Search research

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for clinical documentation tasks such as SOAP note generation remains challenging. Unlike standard summarization, these tasks require clinical abstraction, normalization of colloquial language, and medically grounded inference. However, prevailing evaluation methods including automated metrics and LLM as judge frameworks rely on lexical faithfulness, often labeling any information not explicitly present in the transcript as hallucination. We show that such approaches systematically misclassify clinically valid outputs as errors, inflating hallucination rates and distorting model assessment. Our analysis reveals that many flagged hallucinations correspond to legitimate clinical transformations, including synonym mapping, abstraction of examination findings, diagnostic inference, and guideline consistent care planning. By aligning evaluation criteria with clinical reasoning through calibrated prompting and retrieval grounded in medical ontologies we observe a significant shift in outcomes. Under a lexical evaluation regime, the mean hallucination rate is 35%, heavily penalizing valid reasoning. With inference aware evaluation, this drops to 9%, with remaining cases reflecting genuine safety concerns. These findings suggest that current evaluation practices over penalize valid clinical reasoning and may measure artifacts of evaluation design rather than true errors, underscoring the need for clinically informed evaluation in high context domains like medicine.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are increasingly evaluated across multiple simulation benchmarks, yet adding each benchmark to an evaluation pipeline requires resolving incompatible dependencies, matching underspecified evaluation protocols, and reverse-engineering undocumented preprocessing. This burden scales with the number of models and benchmarks, making comprehensive evaluation impractical for most teams. We present vla-eval, an open-source evaluation harness that eliminates this per-benchmark cost by decoupling model inference from benchmark execution through a WebSocket+msgpack protocol with Docker-based environment isolation. Models integrate once by implementing a single predict() method; benchmarks integrate once via a four-method interface; the full cross-evaluation matrix works automatically. The framework supports 14 simulation benchmarks and six model servers. Parallel evaluation via episode sharding and batch inference achieves up to 47x wall-clock speedup, completing 2,000 LIBERO episodes in ~18 minutes. To validate the framework, we reproduce published scores across six VLA codebases and three benchmarks, documenting previously undocumented pitfalls. We additionally release a VLA leaderboard aggregating 657 published results across 17 benchmarks. Framework, evaluation configs, and all reproduction results are publicly available at https://github.com/allenai/vla-evaluation-harness and https://allenai.github.io/vla-evaluation-harness/leaderboard.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to HealthBench and DR.BENCH, covering medical and 10-domain professional evaluation settings. Code and data are available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

Evaluating agents on the growing number of agentic benchmarks is challenging because they often require complex environments and agent integrations. We introduce Harbor Adapters, a unified evaluation infrastructure for agentic benchmarks. Our work makes three contributions. First, we develop benchmark adapters that port more than 80 benchmarks to evaluate arbitrary agents, and validate them through rigorous code review and parity experiments. Second, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 8 models spanning capability tiers across 54 benchmarks; every model is run with Terminus-2 and with one of 3 native harnesses. This enables a broader analysis of agent capabilities and failure modes than was previously possible. Third, we introduce Harbor-Index, a curated set of 82 difficult, diverse, and high-quality tasks spanning 29 benchmarks, refined from the adapted suite through difficulty filtering, AI and human audit, and an audit-and-fix loop. Harbor-Index preserves the challenge and breadth of large-scale agentic evaluations while being affordable to run; no evaluated model-harness configuration exceeds 30% pass rate, and the strongest (GPT-5.5 with Codex) reaches 28.0%. We release the adapters, evaluation results, in-depth analysis, and Harbor-Index as open-source artifacts to support more reliable and comprehensive evaluation of language-model agents.

The rapid advancement of large language models has transformed survey writing from a months-long manual effort into an automated process. As generation scales, reliable evaluation becomes the bottleneck, and LLMs are increasingly used as survey evaluators. However, existing approaches largely rely on off-the-shelf LLM-as-a-judge methods without systematic alignment to human reviewers, and there remains a lack of systematic frameworks for quantifying alignment with human reviewers. To address this gap, we propose SurveyReview, a reviewer-aligned, multi-dimensional benchmark and dataset for survey evaluation. We collect and annotate 675 survey papers with 1,630 review reports. We structure authentic peer-review reports by converting free-form comments into four-dimensional scores (Readability, Criticalness, Comprehensiveness, Structure) paired with supporting rationales. We further release standardized train/test splits and an evaluation protocol to measure alignment between automatic evaluators and human reviewers. To validate the benchmark, we develop SurveyAlign, a strong baseline evaluator by fine-tuning Qwen3-32B with LoRA on our annotated data, augmented with external knowledge for knowledge-intensive dimensions. On the test set, SurveyAlign substantially improves reviewer alignment over prompt-based judging with GPT-5.2, reducing average MSE from 2.28 to 1.38 and MAE from 1.15 to 0.69 across all four dimensions. Our contributions are twofold: (1) we establish the first multi-dimensional, reviewer-aligned dataset with a reproducible evaluation framework for survey reviewing; (2) we develop a strong baseline evaluator that substantially improves alignment with human reviewers, providing a competitive reference for future research. Our code and data are available at https://surveyreview.github.io

