extractive summarization approaches. We attribute poor evaluation quality to a variety of different factors, which are investigated in more detail in this work: A lack of qualitative (and diverse) gold data considered for training, understudied (and untreated) positional biases in some of the existing datasets, and the lack of easily accessible and streamlined pre-processing strategies or analysis tools. We provide a comprehensive assessment of available models on the cleaned datasets, and find that this can lead to a reduction of more than 20 ROUGE-1 points during evaluation. The code for dataset filtering and reproducing results can be found online at https://github.com/dennlinger/summaries

Many studies have revealed that word embeddings, language models, and models for specific downstream tasks in NLP are prone to social biases, especially gender bias. Recently these techniques have been gradually applied to automatic evaluation metrics for text generation. In the paper, we propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics and discover that social biases are also widely present in some model-based automatic evaluation metrics. Moreover, we construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks. Results show that given gender-neutral references in the evaluation, model-based evaluation metrics may show a preference for the male hypothesis, and the performance of them, i.e. the correlation between evaluation metrics and human judgments, usually has more significant variation after gender swapping.

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

The evaluation of societal biases in NLP models is critically hindered by a geo-cultural gap, This leaves regions such as Latin America severely underserved, making it impossible to adequately assess or mitigate the perpetuation of harmful regional stereotypes in language technologies. This paper presents LACES, a stereotype association dataset, for 15 Latin American countries. This dataset includes 4,789 stereotype associations manually created and annotated by 83 participants. The dataset was developed through targeted community partnerships across Latin America. Additionally, in this paper, we propose a novel adaptive data collection methodology that uniquely integrates the sourcing of new stereotype entries and the validation of existing data within a single, unified workflow. This approach results in a resource with more unique stereotypes than previous static collection methods, enabling a more efficient stereotype collection. The paper further supports the quality of LACES by demonstrating reduced efficacy of debiasing methods on this dataset in comparison to existing popular stereotype benchmarks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant traction across critical domains owing to their impressive contextual understanding and generative capabilities. However, their increasing deployment in high stakes applications necessitates rigorous evaluation of embedded biases, particularly in culturally diverse contexts like India where existing embedding-based bias assessment methods often fall short in capturing nuanced stereotypes. We propose an evaluation framework based on a encoder trained using contrastive learning that captures fine-grained bias through embedding similarity. We also introduce a novel dataset - IndiCASA (IndiBias-based Contextually Aligned Stereotypes and Anti-stereotypes) comprising 2,575 human-validated sentences spanning five demographic axes: caste, gender, religion, disability, and socioeconomic status. Our evaluation of multiple open-weight LLMs reveals that all models exhibit some degree of stereotypical bias, with disability related biases being notably persistent, and religion bias generally lower likely due to global debiasing efforts demonstrating the need for fairer model development.

Aligning Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) requires reliable reward models, yet existing single-step evaluators can suffer from lazy judging, exploiting language priors over fine-grained visual verification. While rubric-based evaluation mitigates these biases in text-only settings, extending it to multimodal tasks is bottlenecked by the complexity of visual reasoning. The critical differences between responses often depend on instance-specific visual details. Robust evaluation requires dynamically synthesizing rubrics that isolate spatial and factual discrepancies. To address this, we introduce DeltaRubric, an approach that reformulates multimodal preference evaluation as a plan-and-execute process within a single MLLM. DeltaRubric operates in two steps: acting first as a Disagreement Planner, the model generates a neutral, instance-specific verification checklist. Transitioning into a Checklist Verifier, it executes these self-generated checks against the image and question to produce the final grounded judgment. We formulate DeltaRubric as a multi-role reinforcement learning problem, jointly optimizing planning and verification capabilities. Validated on Qwen3-VL 4B and 8B Instruct models, DeltaRubric achieves solid empirical gains. For instance, On VL-RewardBench, it improves base model overall accuracy by +22.6 (4B) and +18.8 (8B) points, largely outperforming standard no-rubric baselines. The results demonstrate that decomposing evaluation into structured, verifiable steps leads to more reliable and generalizable multimodal reward modeling.

Unified multimodal models integrate the reasoning capacity of large language models with both image understanding and generation, showing great promise for advanced multimodal intelligence. However, the community still lacks a rigorous reasoning-centric benchmark to systematically evaluate the alignment between understanding and generation, and their generalization potential in complex visual tasks. To this end, we introduce GIR-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates unified models across three complementary perspectives. Firstly, we investigate understanding-generation consistency (GIR-Bench-UGC), asking whether models can consistently leverage the same knowledge in both understanding and generation tasks. Secondly, we investigate whether models can perform reasoning-centric text-to-image generation that requires applying logical constraints and implicit knowledge to generate faithful visual content (GIR-Bench-T2I). Thirdly, we evaluate whether models can handle multi-step reasoning in editing (GIR-Bench-Edit). For each subset, we carefully design different task-specific evaluation pipelines tailored for each task. This enables fine-grained and interpretable evaluation while mitigating biases from the prevalent MLLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. Extensive ablations over various unified models and generation-only systems have shown that: Although unified models are more capable of reasoning-driven visual tasks, they still exhibit a persistent gap between understanding and generation. The data and code for GIR-Bench are available at https://hkust-longgroup.github.io/GIR-Bench{https://hkust-longgroup.github.io/GIR-Bench}.

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.

We propose SPARTA ALIGNMENT, an algorithm to collectively align multiple LLMs through competition and combat. To complement a single model's lack of diversity in generation and biases in evaluation, multiple LLMs form a "sparta tribe" to compete against each other in fulfilling instructions while serving as judges for the competition of others. For each iteration, one instruction and two models are selected for a duel, the other models evaluate the two responses, and their evaluation scores are aggregated through a adapted elo-ranking based reputation system, where winners/losers of combat gain/lose weight in evaluating others. The peer-evaluated combat results then become preference pairs where the winning response is preferred over the losing one, and all models learn from these preferences at the end of each iteration. SPARTA ALIGNMENT enables the self-evolution of multiple LLMs in an iterative and collective competition process. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SPARTA ALIGNMENT outperforms initial models and 4 self-alignment baselines across 10 out of 12 tasks and datasets with 7.0% average improvement. Further analysis reveals that SPARTA ALIGNMENT generalizes more effectively to unseen tasks and leverages the expertise diversity of participating models to produce more logical, direct and informative outputs.

To tackle the global challenge of online hate speech, a large body of research has developed detection models to flag hate speech in the sea of online content. Yet, due to systematic biases in evaluation datasets, detection performance in real-world settings remains unclear, let alone across geographies. To address this issue, we introduce HateDay, the first global hate speech dataset representative of social media settings, randomly sampled from all tweets posted on September 21, 2022 for eight languages and four English-speaking countries. Using HateDay, we show how the prevalence and composition of hate speech varies across languages and countries. We also find that evaluation on academic hate speech datasets overestimates real-world detection performance, which we find is very low, especially for non-European languages. We identify several factors explaining poor performance, including models' inability to distinguish between hate and offensive speech, and the misalignment between academic target focus and real-world target prevalence. We finally argue that such low performance renders hate speech moderation with public detection models unfeasible, even in a human-in-the-loop setting which we find is prohibitively costly. Overall, we emphasize the need to evaluate future detection models from academia and platforms in real-world settings to address this global challenge.

Prompt-based probing has been widely used in evaluating the abilities of pretrained language models (PLMs). Unfortunately, recent studies have discovered such an evaluation may be inaccurate, inconsistent and unreliable. Furthermore, the lack of understanding its inner workings, combined with its wide applicability, has the potential to lead to unforeseen risks for evaluating and applying PLMs in real-world applications. To discover, understand and quantify the risks, this paper investigates the prompt-based probing from a causal view, highlights three critical biases which could induce biased results and conclusions, and proposes to conduct debiasing via causal intervention. This paper provides valuable insights for the design of unbiased datasets, better probing frameworks and more reliable evaluations of pretrained language models. Furthermore, our conclusions also echo that we need to rethink the criteria for identifying better pretrained language models. We openly released the source code and data at https://github.com/c-box/causalEval.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress on advanced reasoning tasks such as mathematics and coding competitions. Meanwhile, physics, despite being both reasoning-intensive and essential to real-world understanding, received limited academic and industrial attention. This paper introduces PHYSICS, a dataset containing 16,568 high-quality physics problems spanning subjects and difficulty levels, to facilitate this issue. Specifically, PHYSICS is curated with exercises from over 100 textbooks through a carefully designed pipeline for quality control. It covers five major physics domains: Mechanics, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics, Optics, and Modern Physics. It also spans a wide range of difficulty levels, from high school to graduate-level physics courses. To utilize the data for improving and evaluating the model's physical reasoning capabilities, we split the dataset into training and test sets, and provide reasoning paths generated by powerful reasoning models for the training data to facilitate model training. In addition, for the evaluation part, we find that existing evaluation frameworks exhibit biases in aspects such as units, simplification, and precision in physics domain. To balance efficiency and accuracy, we introduce a Rule+Model evaluation framework tailored to physics problems. Our evaluations on current state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary models highlight the limitations of current models in handling physics-related tasks. We hope that our dataset and evaluation methodology will jointly advance the development of LLMs in the field of physics.

With the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence, careful evaluation of inherent biases needs to be conducted to form the basis for alleviating the effects these predispositions can have on users. Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly used by many as a primary source of information for various topics. LLMs frequently make factual errors, fabricate data (hallucinations), or present biases, exposing users to misinformation and influencing opinions. Educating users on their risks is key to responsible use, as bias, unlike hallucinations, cannot be caught through data verification. We quantify the political bias of popular LLMs in the context of the recent vote of the German Bundestag using the score produced by the Wahl-O-Mat. This metric measures the alignment between an individual's political views and the positions of German political parties. We compare the models' alignment scores to identify factors influencing their political preferences. Doing so, we discover a bias toward left-leaning parties, most dominant in larger LLMs. Also, we find that the language we use to communicate with the models affects their political views. Additionally, we analyze the influence of a model's origin and release date and compare the results to the outcome of the recent vote of the Bundestag. Our results imply that LLMs are prone to exhibiting political bias. Large corporations with the necessary means to develop LLMs, thus, knowingly or unknowingly, have a responsibility to contain these biases, as they can influence each voter's decision-making process and inform public opinion in general and at scale.

Advances in generative models have led to significant interest in image synthesis, demonstrating the ability to generate high-quality images for a diverse range of text prompts. Despite this progress, most studies ignore the presence of bias. In this paper, we examine several text-to-image models not only by qualitatively assessing their performance in generating accurate images of human faces, groups, and specified numbers of objects but also by presenting a social bias analysis. As expected, models with larger capacity generate higher-quality images. However, we also document the inherent gender or social biases these models possess, offering a more complete understanding of their impact and limitations.

Various evaluation metrics have been proposed for Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), but many, particularly reference-free metrics, lack explainability. This lack of explainability hinders researchers from analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of GEC models and limits the ability to provide detailed feedback for users. To address this issue, we propose attributing sentence-level scores to individual edits, providing insight into how specific corrections contribute to the overall performance. For the attribution method, we use Shapley values, from cooperative game theory, to compute the contribution of each edit. Experiments with existing sentence-level metrics demonstrate high consistency across different edit granularities and show approximately 70\% alignment with human evaluations. In addition, we analyze biases in the metrics based on the attribution results, revealing trends such as the tendency to ignore orthographic edits. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/naist-nlp/gec-attribute.

