HoWToBench: Holistic Evaluation for LLM's Capability in Human-level Writing using Tree of Writing

Large language models have achieved remarkable progress in text generation but still struggle with generative writing tasks. In terms of evaluation, existing benchmarks evaluate writing reward models coarsely and fail to measure performance from the perspective of specific requirements. In terms of training, existing training methods either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or train coarse-grained reward models, lacking fine-grained requirement-adherence reward modeling. To address these issues, we propose a fine-grained evaluation pipeline WEval for writing reward models and a fine-grained reinforcement learning training framework WRL. The evaluation data of WEval covers multiple task categories and requirement types, enabling systematic evaluation of writing reward models by measuring the correlation between the rankings of the reward model and gold rankings. WRL constructs positive and negative samples by selectively dropping instruction requirements, allowing for more precise reward model training. Experiments show that our models achieve substantial improvements across various writing benchmarks and exhibit strong generalization. The code and data are publicly available at \href{https://github.com/Rainier-rq1/From_Coarse_to_Fine}{https://github.com/Rainier-rq1/From\_Coarse\_to\_Fine}.

With the surge of large language models (LLMs) and their ability to produce customized output, style-personalized text generation--"write like me"--has become a rapidly growing area of interest. However, style personalization is highly specific, relative to every user, and depends strongly on the pragmatic context, which makes it uniquely challenging. Although prior research has introduced benchmarks and metrics for this area, they tend to be non-standardized and have known limitations (e.g., poor correlation with human subjects). LLMs have been found to not capture author-specific style well, it follows that the metrics themselves must be scrutinized carefully. In this work we critically examine the effectiveness of the most common metrics used in the field, such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLMs-as-judges. We evaluate these metrics using our proposed style discrimination benchmark, which spans eight diverse writing tasks across three evaluation settings: domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized vs non-personalized discrimination. We find strong evidence that employing ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics consistently outperforms single-evaluator methods, and conclude by providing guidance on how to reliably assess style-personalized text generation.

Rubric-based evaluation is a promising approach for assessing open-ended outputs from LLM-based research agents, particularly in paper reproduction, where direct paper-to-repository comparison is prone to hallucination. However, constructing paper-specific rubrics requires substantial expert effort, limiting the scalability of benchmarks such as PaperBench. In this work, we present, to our knowledge, the first systematic meta-evaluation of LLM-generated rubrics for paper reproduction. We reformulate rubrics into a checklist-style format and evaluate four generation settings across two backbone models. We meta-evaluate generated rubrics intrinsically by semantic similarity and extrinsically by score alignment with ground-truth rubrics. Our results show that the augmented settings substantially improves downstream evaluation alignment, with the strongest setting approaching the human baseline, while intrinsic gains are more modest. Further analyses reveal that LLM-generated rubrics are often overly fine-grained, biased toward high scores, and less adaptive to paper domains, highlighting both the affordances and limitations.