AI assistants often collaborate by proposing candidate edits, plans, or designs that users evaluate before adoption. Existing assistance methods focus on proposal quality or user-goal inference, often assuming that the user can reliably evaluate any proposal, which can fail in practice because of bounded rationality. We study evaluability-aware proposal planning, where proposals serve both as task interventions and as probes for learning latent preferences and evaluation constraints, where the resulting belief updates then guide later proposals. We formalise this setting as ProSE, a hidden-parameter sequential assistance problem, and instantiate it with a KL-regularised bounded-rational binary response model in which acceptance trades off value gain against a distance-dependent evaluability penalty. Analysing the planning consequence of this likelihood reveals that likely accepted proposals and informative probes need not coincide, which explains why planners that only pursue acceptance systematically underperform. We operationalise ProSE with \textsc{ProSE-Plan}, a depth-2 Bayes-adaptive planner that scores proposals by possible responses and response-induced posterior beliefs. In controlled graph simulations, \textsc{ProSE-Plan} improves over evaluability-unaware and myopic baselines when evaluation cost is the bottleneck, and a probe-commit ablation confirms that our approach selects informative proposals that simpler methods miss. Our results thus identify user evaluability as a planning-relevant dimension of AI assistance, complementary to generation quality and preference inference.

Automatic text summarization relies on automatic evaluation to quickly determine the quality of summarization models via automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models. However, these techniques require meta-evaluation to ensure that they capture human judgments correctly. In this paper, we explore this meta-evaluation beyond English by generating a new multilingual summary meta-evaluation dataset (BASSE), which comprises human judgments on 2,040 abstractive summaries, generated either manually or by five Large Language Models (LLMs) with four different prompts. For each summary, annotators evaluate five criteria on a 5-point Likert scale: coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H. We then benchmark automatic summarization metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models. Our results show that currently proprietary judge LLMs have the highest correlation with human judgments, followed by criteria-specific automatic metrics, while open-sourced judge LLMs perform poorly.

Building an omni-modal foundation model means evaluating it across text, image, video, and audio. Excellent evaluation toolkits exist for each modality, but their inference engines, prompt conventions, and metric implementations are mutually incompatible, so practitioners end up maintaining separate environments for every toolchain and still struggle to compare results across them. OmniEvaluator grew out of this need in our own model development: rather than reimplementing benchmarks, it connects existing inference engines and curated evaluation libraries at a higher level, exposing four inference backends, four evaluation frameworks, and over a thousand benchmarks through a single interface. Every run is recorded as an artifact capturing the full configuration for exact reproduction, and results flow into a shared dashboard for cross-model comparison. A federated mode shares GPU inference servers across concurrent evaluations, and a built-in verifier, small enough to run on CPU, keeps its score stable across engines and prompts where rule-based scoring fluctuates under configuration mismatch, matching cost-efficient commercial LLM judges without their recurring API cost. The system, demo video, and dashboard are publicly available. (https://github.com/naver-ai/omni-evaluator)