The increasing reliance on AI-driven solutions, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) like the GPT series, for information retrieval highlights the critical need for their factuality and fairness, especially amidst the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation online. Our study evaluates the factual accuracy, stability, and biases in widely adopted GPT models, including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, contributing to reliability and integrity of AI-mediated information dissemination. We introduce 'Global-Liar,' a dataset uniquely balanced in terms of geographic and temporal representation, facilitating a more nuanced evaluation of LLM biases. Our analysis reveals that newer iterations of GPT models do not always equate to improved performance. Notably, the GPT-4 version from March demonstrates higher factual accuracy than its subsequent June release. Furthermore, a concerning bias is observed, privileging statements from the Global North over the Global South, thus potentially exacerbating existing informational inequities. Regions such as Africa and the Middle East are at a disadvantage, with much lower factual accuracy. The performance fluctuations over time suggest that model updates may not consistently benefit all regions equally. Our study also offers insights into the impact of various LLM configuration settings, such as binary decision forcing, model re-runs and temperature, on model's factuality. Models constrained to binary (true/false) choices exhibit reduced factuality compared to those allowing an 'unclear' option. Single inference at a low temperature setting matches the reliability of majority voting across various configurations. The insights gained highlight the need for culturally diverse and geographically inclusive model training and evaluation. This approach is key to achieving global equity in technology, distributing AI benefits fairly worldwide.

Cultural biases in multilingual datasets pose significant challenges for their effectiveness as global benchmarks. These biases stem not only from language but also from the cultural knowledge required to interpret questions, reducing the practical utility of translated datasets like MMLU. Furthermore, translation often introduces artifacts that can distort the meaning or clarity of questions in the target language. A common practice in multilingual evaluation is to rely on machine-translated evaluation sets, but simply translating a dataset is insufficient to address these challenges. In this work, we trace the impact of both of these issues on multilingual evaluations and ensuing model performances. Our large-scale evaluation of state-of-the-art open and proprietary models illustrates that progress on MMLU depends heavily on learning Western-centric concepts, with 28% of all questions requiring culturally sensitive knowledge. Moreover, for questions requiring geographic knowledge, an astounding 84.9% focus on either North American or European regions. Rankings of model evaluations change depending on whether they are evaluated on the full portion or the subset of questions annotated as culturally sensitive, showing the distortion to model rankings when blindly relying on translated MMLU. We release Global-MMLU, an improved MMLU with evaluation coverage across 42 languages -- with improved overall quality by engaging with compensated professional and community annotators to verify translation quality while also rigorously evaluating cultural biases present in the original dataset. This comprehensive Global-MMLU set also includes designated subsets labeled as culturally sensitive and culturally agnostic to allow for more holistic, complete evaluation.

Many evaluation measures are used to evaluate social biases in masked language models (MLMs). However, we find that these previously proposed evaluation measures are lacking robustness in scenarios with limited datasets. This is because these measures are obtained by comparing the pseudo-log-likelihood (PLL) scores of the stereotypical and anti-stereotypical samples using an indicator function. The disadvantage is the limited mining of the PLL score sets without capturing its distributional information. In this paper, we represent a PLL score set as a Gaussian distribution and use Kullback Leibler (KL) divergence and Jensen Shannon (JS) divergence to construct evaluation measures for the distributions of stereotypical and anti-stereotypical PLL scores. Experimental results on the publicly available datasets StereoSet (SS) and CrowS-Pairs (CP) show that our proposed measures are significantly more robust and interpretable than those proposed previously.

As LLMs are increasingly used as judges in code applications, they should be evaluated in realistic interactive settings that capture partial context and ambiguous intent. We present TRACE (Tool for Rubric Analysis in Code Evaluation), a framework that evaluates LLM judges' ability to predict human preferences and automatically extracts rubric items to reveal systematic biases in how humans and models weigh each item. Across three modalities -- chat-based programming, IDE autocompletion, and instructed code editing -- we use TRACE to measure how well LLM judges align with developer preferences. Among 13 different models, the best judges underperform human annotators by 12-23%. TRACE identifies 35 significant sources of misalignment between humans and judges across interaction modalities, the majority of which correspond to existing software engineering code quality criteria. For example, in chat-based coding, judges are biased towards longer code explanations while humans prefer shorter ones. We find significant misalignment on the majority of existing code quality dimensions, showing alignment gaps between LLM judges and human preference in realistic coding applications.

Recently, large vision-language models (LVLMs) have emerged as the preferred tools for judging text-image alignment, yet their robustness along the visual modality remains underexplored. This work is the first study to address a key research question: Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores? We define potential image induced biases within the context of T2I evaluation and examine how these biases affect the evaluations of LVLM judges. Moreover, we introduce a novel, fine-grained, multi-domain meta-evaluation benchmark named FRAME, which is deliberately constructed to exhibit diverse score distributions. By introducing the defined biases into the benchmark, we reveal that all tested LVLM judges exhibit vulnerability across all domains, consistently inflating scores for manipulated images. Further analysis reveals that combining multiple biases amplifies their effects, and pairwise evaluations are similarly susceptible. Moreover, we observe that visual biases persist under prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting the vulnerability of current LVLM evaluation systems and underscoring the urgent need for more robust LVLM judges.

Large Language Models (LLMs) perpetuate social biases, reflecting prejudices in their training data and reinforcing societal stereotypes and inequalities. Our work explores the potential of the Contact Hypothesis, a concept from social psychology for debiasing LLMs. We simulate various forms of social contact through LLM prompting to measure their influence on the model's biases, mirroring how intergroup interactions can reduce prejudices in social contexts. We create a dataset of 108,000 prompts following a principled approach replicating social contact to measure biases in three LLMs (LLaMA 2, Tulu, and NousHermes) across 13 social bias dimensions. We propose a unique debiasing technique, Social Contact Debiasing (SCD), that instruction-tunes these models with unbiased responses to prompts. Our research demonstrates that LLM responses exhibit social biases when subject to contact probing, but more importantly, these biases can be significantly reduced by up to 40% in 1 epoch of instruction tuning LLaMA 2 following our SCD strategy. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/chahatraj/breakingbias.

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

Language models now constitute essential tools for improving efficiency for many professional tasks such as writing, coding, or learning. For this reason, it is imperative to identify inherent biases. In the field of Natural Language Processing, five sources of bias are well-identified: data, annotation, representation, models, and research design. This study focuses on biases related to geographical knowledge. We explore the connection between geography and language models by highlighting their tendency to misrepresent spatial information, thus leading to distortions in the representation of geographical distances. This study introduces four indicators to assess these distortions, by comparing geographical and semantic distances. Experiments are conducted from these four indicators with ten widely used language models. Results underscore the critical necessity of inspecting and rectifying spatial biases in language models to ensure accurate and equitable representations.

The robust generalization of models to rare, in-distribution (ID) samples drawn from the long tail of the training distribution and to out-of-training-distribution (OOD) samples is one of the major challenges of current deep learning methods. For image classification, this manifests in the existence of adversarial attacks, the performance drops on distorted images, and a lack of generalization to concepts such as sketches. The current understanding of generalization in neural networks is very limited, but some biases that differentiate models from human vision have been identified and might be causing these limitations. Consequently, several attempts with varying success have been made to reduce these biases during training to improve generalization. We take a step back and sanity-check these attempts. Fixing the architecture to the well-established ResNet-50, we perform a large-scale study on 48 ImageNet models obtained via different training methods to understand how and if these biases - including shape bias, spectral biases, and critical bands - interact with generalization. Our extensive study results reveal that contrary to previous findings, these biases are insufficient to accurately predict the generalization of a model holistically. We provide access to all checkpoints and evaluation code at https://github.com/paulgavrikov/biases_vs_generalization

NLP models often rely on superficial cues known as dataset biases to achieve impressive performance, and can fail on examples where these biases do not hold. Recent work sought to develop robust, unbiased models by filtering biased examples from training sets. In this work, we argue that such filtering can obscure the true capabilities of models to overcome biases, which might never be removed in full from the dataset. We suggest that in order to drive the development of models robust to subtle biases, dataset biases should be amplified in the training set. We introduce an evaluation framework defined by a bias-amplified training set and an anti-biased test set, both automatically extracted from existing datasets. Experiments across three notions of bias, four datasets and two models show that our framework is substantially more challenging for models than the original data splits, and even more challenging than hand-crafted challenge sets. Our evaluation framework can use any existing dataset, even those considered obsolete, to test model robustness. We hope our work will guide the development of robust models that do not rely on superficial biases and correlations. To this end, we publicly release our code and data.

Improvements in model construction, including fortified safety guardrails, allow Large language models (LLMs) to increasingly pass standard safety checks. However, LLMs sometimes slip into revealing harmful behavior, such as expressing racist viewpoints, during conversations. To analyze this systematically, we introduce CoBia, a suite of lightweight adversarial attacks that allow us to refine the scope of conditions under which LLMs depart from normative or ethical behavior in conversations. CoBia creates a constructed conversation where the model utters a biased claim about a social group. We then evaluate whether the model can recover from the fabricated bias claim and reject biased follow-up questions. We evaluate 11 open-source as well as proprietary LLMs for their outputs related to six socio-demographic categories that are relevant to individual safety and fair treatment, i.e., gender, race, religion, nationality, sex orientation, and others. Our evaluation is based on established LLM-based bias metrics, and we compare the results against human judgments to scope out the LLMs' reliability and alignment. The results suggest that purposefully constructed conversations reliably reveal bias amplification and that LLMs often fail to reject biased follow-up questions during dialogue. This form of stress-testing highlights deeply embedded biases that can be surfaced through interaction. Code and artifacts are available at https://github.com/nafisenik/CoBia.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) in Language Models (LMs) is crucial for improving their safety and reliability. Evaluations often use performance metrics like AUROC to assess how well UQ methods (e.g., negative sequence probabilities) correlate with task correctness functions (e.g., ROUGE-L). In this paper, we show that commonly used correctness functions bias UQ evaluations by inflating the performance of certain UQ methods. We evaluate 7 correctness functions -- from lexical-based and embedding-based metrics to LLM-as-a-judge approaches -- across 4 datasets x 4 models x 6 UQ methods. Our analysis reveals that length biases in the errors of these correctness functions distort UQ assessments by interacting with length biases in UQ methods. We identify LLM-as-a-judge approaches as among the least length-biased choices and hence a potential solution to mitigate these biases.

This paper analyzes the limitations of existing unlearning evaluation metrics in terms of practicality, exactness, and robustness in real-world LLM unlearning scenarios. To overcome these limitations, we propose a new metric called Distribution Correction-based Unlearning Evaluation (DCUE). It identifies core tokens and corrects distributional biases in their confidence scores using a validation set. The evaluation results are quantified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Experimental results demonstrate that DCUE overcomes the limitations of existing metrics, which also guides the design of more practical and reliable unlearning algorithms in the future.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, concerns regarding the potential negative societal impacts of LLM-generated content have also arisen. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. However, existing bias evaluation efforts often focus on only a particular type of bias and employ inconsistent evaluation metrics, leading to difficulties in comparison across different datasets and LLMs. To address these limitations, we collect a variety of datasets designed for the bias evaluation of LLMs, and further propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks. The curation of CEB is based on our newly proposed compositional taxonomy, which characterizes each dataset from three dimensions: bias types, social groups, and tasks. By combining the three dimensions, we develop a comprehensive evaluation strategy for the bias in LLMs. Our experiments demonstrate that the levels of bias vary across these dimensions, thereby providing guidance for the development of specific bias mitigation methods.