The bias-reliability tradeoff conjectures that LLM evaluation systems are constrained in (gamma, H, CV) space, where evaluator coupling (gamma), strategy diversity (H), and small-sample measurement reliability (CV(N)) cannot be simultaneously optimized at fixed sample size N. Prior evidence rests on n=5 conditions with complete metrics from a single study. We expand the empirical base to 11 conditions, measuring gamma and H for all 11 (nine with valid weight vectors) and CV(N=5) for seven with sufficient seeds (N >= 5). Five conditions provide the complete (gamma, H, CV) triple. The data confirm the trade-off: conditions with low evaluator coupling (gamma < 0.2) exhibit high measurement noise (CV(N=5) > 1.0), while conditions with strong coupling (gamma > 0.9) achieve low noise (CV(N=5) < 0.16). The correlation r(H, gamma) = -0.989 (n=5, excluding GPT-4o conditions) confirms that evaluator coupling suppresses strategy diversity. Four GPT-4o conditions show gamma=0.000 and H=1.000 across all seeds -- a pattern we attribute to version drift in the June 2026 GPT-4o API. No condition occupies the region {gamma < 0.2, CV(N=5) < 0.3}. We release all per-condition metrics as a standardized benchmark dataset for evaluator comparison.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Model (LLM) agents has produced diverse interaction paradigms, yet few production systems integrate multiple paradigms within a unified architecture. This paper presents a systematic analysis of three principal agent interaction paradigms, including Multi-Agent Orchestration (Generator-Evaluator), ReAct Tool-Use Loops, and Memory-Augmented Interaction, as implemented in buddyMe, an open-source multi-model agent programming framework. We formalize a five-stage processing pipeline: Requirement Pre-Review -> Task Decomposition -> ReAct Execution -> Real-Execution Verification -> Adversarial Evaluation Discussion, and establish a six-dimensional evaluation schema with weighted scoring. Through four empirical case studies drawn from real-world deployment logs covering museum guide generation, scheduled weather tasks, and comprehensive tour planning, we draw three key conclusions. First, Generator-Evaluator pre-review detects requirement omissions in 20 percent of complex tasks, with 80 percent tasks passing initial inspection. Second, the ReAct loop ensures stable subtask execution but leads to around 30 percent redundant tool invocations. Third, adversarial Evaluator-Defender discussions reach consensus within 2-3 rounds for nearly 70 percent of scenarios, functioning mainly for content refinement rather than logical reversal. We additionally provide three Mermaid-based architectural diagrams and conduct cross-paradigm comparisons with CrewAI, AutoGen, LangGraph, MemGPT and A-Mem across six system dimensions. The research outcomes offer practical design guidelines for constructing stable and reliable multi-paradigm agent systems.

AI measurement science has a wide variety of methodologies and measurements for comparing AI systems, resulting in what often appear to be "apples-to-oranges" comparisons across AI evaluations. To move toward "apples-to-apples" comparisons in real-world AI evaluations, this work advocates for methodological transparency in evaluation scenarios, operational grounding, and human-centered design (HCD) principles. We propose a repeatable process for transforming high-level use cases to detailed scenarios by eliciting use cases from subject matter experts (SMEs) via a structured AI Use Case Worksheet with six key elements: use case, sector, user (direct and indirect), intended outcomes, expected impacts (positive and negative), and KPIs and metrics. We demonstrate utility of the worksheet and process in the U.S. financial services sector. This paper reports on example high-level AI use cases identified by financial services sector SMEs: cyber defense enablement, developer productivity, financial crime aggregation, suspicious activity report (SAR) filing, credit memo generation, and internal call center support. These AI use cases provided are illustrative of the process and not exhaustive. Central to our work is a three-stage expansion pipeline combining LLM prompting with human reviews to generate 107 scenarios from those use cases elicited from SMEs. This process integrates iterative human reviews at every juncture to ensure operational grounding: for scenario titles and descriptions; for core scenario elements like users, benefits and risks, and metrics; and for scenario narratives and evaluation objectives. Human checkpoints ensure scenarios remain reflective of real-world usage and human needs. We describe a validation rubric to assess scenario quality. By defining key scenario components, this work supports a more consistent and meaningful paradigm for human-centered AI evaluations.

Recent research has shown that large language models (LLMs) favor their own outputs when acting as judges, undermining the integrity of automated post-training and evaluation workflows. However, it is difficult to disentangle which behaviors are explained by narcissism versus experimental confounds. Specifically, LLM evaluators may deliver self-preferring verdicts when comparing responses to questions they fail on; these verdicts may not depend on the identity of the author, but on evaluator quality. We correct this by directly comparing the judge's voting distribution in cases where it evaluates itself versus another model. This evaluator quality baseline reveals that only 51% of examples in previous findings retain statistical significance against this null hypothesis, covering 89.6% of total self-preference probability mass. Finally, we compare the entropy of voting distributions, suggesting uncertainty-driven overlap, and show that our procedure enables more careful documentation against the backdrop of judge-bias research.