In this position paper, we argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking that draws upon insights from disciplines such as user experience research and human behavioral psychology to ensure that the experimental design and results are reliable. The conclusions from these evaluations, thus, must consider factors such as usability, aesthetics, and cognitive biases. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. Furthermore, the evaluation should differentiate the capabilities and weaknesses of increasingly powerful large language models -- which requires effective test sets. The scalability of human evaluation is also crucial to wider adoption. Hence, to design an effective human evaluation system in the age of generative NLP, we propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.

Text-to-Image (T2I) generation is enabling new applications that support creators, designers, and general end users of productivity software by generating illustrative content with high photorealism starting from a given descriptive text as a prompt. Such models are however trained on massive amounts of web data, which surfaces the peril of potential harmful biases that may leak in the generation process itself. In this paper, we take a multi-dimensional approach to studying and quantifying common social biases as reflected in the generated images, by focusing on how occupations, personality traits, and everyday situations are depicted across representations of (perceived) gender, age, race, and geographical location. Through an extensive set of both automated and human evaluation experiments we present findings for two popular T2I models: DALLE-v2 and Stable Diffusion. Our results reveal that there exist severe occupational biases of neutral prompts majorly excluding groups of people from results for both models. Such biases can get mitigated by increasing the amount of specification in the prompt itself, although the prompting mitigation will not address discrepancies in image quality or other usages of the model or its representations in other scenarios. Further, we observe personality traits being associated with only a limited set of people at the intersection of race, gender, and age. Finally, an analysis of geographical location representations on everyday situations (e.g., park, food, weddings) shows that for most situations, images generated through default location-neutral prompts are closer and more similar to images generated for locations of United States and Germany.

This paper introduces DateLogicQA, a benchmark with 190 questions covering diverse date formats, temporal contexts, and reasoning types. We propose the Semantic Integrity Metric to assess tokenization quality and analyse two biases: Representation-Level Bias, affecting embeddings, and Logical-Level Bias, influencing reasoning outputs. Our findings provide a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' capabilities and limitations in temporal reasoning, highlighting key challenges in handling temporal data accurately. The GitHub repository for our work is available at https://github.com/gagan3012/EAIS-Temporal-Bias

Large language model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling, yet their judgments are often affected by judgment biases. Accurately evaluating these biases is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM-based judges. However, existing studies typically investigate limited biases under a single judge formulation, either generative or discriminative, lacking a comprehensive evaluation. To bridge this gap, we propose JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark for systematically quantifying biases in LLM-based judges. JudgeBiasBench defines a taxonomy of judgment biases across 4 dimensions, and constructs bias-augmented evaluation instances through a controlled bias injection pipeline, covering 12 representative bias types. We conduct extensive experiments across both generative and discriminative judges, revealing that current judges exhibit significant and diverse bias patterns that often compromise the reliability of automated evaluation. To mitigate judgment bias, we propose bias-aware training that explicitly incorporates bias-related attributes into the training process, encouraging judges to disentangle task-relevant quality from bias-correlated cues. By adopting reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges, our methods effectively reduce judgment biases while largely preserving general evaluation capability.

Visual similarities discovery (VSD) is an important task with broad e-commerce applications. Given an image of a certain object, the goal of VSD is to retrieve images of different objects with high perceptual visual similarity. Although being a highly addressed problem, the evaluation of proposed methods for VSD is often based on a proxy of an identification-retrieval task, evaluating the ability of a model to retrieve different images of the same object. We posit that evaluating VSD methods based on identification tasks is limited, and faithful evaluation must rely on expert annotations. In this paper, we introduce the first large-scale fashion visual similarity benchmark dataset, consisting of more than 110K expert-annotated image pairs. Besides this major contribution, we share insight from the challenges we faced while curating this dataset. Based on these insights, we propose a novel and efficient labeling procedure that can be applied to any dataset. Our analysis examines its limitations and inductive biases, and based on these findings, we propose metrics to mitigate those limitations. Though our primary focus lies on visual similarity, the methodologies we present have broader applications for discovering and evaluating perceptual similarity across various domains.

Text-to-Image (T2I) generative models have revolutionized content creation, yet they inherently risk amplifying societal biases. While sociological research provides systematic classifications of bias, existing T2I benchmarks largely conflate these nuances or focus narrowly on occupational stereotypes, leaving the multi-dimensional nature of generative bias inadequately measured. In this paper, we introduce BiasIG, a unified benchmark that quantifies social biases across a curated dataset of 47,040 prompts. Grounded in sociological and machine ethics frameworks, BiasIG disentangles biases across 4 dimensions to enable fine-grained diagnosis. To facilitate scalable and reliable evaluation, we propose a fully automated pipeline powered by a fine-tuned multi-modal large language model, achieving high alignment accuracy comparable to human experts. Extensive experiments on 8 T2I models and 3 debiasing methods not only validate BiasIG as a robust diagnostic tool, but also reveal critical insights: interventions on protected attributes often trigger unintended confounding effects on unrelated demographics, and debiasing methods exhibit a persistent tendency toward discrimination rather than mere ignorance. Our work advocates for a precise, taxonomy-driven approach to fairness in AIGC, providing a theoretical framework for using BiasIG's metrics as feedback signals in future closed-loop mitigation. The benchmark is openly available at https://github.com/Astarojth/BiasIG.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly influence global digital ecosystems, yet their potential to perpetuate social and cultural biases remains poorly understood in underrepresented contexts. This study presents a systematic analysis of representational biases in seven state-of-the-art LLMs: GPT-4o-mini, Claude-3-Sonnet, Claude-4-Sonnet, Gemini-2.0-Flash, Gemini-2.0-Lite, Llama-3-70B, and Mistral-Nemo in the Nepali cultural context. Using Croissant-compliant dataset of 2400+ stereotypical and anti-stereotypical sentence pairs on gender roles across social domains, we implement an evaluation framework, Dual-Metric Bias Assessment (DMBA), combining two metrics: (1) agreement with biased statements and (2) stereotypical completion tendencies. Results show models exhibit measurable explicit agreement bias, with mean bias agreement ranging from 0.36 to 0.43 across decoding configurations, and an implicit completion bias rate of 0.740-0.755. Importantly, implicit completion bias follows a non-linear, U-shaped relationship with temperature, peaking at moderate stochasticity (T=0.3) and declining slightly at higher temperatures. Correlation analysis under different decoding settings revealed that explicit agreement strongly aligns with stereotypical sentence agreement but is a weak and often negative predictor of implicit completion bias, indicating generative bias is poorly captured by agreement metrics. Sensitivity analysis shows increasing top-p amplifies explicit bias, while implicit generative bias remains largely stable. Domain-level analysis shows implicit bias is strongest for race and sociocultural stereotypes, while explicit agreement bias is similar across gender and sociocultural categories, with race showing the lowest explicit agreement. These findings highlight the need for culturally grounded datasets and debiasing strategies for LLMs in underrepresented societies.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to various NLP tasks, their inherent biases are gradually disclosed. Therefore, measuring biases in LLMs is crucial to mitigate its ethical risks. However, most existing bias evaluation datasets focus on English and North American culture, and their bias categories are not fully applicable to other cultures. The datasets grounded in the Chinese language and culture are scarce. More importantly, these datasets usually only support single evaluation tasks and cannot evaluate the bias from multiple aspects in LLMs. To address these issues, we present a Multi-task Chinese Bias Evaluation Benchmark (McBE) that includes 4,077 bias evaluation instances, covering 12 single bias categories, 82 subcategories and introducing 5 evaluation tasks, providing extensive category coverage, content diversity, and measuring comprehensiveness. Additionally, we evaluate several popular LLMs from different series and with parameter sizes. In general, all these LLMs demonstrated varying degrees of bias. We conduct an in-depth analysis of results, offering novel insights into bias in LLMs.

Existing studies on fairness are largely Western-focused, making them inadequate for culturally diverse countries such as India. To address this gap, we introduce INDIC-BIAS, a comprehensive India-centric benchmark designed to evaluate fairness of LLMs across 85 identity groups encompassing diverse castes, religions, regions, and tribes. We first consult domain experts to curate over 1,800 socio-cultural topics spanning behaviors and situations, where biases and stereotypes are likely to emerge. Grounded in these topics, we generate and manually validate 20,000 real-world scenario templates to probe LLMs for fairness. We structure these templates into three evaluation tasks: plausibility, judgment, and generation. Our evaluation of 14 popular LLMs on these tasks reveals strong negative biases against marginalized identities, with models frequently reinforcing common stereotypes. Additionally, we find that models struggle to mitigate bias even when explicitly asked to rationalize their decision. Our evaluation provides evidence of both allocative and representational harms that current LLMs could cause towards Indian identities, calling for a more cautious usage in practical applications. We release INDIC-BIAS as an open-source benchmark to advance research on benchmarking and mitigating biases and stereotypes in the Indian context.

Current embodied VLM evaluation relies on static, expert-defined, manually annotated benchmarks that exhibit severe redundancy and coverage imbalance. This labor intensive paradigm drains computational and annotation resources, inflates costs, and distorts model rankings, ultimately stifling iterative development. To address this, we propose Agentic Automatic Evaluation (A2Eval), the first agentic framework that automates benchmark curation and evaluation through two collaborative agents. The Data Agent autonomously induces capability dimensions and assembles a balanced, compact evaluation suite, while the Eval Agent synthesizes and validates executable evaluation pipelines, enabling fully autonomous, high-fidelity assessment. Evaluated across 10 benchmarks and 13 models, A2Eval compresses evaluation suites by 85%, reduces overall computational costs by 77%, and delivers a 4.6x speedup while preserving evaluation quality. Crucially, A2Eval corrects systematic ranking biases, improves human alignment to Spearman's rho=0.85, and maintains high ranking fidelity (Kendall's tau=0.81), establishing a new standard for high-fidelity, low-cost embodied assessment. Our code and data will be public soon.

Recent improvements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced natural language processing (NLP) applications. However, these models can also inherit and perpetuate biases from their training data. Addressing this issue is crucial, yet many existing datasets do not offer evaluation across diverse NLP tasks. To tackle this, we introduce the Bias Evaluations Across Domains (BEADs) dataset, designed to support a wide range of NLP tasks, including text classification, bias entity recognition, bias quantification, and benign language generation. BEADs uses AI-driven annotation combined with experts' verification to provide reliable labels. This method overcomes the limitations of existing datasets that typically depend on crowd-sourcing, expert-only annotations with limited bias evaluations, or unverified AI labeling. Our empirical analysis shows that BEADs is effective in detecting and reducing biases across different language models, with smaller models fine-tuned on BEADs often outperforming LLMs in bias classification tasks. However, these models may still exhibit biases towards certain demographics. Fine-tuning LLMs with our benign language data also reduces biases while preserving the models' knowledge. Our findings highlight the importance of comprehensive bias evaluation and the potential of targeted fine-tuning for reducing the bias of LLMs. We are making BEADs publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/shainar/BEAD Warning: This paper contains examples that may be considered offensive.

Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) are increasingly integrated into daily applications, yet their generative biases remain underexplored. Existing speech fairness benchmarks rely on synthetic speech and Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs), both offering a fragmented view of fairness. We propose VIBE, a framework that evaluates generative bias through open-ended tasks such as personalized recommendations, using human-recorded speech. Unlike MCQs, our method allows stereotypical associations to manifest organically without predefined options, making it easily extensible to new tasks. Evaluating 12 state-of-the-art LALMs reveals systematic biases in realistic scenarios. Both gender and accent cues trigger statistically significant distributional shifts, and bias magnitude is strongly task-dependent.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of its evaluation remain a critical issue. A core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in terms of known biases and their impact on evaluation outcomes, while automated and systematic exploration of potential unknown biases is still lacking. Nevertheless, such exploration is crucial for enhancing the robustness and reliability of evaluations. To bridge this gap, we propose BiasScope, a LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. BiasScope can uncover potential biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. It overcomes the limitations of existing approaches, transforming bias discovery from a passive process relying on manual effort and predefined bias lists into an active and comprehensive automated exploration. Moreover, based on BiasScope, we propose JudgeBench-Pro, an extended version of JudgeBench and a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge. Strikingly, even powerful LLMs as evaluators show error rates above 50\% on JudgeBench-Pro, underscoring the urgent need to strengthen evaluation robustness and to mitigate potential biases further.

Context utilisation, the ability of Language Models (LMs) to incorporate relevant information from the provided context when generating responses, remains largely opaque to users, who cannot determine whether models draw from parametric memory or provided context, nor identify which specific context pieces inform the response. Highlight explanations (HEs) offer a natural solution as they can point the exact context pieces and tokens that influenced model outputs. However, no existing work evaluates their effectiveness in accurately explaining context utilisation. We address this gap by introducing the first gold standard HE evaluation framework for context attribution, using controlled test cases with known ground-truth context usage, which avoids the limitations of existing indirect proxy evaluations. To demonstrate the framework's broad applicability, we evaluate four HE methods -- three established techniques and MechLight, a mechanistic interpretability approach we adapt for this task -- across four context scenarios, four datasets, and five LMs. Overall, we find that MechLight performs best across all context scenarios. However, all methods struggle with longer contexts and exhibit positional biases, pointing to fundamental challenges in explanation accuracy that require new approaches to deliver reliable context utilisation explanations at scale.

Objective: BCI (Brain-Computer Interface) technology operates in three modes: online, offline, and pseudo-online. In the online mode, real-time EEG data is constantly analyzed. In offline mode, the signal is acquired and processed afterwards. The pseudo-online mode processes collected data as if they were received in real-time. The main difference is that the offline mode often analyzes the whole data, while the online and pseudo-online modes only analyze data in short time windows. Offline analysis is usually done with asynchronous BCIs, which restricts analysis to predefined time windows. Asynchronous BCI, compatible with online and pseudo-online modes, allows flexible mental activity duration. Offline processing tends to be more accurate, while online analysis is better for therapeutic applications. Pseudo-online implementation approximates online processing without real-time constraints. Many BCI studies being offline introduce biases compared to real-life scenarios, impacting classification algorithm performance. Approach: The objective of this research paper is therefore to extend the current MOABB framework, operating in offline mode, so as to allow a comparison of different algorithms in a pseudo-online setting with the use of a technology based on overlapping sliding windows. To do this will require the introduction of a idle state event in the dataset that takes into account all different possibilities that are not task thinking. To validate the performance of the algorithms we will use the normalized Matthews Correlation Coefficient (nMCC) and the Information Transfer Rate (ITR). Main results: We analyzed the state-of-the-art algorithms of the last 15 years over several Motor Imagery (MI) datasets composed by several subjects, showing the differences between the two approaches from a statistical point of view. Significance: The ability to analyze the performance of different algorithms in offline and pseudo-online modes will allow the BCI community to obtain more accurate and comprehensive reports regarding the performance of classification algorithms.

Ensuring that large language models (LMs) are fair, robust and useful requires an understanding of how different modifications to their inputs impact the model's behaviour. In the context of open-text generation tasks, however, such an evaluation is not trivial. For example, when introducing a model with an input text and a perturbed, "contrastive" version of it, meaningful differences in the next-token predictions may not be revealed with standard decoding strategies. With this motivation in mind, we propose Contrastive Input Decoding (CID): a decoding algorithm to generate text given two inputs, where the generated text is likely given one input but unlikely given the other. In this way, the contrastive generations can highlight potentially subtle differences in how the LM output differs for the two inputs in a simple and interpretable manner. We use CID to highlight context-specific biases that are hard to detect with standard decoding strategies and quantify the effect of different input perturbations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly leveraged for translation tasks but often fall short when translating inclusive language -- such as texts containing the singular 'they' pronoun or otherwise reflecting fair linguistic protocols. Because these challenges span both computational and societal domains, it is imperative to critically evaluate how well LLMs handle inclusive translation with a well-founded framework. This paper presents FairTranslate, a novel, fully human-annotated dataset designed to evaluate non-binary gender biases in machine translation systems from English to French. FairTranslate includes 2418 English-French sentence pairs related to occupations, annotated with rich metadata such as the stereotypical alignment of the occupation, grammatical gender indicator ambiguity, and the ground-truth gender label (male, female, or inclusive). We evaluate four leading LLMs (Gemma2-2B, Mistral-7B, Llama3.1-8B, Llama3.3-70B) on this dataset under different prompting procedures. Our results reveal substantial biases in gender representation across LLMs, highlighting persistent challenges in achieving equitable outcomes in machine translation. These findings underscore the need for focused strategies and interventions aimed at ensuring fair and inclusive language usage in LLM-based translation systems. We make the FairTranslate dataset publicly available on Hugging Face, and disclose the code for all experiments on GitHub.

End-to-end driving systems have made rapid progress, but have so far not been applied to the challenging new CARLA Leaderboard 2.0. Further, while there is a large body of literature on end-to-end architectures and training strategies, the impact of the training dataset is often overlooked. In this work, we make a first attempt at end-to-end driving for Leaderboard 2.0. Instead of investigating architectures, we systematically analyze the training dataset, leading to new insights: (1) Expert style significantly affects downstream policy performance. (2) In complex data sets, the frames should not be weighted on the basis of simplistic criteria such as class frequencies. (3) Instead, estimating whether a frame changes the target labels compared to previous frames can reduce the size of the dataset without removing important information. By incorporating these findings, our model ranks first and second respectively on the map and sensors tracks of the 2024 CARLA Challenge, and sets a new state-of-the-art on the Bench2Drive test routes. Finally, we uncover a design flaw in the current evaluation metrics and propose a modification for future challenges. Our dataset, code, and pre-trained models are publicly available at https://github.com/autonomousvision/carla_garage.

When exposed to human-generated data, language models are known to learn and amplify societal biases. While previous works introduced benchmarks that can be used to assess the bias in these models, they rely on assumptions that may not be universally true. For instance, a gender bias dimension commonly used by these metrics is that of family--career, but this may not be the only common bias in certain regions of the world. In this paper, we identify topical differences in gender bias across different regions and propose a region-aware bottom-up approach for bias assessment. Our proposed approach uses gender-aligned topics for a given region and identifies gender bias dimensions in the form of topic pairs that are likely to capture gender societal biases. Several of our proposed bias topic pairs are on par with human perception of gender biases in these regions in comparison to the existing ones, and we also identify new pairs that are more aligned than the existing ones. In addition, we use our region-aware bias topic pairs in a Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT)-based evaluation metric to test for gender biases across different regions in different data domains. We also find that LLMs have a higher alignment to bias pairs for highly-represented regions showing the importance of region-aware bias evaluation metric.

As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent's responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil's Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents' arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent's answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit impressive cross-modal understanding and reasoning abilities, often assessed through multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that include an image, a question, and several options. However, many benchmarks used for such evaluations suffer from systematic biases. Remarkably, Large Language Models (LLMs) without any visual perception capabilities achieve non-trivial performance, undermining the credibility of these evaluations. To address this issue while maintaining the efficiency of MCQ evaluations, we propose MMEvalPro, a benchmark designed to avoid Type-I errors through a trilogy evaluation pipeline and more rigorous metrics. For each original question from existing benchmarks, human annotators augment it by creating one perception question and one knowledge anchor question through a meticulous annotation process. MMEvalPro comprises 2,138 question triplets, totaling 6,414 distinct questions. Two-thirds of these questions are manually labeled by human experts, while the rest are sourced from existing benchmarks (MMMU, ScienceQA, and MathVista). Compared with the existing benchmarks, our experiments with the latest LLMs and LMMs demonstrate that MMEvalPro is more challenging (the best LMM lags behind human performance by 31.73%, compared to an average gap of 8.03% in previous benchmarks) and more trustworthy (the best LLM trails the best LMM by 23.09%, whereas the gap for previous benchmarks is just 14.64%). Our in-depth analysis explains the reason for the large performance gap and justifies the trustworthiness of evaluation, underscoring its significant potential for advancing future research.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate the quality of LLM generations and responses, but this leads to significant challenges: high API costs, uncertain reliability, inflexible pipelines, and inherent biases. To address these, we introduce PAJAMA (Program-As-a-Judge for Automated Model Assessment), a new alternative that uses LLMs to synthesize executable judging programs instead of directly scoring responses. These synthesized programs can be stored and run locally, costing orders of magnitude less while providing interpretable, and auditable judging logic that can be easily adapted. Program-based judges mitigate biases, improving judgment consistency by 15.83% and reducing biased responses by 23.7% on average compared to a Qwen2.5-14B-based LLM-as-a-judge. When program judgments are distilled into a model, PAJAMA outperforms LLM-as-a-judge on the challenging CHAT-HARD subset of RewardBench, outperforming metrics by 2.19% on Prometheus and 8.67% on the JudgeLM dataset, all at three orders of magnitude lower cost.

Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization because they better capture semantic information, are better at reasoning, and are more robust to paraphrasing. However, LLM judges show biases for length and order among others, and are vulnerable to various adversarial input prompts. While recent studies have looked into these biases, few have analyzed them at a more granular level in relation to a well-defined overlap metric. In this work we provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization. We test 9 recent LLMs with parameter counts ranging from 1 billion to 12 billion, including variants of Gemma 3 and LLaMA 3. We find that LLM judges increasingly prefer summaries generated by other LLMs over those written by humans as the similarities (as measured by ROUGE and BLEU) between the judged summaries decrease, and this pattern extends to all but one model tested, and exists regardless of the models' own position biases. Additionally, we find that models struggle to judge even summaries with limited overlaps, suggesting that LLM-as-a-judge in the summary domain should rely on techniques beyond a simple comparison.

Fine-tuned encoders deployed across heterogeneous NLP tasks face three compounding problems: mismatched inductive biases, class-imbalance corruption of feature statistics, and no mechanism to condition attention on external lexical knowledge. We introduce \surgellm, a unified transformer framework that addresses each with a dedicated lightweight module: a surgical feature gate (learned per-dimension sigmoid over curated lexical indicators and [CLS]; provably degenerates to identity when features are uninformative), task-conditioned prefix tokens (quantized feature values and task identity prepended to every input), and Instance-Weighted Normalization (IWN; removes class-prior bias from gate statistics). We prove an excess-risk bound linking gate benefit to surgical feature alignment. Across four tasks, SST-2, multi-hop retrieval, LLM-prompt attribution, and authorship detection, covering 17,830 examples and eleven model variants over three seeds, the IWN variant achieves macro-F1 0.940 (+0.036 over the strongest non-IWN baseline; +0.130 on authorship detection). A random-vocabulary control (-0.028 avg.\ F1) confirms gains are lexical, not parametric. Code, vocabularies, and a 99.5%-recovery auto-extraction recipe are released.

While scaling test-time compute through trajectory-level sampling has significantly improved Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents, the lack of regressive ability prevents the reuse of partial successes and the recovery from early missteps. In this paper, we introduce Agent Alpha, a unified framework that synergizes generation, exploration, and evaluation through step-level Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). It enables active modeling or exploiting structures of the planning space. By integrating alpha-UCT guided search into the interaction loop, Agent Alpha enables deliberate planning, facilitating early pruning of suboptimal branches and efficient prefix reuse. We also employ comparison-driven evaluation to mitigate absolute scoring biases and diversity-constrained expansion to maintain a compact, informative search space. Regret bound of alpha-UCT is analyzed. On the OSWorld benchmark, Agent Alpha achieves a state-of-the-art success rate of sim 77%, significantly outperforming trajectory-level baselines under equivalent compute.

Audio-Visual Source Localization (AVSL) aims to localize the source of sound within a video. In this paper, we identify a significant issue in existing benchmarks: the sounding objects are often easily recognized based solely on visual cues, which we refer to as visual bias. Such biases hinder these benchmarks from effectively evaluating AVSL models. To further validate our hypothesis regarding visual biases, we examine two representative AVSL benchmarks, VGG-SS and EpicSounding-Object, where the vision-only models outperform all audiovisual baselines. Our findings suggest that existing AVSL benchmarks need further refinement to facilitate audio-visual learning.

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

The long-standing one-to-many problem of gold standard responses in open-domain dialogue systems presents challenges for automatic evaluation metrics. Though prior works have demonstrated some success by applying powerful Large Language Models (LLMs), existing approaches still struggle with the one-to-many problem, and exhibit subpar performance in domain-specific scenarios. We assume the commonsense reasoning biases within LLMs may hinder their performance in domainspecific evaluations. To address both issues, we propose a novel framework SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation), that leverages both a small, specialised model (SLM), and LLMs for the evaluation of open domain dialogues. Our approach introduces several techniques: (1) Contrastive learning to differentiate between robust and non-robust response embeddings; (2) A novel metric for semantic sensitivity that combines embedding cosine distances with similarity learned through neural networks, and (3) a strategy for incorporating the evaluation results from both the SLM and LLMs. Our empirical results demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both the classification and evaluation tasks, and additionally the SLIDE evaluator exhibits better correlation with human judgements. Our code is available at https:// github.com/hegehongcha/SLIDE-ACL2024.

Expected Goals (xG) has emerged as a popular tool for evaluating finishing skill in soccer analytics. It involves comparing a player's cumulative xG with their actual goal output, where consistent overperformance indicates strong finishing ability. However, the assessment of finishing skill in soccer using xG remains contentious due to players' difficulty in consistently outperforming their cumulative xG. In this paper, we aim to address the limitations and nuances surrounding the evaluation of finishing skill using xG statistics. Specifically, we explore three hypotheses: (1) the deviation between actual and expected goals is an inadequate metric due to the high variance of shot outcomes and limited sample sizes, (2) the inclusion of all shots in cumulative xG calculation may be inappropriate, and (3) xG models contain biases arising from interdependencies in the data that affect skill measurement. We found that sustained overperformance of cumulative xG requires both high shot volumes and exceptional finishing, including all shot types can obscure the finishing ability of proficient strikers, and that there is a persistent bias that makes the actual and expected goals closer for excellent finishers than it really is. Overall, our analysis indicates that we need more nuanced quantitative approaches for investigating a player's finishing ability, which we achieved using a technique from AI fairness to learn an xG model that is calibrated for multiple subgroups of players. As a concrete use case, we show that (1) the standard biased xG model underestimates Messi's GAX by 17% and (2) Messi's GAX is 27% higher than the typical elite high-shot-volume attacker, indicating that Messi is even a more exceptional finisher than people commonly believed.

Text representation models are prone to exhibit a range of societal biases, reflecting the non-controlled and biased nature of the underlying pretraining data, which consequently leads to severe ethical issues and even bias amplification. Recent work has predominantly focused on measuring and mitigating bias in pretrained language models. Surprisingly, the landscape of bias measurements and mitigation resources and methods for conversational language models is still very scarce: it is limited to only a few types of bias, artificially constructed resources, and completely ignores the impact that debiasing methods may have on the final performance in dialog tasks, e.g., conversational response generation. In this work, we present RedditBias, the first conversational data set grounded in the actual human conversations from Reddit, allowing for bias measurement and mitigation across four important bias dimensions: gender, race, religion, and queerness. Further, we develop an evaluation framework which simultaneously 1) measures bias on the developed RedditBias resource, and 2) evaluates model capability in dialog tasks after model debiasing. We use the evaluation framework to benchmark the widely used conversational DialoGPT model along with the adaptations of four debiasing methods. Our results indicate that DialoGPT is biased with respect to religious groups and that some debiasing techniques can remove this bias while preserving downstream task performance.

Commonly used evaluation measures including Recall, Precision, F-Measure and Rand Accuracy are biased and should not be used without clear understanding of the biases, and corresponding identification of chance or base case levels of the statistic. Using these measures a system that performs worse in the objective sense of Informedness, can appear to perform better under any of these commonly used measures. We discuss several concepts and measures that reflect the probability that prediction is informed versus chance. Informedness and introduce Markedness as a dual measure for the probability that prediction is marked versus chance. Finally we demonstrate elegant connections between the concepts of Informedness, Markedness, Correlation and Significance as well as their intuitive relationships with Recall and Precision, and outline the extension from the dichotomous case to the general multi-class case.

This work defines a new framework for performance evaluation of polyphonic sound event detection (SED) systems, which overcomes the limitations of the conventional collar-based event decisions, event F-scores and event error rates. The proposed framework introduces a definition of event detection that is more robust against labelling subjectivity. It also resorts to polyphonic receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to deliver more global insight into system performance than F1-scores, and proposes a reduction of these curves into a single polyphonic sound detection score (PSDS), which allows system comparison independently from operating points (OPs). The presented method also delivers better insight into data biases and classification stability across sound classes. Furthermore, it can be tuned to varying applications in order to match a variety of user experience requirements. The benefits of the proposed approach are demonstrated by re-evaluating the baseline and two of the top-performing systems from DCASE 2019 Task 4.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been increasingly used as automatic evaluators-a paradigm known as MLLM-as-a-Judge. However, their reliability and vulnerabilities to biases remain underexplored. We find that many MLLM judges fail to reliably integrate key visual or textual cues, yielding unreliable evaluations when evidence is missing or mismatched, and exhibiting instability under semantically irrelevant perturbations. To address this, we systematically define Compositional Bias in MLLM-as-a-Judge systems and introduce MM-JudgeBias, a benchmark for evaluating it. MM-JudgeBias introduces controlled perturbations across Query, Image, and Response, and evaluates model behavior via two complementary metrics: Bias-Deviation (BD) for sensitivity and Bias-Conformity (BC) for stability. Our dataset of over 1,800 curated and refined multimodal samples, drawn from 29 source benchmarks, enables a fine-grained diagnosis of nine bias types across diverse tasks and domains. Experiments on 26 state-of-the-art MLLMs reveal systematic modality neglect and asymmetric evaluation tendencies, underscoring the need for more reliable judges.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in personally and societally consequential settings, yet the visual cues that shape how these models judge people remain poorly understood. Prior work often compares different (groups of) individuals, making it difficult to separate appearance effects from identity differences. We introduce StylisticBias, a controlled benchmark for evaluating attribute-level social bias in MLLMs. We generate 500 photorealistic base faces and create about 50 single-attribute variations per face, producing about 25K images. This design keeps identity fixed and changes one visual attribute at a time. It lets us measure how specific cues shift model judgments. We evaluate six MLLMs across 25 binary social judgment scenarios. We find that age and body type dominate identity-level effects, while fashion style and other visual cues drive the largest attribute-level shifts. We further find that about 15 attributes account for nearly 80\% of the total variation, showing that bias is concentrated in a small set of visual cues. Sensitivity is strongest in judgments that are semantically aligned with appearance, especially socioeconomic and style-related judgments. We release StylisticBias as a benchmark for fine-grained bias evaluation in multimodal models. Code and dataset: https://github.com/timo-cavelius/StylisticBias and https://hf.co/datasets/shaghayegh/stylistic-bias-dataset.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. Therefore, we identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM-which systematically quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge by using automated and principle-guided modification. Our experiments cover multiple popular language models, and the results indicate that while advanced models have achieved commendable overall performance, significant biases persist in certain specific tasks. Empirical results suggest that there remains room for improvement in the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge. Moreover, we also discuss the explicit and implicit influence of these biases and give some suggestions for the reliable application of LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models empower them to follow freeform instructions, including imitating generic or specific demographic personas in conversations. We define generic personas to represent demographic groups, such as "an Asian person", whereas specific personas may take the form of specific popular Asian names like "Yumi". While the adoption of personas enriches user experiences by making dialogue systems more engaging and approachable, it also casts a shadow of potential risk by exacerbating social biases within model responses, thereby causing societal harm through interactions with users. In this paper, we systematically study "persona biases", which we define to be the sensitivity of dialogue models' harmful behaviors contingent upon the personas they adopt. We categorize persona biases into biases in harmful expression and harmful agreement, and establish a comprehensive evaluation framework to measure persona biases in five aspects: Offensiveness, Toxic Continuation, Regard, Stereotype Agreement, and Toxic Agreement. Additionally, we propose to investigate persona biases by experimenting with UNIVERSALPERSONA, a systematically constructed persona dataset encompassing various types of both generic and specific model personas. Through benchmarking on four different models -- including Blender, ChatGPT, Alpaca, and Vicuna -- our study uncovers significant persona biases in dialogue systems. Our findings also underscore the pressing need to revisit the use of personas in dialogue agents to ensure safe application.

Document parsing aims to transform unstructured PDF images into semi-structured data, facilitating the digitization and utilization of information in diverse domains. While vision language models (VLMs) have significantly advanced this task, achieving reliable, high-quality parsing in real-world scenarios remains challenging. Common practice often selects the top-performing model on standard benchmarks. However, these benchmarks may carry dataset-specific biases, leading to inconsistent model rankings and limited correlation with real-world performance. Moreover, benchmark metrics typically provide only overall scores, which can obscure distinct error patterns in output. This raises a key challenge: how can we reliably and comprehensively assess document parsing quality in the wild? We address this problem with DOCR-Inspector, which formalizes document parsing assessment as fine-grained error detection and analysis. Leveraging VLM-as-a-Judge, DOCR-Inspector analyzes a document image and its parsed output, identifies all errors, assigns them to one of 28 predefined types, and produces a comprehensive quality assessment. To enable this capability, we construct DOCRcase-200K for training and propose the Chain-of-Checklist reasoning paradigm to enable the hierarchical structure of parsing quality assessment. For empirical validation, we introduce DOCRcaseBench, a set of 882 real-world document parsing cases with manual annotations. On this benchmark, DOCR-Inspector-7B outperforms commercial models like Gemini 2.5 Pro, as well as leading open-source models. Further experiments demonstrate that its quality assessments provide valuable guidance for parsing results refinement, making DOCR-Inspector both a practical evaluator and a driver for advancing document parsing systems at scale. Model and code are released at: https://github.com/ZZZZZQT/DOCR-Inspector.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate ethically sensitive decisions, understanding their moral reasoning processes becomes imperative. This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of 14 leading LLMs, both reasoning enabled and general purpose, across 27 diverse trolley problem scenarios, framed by ten moral philosophies, including utilitarianism, deontology, and altruism. Using a factorial prompting protocol, we elicited 3,780 binary decisions and natural language justifications, enabling analysis along axes of decisional assertiveness, explanation answer consistency, public moral alignment, and sensitivity to ethically irrelevant cues. Our findings reveal significant variability across ethical frames and model types: reasoning enhanced models demonstrate greater decisiveness and structured justifications, yet do not always align better with human consensus. Notably, "sweet zones" emerge in altruistic, fairness, and virtue ethics framings, where models achieve a balance of high intervention rates, low explanation conflict, and minimal divergence from aggregated human judgments. However, models diverge under frames emphasizing kinship, legality, or self interest, often producing ethically controversial outcomes. These patterns suggest that moral prompting is not only a behavioral modifier but also a diagnostic tool for uncovering latent alignment philosophies across providers. We advocate for moral reasoning to become a primary axis in LLM alignment, calling for standardized benchmarks that evaluate not just what LLMs decide, but how and why.

When developing new large language models (LLMs), a key step is evaluating their final performance, often by computing the win-rate against a reference model based on external feedback. Human feedback is the gold standard, particularly for capturing nuanced qualities like coherence, readability, and alignment with human expectations. However, human evaluations are costly -- even for large tech companies -- and when conducted with active users, they may negatively impact user experience. A promising alternative is synthetic feedback, where evaluations are conducted by other large language models, including reward models. While this eliminates the need for costly human annotations, it introduces biases that may distort the evaluation process. In this work, we propose a statistically principled framework that integrates human and synthetic feedback to reduce reliance on human annotations while maintaining unbiased win-rate calculations. Our experiments demonstrate a reduction in human annotations by up to 12.2% with an off-the-shelf synthetic evaluator and up to 24.8% with a finetuned variant. Apart from being generalizable, scalable, and free of hyper-parameter tuning, our method offers predictable annotation savings, which can be estimated based on data-dependent characteristics.

Spurious bias, a tendency to exploit spurious correlations between superficial input attributes and prediction targets, has revealed a severe robustness pitfall in classical machine learning problems. Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), which leverage pretrained vision and language models, have recently demonstrated strong capability in joint vision-language understanding. However, both the presence and severity of spurious biases in MLLMs remain poorly understood. In this work, we address this gap by analyzing the spurious biases in the multimodal setting and uncovering the specific inference-time data patterns that can manifest this problem. To support this analysis, we introduce MM-SpuBench, a comprehensive, human-verified benchmark dataset consisting of image-class pairs annotated with core and spurious attributes, grounded in our taxonomy of nine distinct types of spurious correlations. The benchmark is constructed using human-interpretable attribute information to capture a wide range of spurious patterns reflective of real-world knowledge. Leveraging this benchmark, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary MLLMs with both standard accuracy and the proposed Conditional Generation Likelihood Advantage (CGLA). Our findings highlight the persistence of reliance on spurious correlations and the difficulty of mitigation on our benchmark. We hope this work can inspire new technical strides to mitigate these biases. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/mmbench/MM-SpuBench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content, including professional documents such as recommendation letters. Though bringing convenience, this application also introduces unprecedented fairness concerns. Model-generated reference letters might be directly used by users in professional scenarios. If underlying biases exist in these model-constructed letters, using them without scrutinization could lead to direct societal harms, such as sabotaging application success rates for female applicants. In light of this pressing issue, it is imminent and necessary to comprehensively study fairness issues and associated harms in this real-world use case. In this paper, we critically examine gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters. Drawing inspiration from social science findings, we design evaluation methods to manifest biases through 2 dimensions: (1) biases in language style and (2) biases in lexical content. We further investigate the extent of bias propagation by analyzing the hallucination bias of models, a term that we define to be bias exacerbation in model-hallucinated contents. Through benchmarking evaluation on 2 popular LLMs- ChatGPT and Alpaca, we reveal significant gender biases in LLM-generated recommendation letters. Our findings not only warn against using LLMs for this application without scrutinization, but also illuminate the importance of thoroughly studying hidden biases and harms in LLM-generated professional documents.

LLMs are increasingly powerful and widely used to assist users in a variety of tasks. This use risks the introduction of LLM biases to consequential decisions such as job hiring, human performance evaluation, and criminal sentencing. Bias in NLP systems along the lines of gender and ethnicity has been widely studied, especially for specific stereotypes (e.g., Asians are good at math). In this paper, we investigate bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty, measuring subtler correlated decisions that LLMs make between social groups and unrelated positive and negative attributes. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the ``what is beautiful is good'' bias found in people in experimental psychology. We introduce a template-generated dataset of sentence completion tasks that asks the model to select the most appropriate attribute to complete an evaluative statement about a person described as a member of a specific social group. We also reverse the completion task to select the social group based on an attribute. We report the correlations that we find for 4 cutting-edge LLMs. This dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress in more generalized biases and the templating technique can be used to expand the benchmark with minimal additional human annotation.

Do the Spratly Islands belong to China, the Philippines, or Vietnam? A pretrained large language model (LLM) may answer differently if asked in the languages of each claimant country: Chinese, Tagalog, or Vietnamese. This contrasts with a multilingual human, who would likely answer consistently. In this paper, we show that LLMs recall certain geographical knowledge inconsistently when queried in different languages -- a phenomenon we term geopolitical bias. As a targeted case study, we consider territorial disputes, an inherently controversial and multilingual task. We introduce BorderLines, a dataset of territorial disputes which covers 251 territories, each associated with a set of multiple-choice questions in the languages of each claimant country (49 languages in total). We also propose a suite of evaluation metrics to precisely quantify bias and consistency in responses across different languages. We then evaluate various multilingual LLMs on our dataset and metrics to probe their internal knowledge and use the proposed metrics to discover numerous inconsistencies in how these models respond in different languages. Finally, we explore several prompt modification strategies, aiming to either amplify or mitigate geopolitical bias, which highlights how brittle LLMs are and how they tailor their responses depending on cues from the interaction context. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/manestay/borderlines

Combating bias in NLP requires bias measurement. Bias measurement is almost always achieved by using lexicons of seed terms, i.e. sets of words specifying stereotypes or dimensions of interest. This reproducibility study focuses on the original authors' main claim that the rationale for the construction of these lexicons needs thorough checking before usage, as the seeds used for bias measurement can themselves exhibit biases. The study aims to evaluate the reproducibility of the quantitative and qualitative results presented in the paper and the conclusions drawn thereof. We reproduce most of the results supporting the original authors' general claim: seed sets often suffer from biases that affect their performance as a baseline for bias metrics. Generally, our results mirror the original paper's. They are slightly different on select occasions, but not in ways that undermine the paper's general intent to show the fragility of seed sets.

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems is challenging due to the diversity of valid outputs. While human evaluation is the gold standard, it suffers from inconsistencies, lack of standardisation, and demographic biases, limiting reproducibility. LLM-based evaluation offers a scalable alternative but is highly sensitive to prompt design, where small variations can lead to significant discrepancies. In this work, we propose an inversion learning method that learns effective reverse mappings from model outputs back to their input instructions, enabling the automatic generation of highly effective, model-specific evaluation prompts. Our method requires only a single evaluation sample and eliminates the need for time-consuming manual prompt engineering, thereby improving both efficiency and robustness. Our work contributes toward a new direction for more robust and efficient LLM-based evaluation.

Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) is a pivotal and complex task in multimodal understanding. Current CIR benchmarks typically feature limited query categories and fail to capture the diverse requirements of real-world scenarios. To bridge this evaluation gap, we leverage image editing to achieve precise control over modification types and content, enabling a pipeline for synthesizing queries across a broad spectrum of categories. Using this pipeline, we construct EDIR, a novel fine-grained CIR benchmark. EDIR encompasses 5,000 high-quality queries structured across five main categories and fifteen subcategories. Our comprehensive evaluation of 13 multimodal embedding models reveals a significant capability gap; even state-of-the-art models (e.g., RzenEmbed and GME) struggle to perform consistently across all subcategories, highlighting the rigorous nature of our benchmark. Through comparative analysis, we further uncover inherent limitations in existing benchmarks, such as modality biases and insufficient categorical coverage. Furthermore, an in-domain training experiment demonstrates the feasibility of our benchmark. This experiment clarifies the task challenges by distinguishing between categories that are solvable with targeted data and those that expose intrinsic limitations of current model architectures.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have reshaped code generation by synergizing their exceptional comprehension of natural language and programming syntax, thereby substantially boosting developer productivity. These advancements have prompted numerous efforts to quantitatively evaluate their coding capabilities. However, persistent challenges, such as benchmark leakage, data dissipation, and limited system accessibility, continue to impede a timely and accurate assessment. To address these limitations, we introduce CodeArena, an online evaluation framework tailored for LLM code generation. The key innovation is a collective evaluation mechanism, which dynamically recalibrates individual model scores based on the holistic performance of all participating models, mitigating score biases caused by widespread benchmark leakage. In addition, CodeArena ensures open access to all submitted solutions and test cases and provides automation-friendly APIs to streamline the code evaluation workflow. Our main contributions are: (1) a collective evaluation system for unbiased assessment, (2) a public repository of solutions and test cases, and (3) automation-ready APIs for seamless integration.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently used for multi-faceted language generation and evaluation tasks that involve satisfying intricate user constraints or taking into account multiple aspects and criteria. However, their performance can fall short, due to the model's lack of coherence and inability to plan and decompose the problem. We propose Branch-Solve-Merge (BSM), a Large Language Model program (Schlag et al., 2023) for tackling such challenging natural language tasks. It consists of branch, solve, and merge modules that are parameterized with specific prompts to the base LLM. These three modules plan a decomposition of the task into multiple parallel sub-tasks, independently solve them, and fuse the solutions to the sub-tasks. We apply our method to the tasks of LLM response evaluation and constrained text generation and evaluate its effectiveness with multiple LLMs, including Vicuna, LLaMA-2-chat, and GPT-4. BSM improves the evaluation correctness and consistency for each LLM by enhancing human-LLM agreement by up to 26%, reducing length and pairwise position biases by up to 50%, and allowing LLaMA-2-chat to match or outperform GPT-4 on most domains. On the constraint story generation task, BSM improves the coherence of the stories while also improving constraint satisfaction by 12%.

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

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

Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing-where LLMs construct and explain answers-better capturing user needs and knowledge while remaining easy to score. We then show even when MCQA is a useful format, its datasets suffer from: leakage; unanswerability; shortcuts; and saturation. In each issue, we give fixes from education, like rubrics to guide MCQ writing; scoring methods to bridle guessing; and Item Response Theory to build harder MCQs. Lastly, we discuss LLM errors in MCQA-robustness, biases, and unfaithful explanations-showing how our prior solutions better measure or address these issues. While we do not need to desert MCQA, we encourage more efforts in refining the task based on educational testing, advancing evaluations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, such as Question Answering, Summarization, and Classification. The use of LLMs as evaluators, that can rank or score the output of other models (usually LLMs) has become increasingly popular, due to the limitations of current evaluation techniques including the lack of appropriate benchmarks, metrics, cost, and access to human annotators. While LLMs are capable of handling approximately 100 languages, the majority of languages beyond the top 20 lack systematic evaluation across various tasks, metrics, and benchmarks. This creates an urgent need to scale up multilingual evaluation to ensure a precise understanding of LLM performance across diverse languages. LLM-based evaluators seem like the perfect solution to this problem, as they do not require human annotators, human-created references, or benchmarks and can theoretically be used to evaluate any language covered by the LLM. In this paper, we investigate whether LLM-based evaluators can help scale up multilingual evaluation. Specifically, we calibrate LLM-based evaluation against 20k human judgments of five metrics across three text-generation tasks in eight languages. Our findings indicate that LLM-based evaluators may exhibit bias towards higher scores and should be used with caution and should always be calibrated with a dataset of native speaker judgments, particularly in low-resource and non-Latin script languages.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have underscored their importance in the evolution of artificial intelligence. However, despite extensive pretraining on multilingual datasets, available open-sourced LLMs exhibit limited effectiveness in processing Vietnamese. The challenge is exacerbated by the absence of systematic benchmark datasets and metrics tailored for Vietnamese LLM evaluation. To mitigate these issues, we have finetuned LLMs specifically for Vietnamese and developed a comprehensive evaluation framework encompassing 10 common tasks and 31 metrics. Our evaluation results reveal that the fine-tuned LLMs exhibit enhanced comprehension and generative capabilities in Vietnamese. Moreover, our analysis indicates that models with more parameters can introduce more biases and uncalibrated outputs and the key factor influencing LLM performance is the quality of the training or fine-tuning datasets. These insights underscore the significance of meticulous fine-tuning with high-quality datasets in enhancing LLM performance.

Evaluation has traditionally focused on ranking candidates for a specific skill. Modern generalist models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), decidedly outpace this paradigm. Open-ended evaluation systems, where candidate models are compared on user-submitted prompts, have emerged as a popular solution. Despite their many advantages, we show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental, due to their sensitivity to redundancies. To address this issue, we propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy. We show that our method leads to intuitive ratings and provide insights into the competitive landscape of LLM development.

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

As generative large language models (LLMs) grow more performant and prevalent, we must develop comprehensive enough tools to measure and improve their fairness. Different prompt-based datasets can be used to measure social bias across multiple text domains and demographic axes, meaning that testing LLMs on more datasets can potentially help us characterize their biases more fully, and better ensure equal and equitable treatment of marginalized demographic groups. In this work, our focus is two-fold: (1) Benchmarking: a comparison of 6 different prompt-based bias and toxicity metrics across 12 demographic axes and 5 families of generative LLMs. Out of those 6 metrics, AdvPromptSet and HolisticBiasR are novel datasets proposed in the paper. The comparison of those benchmarks gives us insights about the bias and toxicity of the compared models. Therefore, we explore the frequency of demographic terms in common LLM pre-training corpora and how this may relate to model biases. (2) Mitigation: we conduct a comprehensive study of how well 3 bias/toxicity mitigation techniques perform across our suite of measurements. ROBBIE aims to provide insights for practitioners while deploying a model, emphasizing the need to not only measure potential harms, but also understand how they arise by characterizing the data, mitigate harms once found, and balance any trade-offs. We open-source our analysis code in hopes of encouraging broader measurements of bias in future LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise as automated evaluators for assessing the quality of answers generated by AI systems. However, these LLM-based evaluators exhibit position bias, or inconsistency, when used to evaluate candidate answers in pairwise comparisons, favoring either the first or second answer regardless of content. To address this limitation, we propose PORTIA, an alignment-based system designed to mimic human comparison strategies to calibrate position bias in a lightweight yet effective manner. Specifically, PORTIA splits the answers into multiple segments, aligns similar content across candidate answers, and then merges them back into a single prompt for evaluation by LLMs. We conducted extensive experiments with six diverse LLMs to evaluate 11,520 answer pairs. Our results show that PORTIA markedly enhances the consistency rates for all the models and comparison forms tested, achieving an average relative improvement of 47.46%. Remarkably, PORTIA enables less advanced GPT models to achieve 88% agreement with the state-of-the-art GPT-4 model at just 10% of the cost. Furthermore, it rectifies around 80% of the position bias instances within the GPT-4 model, elevating its consistency rate up to 98%. Subsequent human evaluations indicate that the PORTIA-enhanced GPT-3.5 model can even surpass the standalone GPT-4 in terms of alignment with human evaluators. These findings highlight PORTIA's ability to correct position bias, improve LLM consistency, and boost performance while keeping cost-efficiency. This represents a valuable step toward a more reliable and scalable use of LLMs for automated evaluations across diverse applications.

Current developments in large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. An interesting application of these systems is in the automated assessment of natural language generation (NLG), a highly challenging area with great practical benefit. In this paper, we explore two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment: absolute score prediction, and comparative assessment which uses relative comparisons between pairs of candidates. Though comparative assessment has not been extensively studied in NLG assessment, we note that humans often find it more intuitive to compare two options rather than scoring each one independently. This work examines comparative assessment from multiple perspectives: performance compared to absolute grading; positional biases in the prompt; and efficient ranking in terms of the number of comparisons. We illustrate that LLM comparative assessment is a simple, general and effective approach for NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring, and in many cases can achieve performance competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Additionally, we demonstrate that LLMs often exhibit strong positional biases when making pairwise comparisons, and we propose debiasing methods that can further improve performance.

Recently, the DeepSeek series of models, leveraging their exceptional reasoning capabilities and open-source strategy, is reshaping the global AI landscape. Despite these advantages, they exhibit significant safety deficiencies. Research conducted by Robust Intelligence, a subsidiary of Cisco, in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania, revealed that DeepSeek-R1 has a 100\% attack success rate when processing harmful prompts. Additionally, multiple safety companies and research institutions have confirmed critical safety vulnerabilities in this model. As models demonstrating robust performance in Chinese and English, DeepSeek models require equally crucial safety assessments in both language contexts. However, current research has predominantly focused on safety evaluations in English environments, leaving a gap in comprehensive assessments of their safety performance in Chinese contexts. In response to this gap, this study introduces CHiSafetyBench, a Chinese-specific safety evaluation benchmark. This benchmark systematically evaluates the safety of DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 in Chinese contexts, revealing their performance across safety categories. The experimental results quantify the deficiencies of these two models in Chinese contexts, providing key insights for subsequent improvements. It should be noted that, despite our efforts to establish a comprehensive, objective, and authoritative evaluation benchmark, the selection of test samples, characteristics of data distribution, and the setting of evaluation criteria may inevitably introduce certain biases into the evaluation results. We will continuously optimize the evaluation benchmark and periodically update this report to provide more comprehensive and accurate assessment outcomes. Please refer to the latest version of the paper for the most recent evaluation results and conclusions.

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

Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have rapidly penetrated into people's work and daily lives over the past few years, due to their extraordinary conversational skills and intelligence. ChatGPT has become the fastest-growing software in terms of user numbers in human history and become an important foundational model for the next generation of artificial intelligence applications. However, the generations of LLMs are not entirely reliable, often producing content with factual errors, biases, and toxicity. Given their vast number of users and wide range of application scenarios, these unreliable responses can lead to many serious negative impacts. This thesis introduces the exploratory works in the field of language model reliability during the PhD study, focusing on the correctness, non-toxicity, and fairness of LLMs from both software testing and natural language processing perspectives. First, to measure the correctness of LLMs, we introduce two testing frameworks, FactChecker and LogicAsker, to evaluate factual knowledge and logical reasoning accuracy, respectively. Second, for the non-toxicity of LLMs, we introduce two works for red-teaming LLMs. Third, to evaluate the fairness of LLMs, we introduce two evaluation frameworks, BiasAsker and XCulturalBench, to measure the social bias and cultural bias of LLMs, respectively.

Large pre-trained language models have become popular for many applications and form an important backbone of many downstream tasks in natural language processing (NLP). Applying 'explainable artificial intelligence' (XAI) techniques to enrich such models' outputs is considered crucial for assuring their quality and shedding light on their inner workings. However, large language models are trained on a plethora of data containing a variety of biases, such as gender biases, affecting model weights and, potentially, behavior. Currently, it is unclear to what extent such biases also impact model explanations in possibly unfavorable ways. We create a gender-controlled text dataset, GECO, in which otherwise identical sentences appear in male and female forms. This gives rise to ground-truth 'world explanations' for gender classification tasks, enabling the objective evaluation of the correctness of XAI methods. We also provide GECOBench, a rigorous quantitative evaluation framework benchmarking popular XAI methods, applying them to pre-trained language models fine-tuned to different degrees. This allows us to investigate how pre-training induces undesirable bias in model explanations and to what extent fine-tuning can mitigate such explanation bias. We show a clear dependency between explanation performance and the number of fine-tuned layers, where XAI methods are observed to particularly benefit from fine-tuning or complete retraining of embedding layers. Remarkably, this relationship holds for models achieving similar classification performance on the same task. With that, we highlight the utility of the proposed gender-controlled dataset and novel benchmarking approach for research and development of novel XAI methods. All code including dataset generation, model training, evaluation and visualization is available at: https://github.com/braindatalab/gecobench

Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of existing LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLM judges, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for investigating 5 types of biases for LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset with 142 samples referring to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy and conduct thousands of human and LLM evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the most cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit their weakness and conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge against perturbations, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.

Detecting stereotypes and biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) can enhance fairness and reduce adverse impacts on individuals or groups when these LLMs are applied. However, the majority of existing methods focus on measuring the model's preference towards sentences containing biases and stereotypes within datasets, which lacks interpretability and cannot detect implicit biases and stereotypes in the real world. To address this gap, this paper introduces a four-stage framework to directly evaluate stereotypes and biases in the generated content of LLMs, including direct inquiry testing, serial or adapted story testing, implicit association testing, and unknown situation testing. Additionally, the paper proposes multi-dimensional evaluation metrics and explainable zero-shot prompts for automated evaluation. Using the education sector as a case study, we constructed the Edu-FairBench based on the four-stage framework, which encompasses 12,632 open-ended questions covering nine sensitive factors and 26 educational scenarios. Experimental results reveal varying degrees of stereotypes and biases in five LLMs evaluated on Edu-FairBench. Moreover, the results of our proposed automated evaluation method have shown a high correlation with human annotations.

We propose an experimental method for measuring bias in face recognition systems. Existing methods to measure bias depend on benchmark datasets that are collected in the wild and annotated for protected (e.g., race, gender) and non-protected (e.g., pose, lighting) attributes. Such observational datasets only permit correlational conclusions, e.g., "Algorithm A's accuracy is different on female and male faces in dataset X.". By contrast, experimental methods manipulate attributes individually and thus permit causal conclusions, e.g., "Algorithm A's accuracy is affected by gender and skin color." Our method is based on generating synthetic faces using a neural face generator, where each attribute of interest is modified independently while leaving all other attributes constant. Human observers crucially provide the ground truth on perceptual identity similarity between synthetic image pairs. We validate our method quantitatively by evaluating race and gender biases of three research-grade face recognition models. Our synthetic pipeline reveals that for these algorithms, accuracy is lower for Black and East Asian population subgroups. Our method can also quantify how perceptual changes in attributes affect face identity distances reported by these models. Our large synthetic dataset, consisting of 48,000 synthetic face image pairs (10,200 unique synthetic faces) and 555,000 human annotations (individual attributes and pairwise identity comparisons) is available to researchers in this important area.

The automatic detection of hate speech online is an active research area in NLP. Most of the studies to date are based on social media datasets that contribute to the creation of hate speech detection models trained on them. However, data creation processes contain their own biases, and models inherently learn from these dataset-specific biases. In this paper, we perform a large-scale cross-dataset comparison where we fine-tune language models on different hate speech detection datasets. This analysis shows how some datasets are more generalisable than others when used as training data. Crucially, our experiments show how combining hate speech detection datasets can contribute to the development of robust hate speech detection models. This robustness holds even when controlling by data size and compared with the best individual datasets.

Deployed artificial intelligence (AI) often impacts humans, and there is no one-size-fits-all metric to evaluate these tools. Human-centered evaluation of AI-based systems combines quantitative and qualitative analysis and human input. It has been explored to some depth in the explainable AI (XAI) and human-computer interaction (HCI) communities. Gaps remain, but the basic understanding that humans interact with AI and accompanying explanations, and that humans' needs -- complete with their cognitive biases and quirks -- should be held front and center, is accepted by the community. In this paper, we draw parallels between the relatively mature field of XAI and the rapidly evolving research boom around large language models (LLMs). Accepted evaluative metrics for LLMs are not human-centered. We argue that many of the same paths tread by the XAI community over the past decade will be retread when discussing LLMs. Specifically, we argue that humans' tendencies -- again, complete with their cognitive biases and quirks -- should rest front and center when evaluating deployed LLMs. We outline three developed focus areas of human-centered evaluation of XAI: mental models, use case utility, and cognitive engagement, and we highlight the importance of exploring each of these concepts for LLMs. Our goal is to jumpstart human-centered LLM evaluation.

To understand what kinds of linguistic knowledge are encoded by pretrained Chinese language models (LMs), we introduce the benchmark of Sino LINGuistics (SLING), which consists of 38K minimal sentence pairs in Mandarin Chinese grouped into 9 high-level linguistic phenomena. Each pair demonstrates the acceptability contrast of a specific syntactic or semantic phenomenon (e.g., The keys are lost vs. The keys is lost), and an LM should assign lower perplexity to the acceptable sentence. In contrast to the CLiMP dataset (Xiang et al., 2021), which also contains Chinese minimal pairs and was created by translating the vocabulary of the English BLiMP dataset, the minimal pairs in SLING are derived primarily by applying syntactic and lexical transformations to naturally-occurring, linguist-annotated sentences from the Chinese Treebank 9.0, thus addressing severe issues in CLiMP's data generation process. We test 18 publicly available pretrained monolingual (e.g., BERT-base-zh, CPM) and multi-lingual (e.g., mT5, XLM) language models on SLING. Our experiments show that the average accuracy for LMs is far below human performance (69.7% vs. 97.1%), while BERT-base-zh achieves the highest accuracy (84.8%) of all tested LMs, even much larger ones. Additionally, we find that most LMs have a strong gender and number (singular/plural) bias, and they perform better on local phenomena than hierarchical ones.

Evaluating the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has traditionally relied on static benchmark datasets, human assessments, or model-based evaluations - methods that often suffer from overfitting, high costs, and biases. ZeroSumEval is a novel competition-based evaluation protocol that leverages zero-sum games to assess LLMs with dynamic benchmarks that resist saturation. ZeroSumEval encompasses a diverse suite of games, including security challenges (PyJail), classic games (Chess, Liar's Dice, Poker), knowledge tests (MathQuiz), and persuasion challenges (Gandalf, Debate). These games are designed to evaluate a range of AI capabilities such as strategic reasoning, planning, knowledge application, and creativity. Building upon recent studies that highlight the effectiveness of game-based evaluations for LLMs, ZeroSumEval enhances these approaches by providing a standardized and extensible framework. To demonstrate this, we conduct extensive experiments with >7000 simulations across 7 games and 13 models. Our results show that while frontier models from the GPT and Claude families can play common games and answer questions, they struggle to play games that require creating novel and challenging questions. We also observe that models cannot reliably jailbreak each other and fail generally at tasks requiring creativity. We release our code at https://github.com/facebookresearch/ZeroSumEval.

We propose fill-in-the-blanks as a video understanding evaluation framework and introduce FIBER -- a novel dataset consisting of 28,000 videos and descriptions in support of this evaluation framework. The fill-in-the-blanks setting tests a model's understanding of a video by requiring it to predict a masked noun phrase in the caption of the video, given the video and the surrounding text. The FIBER benchmark does not share the weaknesses of the current state-of-the-art language-informed video understanding tasks, namely: (1) video question answering using multiple-choice questions, where models perform relatively well because they exploit linguistic biases in the task formulation, thus making our framework challenging for the current state-of-the-art systems to solve; and (2) video captioning, which relies on an open-ended evaluation framework that is often inaccurate because system answers may be perceived as incorrect if they differ in form from the ground truth. The FIBER dataset and our code are available at https://lit.eecs.umich.edu/fiber/.

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

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

Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have increased the performance of different natural language understanding as well as generation tasks. Although LLMs have breached the state-of-the-art performance in various tasks, they often reflect different forms of bias present in the training data. In the light of this perceived limitation, we provide a unified evaluation of benchmarks using a set of representative small and medium-sized LLMs that cover different forms of biases starting from physical characteristics to socio-economic categories. Moreover, we propose five prompting approaches to carry out the bias detection task across different aspects of bias. Further, we formulate three research questions to gain valuable insight in detecting biases in LLMs using different approaches and evaluation metrics across benchmarks. The results indicate that each of the selected LLMs suffer from one or the other form of bias with the Phi-3.5B model being the least biased. Finally, we conclude the paper with the identification of key challenges and possible future directions.

Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) models have shown significant potential, particularly in zero-shot classification across diverse distribution shifts. Building on existing evaluations of overall classification robustness, this work aims to provide a more comprehensive assessment of CLIP by introducing several new perspectives. First, we investigate their robustness to variations in specific visual factors. Second, we assess two critical safety objectives--confidence uncertainty and out-of-distribution detection--beyond mere classification accuracy. Third, we evaluate the finesse with which CLIP models bridge the image and text modalities. Fourth, we extend our examination to 3D awareness in CLIP models, moving beyond traditional 2D image understanding. Finally, we explore the interaction between vision and language encoders within modern large multimodal models (LMMs) that utilize CLIP as the visual backbone, focusing on how this interaction impacts classification robustness. In each aspect, we consider the impact of six factors on CLIP models: model architecture, training distribution, training set size, fine-tuning, contrastive loss, and test-time prompts. Our study uncovers several previously unknown insights into CLIP. For instance, the architecture of the visual encoder in CLIP plays a significant role in their robustness against 3D corruption. CLIP models tend to exhibit a bias towards shape when making predictions. Moreover, this bias tends to diminish after fine-tuning on ImageNet. Vision-language models like LLaVA, leveraging the CLIP vision encoder, could exhibit benefits in classification performance for challenging categories over CLIP alone. Our findings are poised to offer valuable guidance for enhancing the robustness and reliability of CLIP models.

Table Question Answering (TQA) aims at composing an answer to a question based on tabular data. While prior research has shown that TQA models lack robustness, understanding the underlying cause and nature of this issue remains predominantly unclear, posing a significant obstacle to the development of robust TQA systems. In this paper, we formalize three major desiderata for a fine-grained evaluation of robustness of TQA systems. They should (i) answer questions regardless of alterations in table structure, (ii) base their responses on the content of relevant cells rather than on biases, and (iii) demonstrate robust numerical reasoning capabilities. To investigate these aspects, we create and publish a novel TQA evaluation benchmark in English. Our extensive experimental analysis reveals that none of the examined state-of-the-art TQA systems consistently excels in these three aspects. Our benchmark is a crucial instrument for monitoring the behavior of TQA systems and paves the way for the development of robust TQA systems. We release our benchmark publicly.

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

Recently, DALL-E, a multimodal transformer language model, and its variants (including diffusion models) have shown high-quality text-to-image generation capabilities. However, despite the interesting image generation results, there has not been a detailed analysis on how to evaluate such models. In this work, we investigate the visual reasoning capabilities and social biases of different text-to-image models, covering both multimodal transformer language models and diffusion models. First, we measure three visual reasoning skills: object recognition, object counting, and spatial relation understanding. For this, we propose PaintSkills, a compositional diagnostic dataset and evaluation toolkit that measures these skills. In our experiments, there exists a large gap between the performance of recent text-to-image models and the upper bound accuracy in object counting and spatial relation understanding skills. Second, we assess gender and skin tone biases by measuring the variance of the gender/skin tone distribution based on automated and human evaluation. We demonstrate that recent text-to-image models learn specific gender/skin tone biases from web image-text pairs. We hope that our work will help guide future progress in improving text-to-image generation models on visual reasoning skills and learning socially unbiased representations. Code and data: https://github.com/j-min/DallEval

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs, undermining their reliability. A comprehensive quantitative evaluation is necessary to identify and understand the extent of hallucinations in these models. However, existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. Furthermore, current evaluation methods struggle to effectively address the subtle semantic distinctions between model outputs and reference data, as well as the balance between hallucination and informativeness. To address these issues, we introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases. Moreover, we propose a large language model (LLM)-based two-stage evaluation framework that generalizes the popular CHAIR metric and incorporates both faithfulness and coverage into the evaluation. Experiments on 10 established LVLMs demonstrate that our evaluation metric is more comprehensive and better correlated with humans than existing work when evaluating on our challenging human-annotated benchmark dataset. Our work also highlights the critical balance between faithfulness and coverage of model outputs, and encourages future works to address hallucinations in LVLMs while keeping their outputs informative.

Text summarization aims at compressing long documents into a shorter form that conveys the most important parts of the original document. Despite increased interest in the community and notable research effort, progress on benchmark datasets has stagnated. We critically evaluate key ingredients of the current research setup: datasets, evaluation metrics, and models, and highlight three primary shortcomings: 1) automatically collected datasets leave the task underconstrained and may contain noise detrimental to training and evaluation, 2) current evaluation protocol is weakly correlated with human judgment and does not account for important characteristics such as factual correctness, 3) models overfit to layout biases of current datasets and offer limited diversity in their outputs.