AI agents deployed in real-world settings must be capable of coordinating with humans and other AI agents they have not encountered before. Zero-shot coordination (ZSC) algorithms aim to achieve this by specifying high-level learning rules such that independently engineered agents can coordinate with each other at test time. Rigorous evaluation of ZSC algorithms remains difficult: ideally, multiple independent implementations of each proposed algorithm must be used, reflecting the variation that arises when independent parties interpret and implement the same specification. In practice, however, ZSC algorithms have almost exclusively been evaluated using a single implementation trained across different random seeds, with only a handful of works additionally varying the neural network architecture. This leaves open questions about robustness to specification ambiguities and implementation details. In this work, we provide the first systematic evaluation of this robustness. We introduce a new evaluation scheme, cross-implementation cross-play, varying implementation details that prior work has shown to affect the performance of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) algorithms, and we evaluate Other-Play, a popular ZSC algorithm, with this scheme. Our findings are encouraging and suggest that, for Other-Play, the standard ZSC evaluation is, in fact, a reasonable proxy for this more thorough cross-implementation evaluation.

While human evaluation is the gold standard in many NLP tasks, it suffers from prohibitive costs and poor scalability. When identifying top-performing models, typical evaluation protocols waste effort by exhaustively evaluating all models on the entire benchmark, a safe but inefficient approach. In this work, we formalize multi-model human evaluation as a best-arm identification problem in a multi-armed bandit setup with correlated arms, where pulling an arm corresponds to human-evaluating a model. By sampling adaptively based on the intermediate model rankings obtained on the samples so far, we can focus the annotation budget on the most competitive models. We prove the optimality of the proposed algorithms and show that it improves discrimination between top-performing models. This makes evaluations faster, cheaper and more aligned with large-scale competition evaluation goals.

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation. We test this in a controlled in-context QA setting where a context passage is the sole information source and each model judges the answer it generated, removing the parametric-knowledge confound of open-domain comparisons. Across four benchmarks (SQuAD 2.0, DROP, HotpotQA, MuSiQue) and two models, evaluation is not uniformly easier: generation accuracy exceeds self-evaluation on three of four, with multi-hop MuSiQue the exception. Attention analysis reveals why: evaluation attends to context 3--5x less than generation does and barely reads the candidate answer. LoRA fine-tuning confirms the asymmetry is not a training artifact: generation fine-tuning induces over-acceptance and evaluation fine-tuning degrades generation. These findings challenge core assumptions in self-evaluation pipelines.

As agentic LLM systems move from prototypes to deployment across increasingly diverse domains, evaluating them has become both more important and more difficult. The challenge is not only that individual metrics may be unreliable, but that evaluation goals are often left implicit. Without a clear account of what a system is expected to do, how it can fail, and which failures matter, metric choices become difficult to justify, interpret, or validate. We present Litmus, a zero-label system that designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines by eliciting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation. Instead of assuming that the evaluation target is already known, Litmus first identifies what must be measured and why, then converts those answers into constraints for constructing a justified, per-stage metric portfolio. We evaluate Litmus on three real, code-defined AI pipelines - financial account grouping, scientific QA, and inherent risk assessment - against AutoMetrics and three DynamicRubric baselines. Litmus achieves the broadest or tied-broadest concern coverage, spans more pipeline stages, produces a near-zero-redundancy portfolio, and ranks first in validity against per-row quality labels on all three pipelines - decisively on scientific QA (Spearman $ρ=0.72$ vs. less than $0.47$ for every baseline), and within overlapping confidence intervals in relation to two components of the audit framework despite using no labels during metric design. Our results support a shift from automatic metric implementation to automatic metric specification: before asking which metric to compute, evaluation systems should ask what must be measured and why.

LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators. These pipelines typically assume that judgments are stable properties of fixed inputs. We show that this assumption does not hold under interaction. We study post-decision manipulability: the extent to which an evaluation outcome can be altered through subsequent conversation with the judge after an initial decision has been made. Across controlled experiments on MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, we find that LLM judges are highly stable under repeated and neutral reevaluation, yet become substantially reversible under targeted post-decision challenge. An anti-baseline challenge protocol shows that stable judgments can be overturned through motivated interaction, while a counterbalanced target-validation protocol separates this reversibility from net target-directed steering. These reversals have practical consequences: they can degrade agreement with human preferences, shift benchmark rankings, and produce harmful evaluation changes despite high self-reported confidence. Authority framing is especially destabilizing, and revised judgments are often accompanied by low-overlap justifications, suggesting post hoc rationalization rather than reliable error correction. We introduce the Evaluation Robustness Score (ERS) to quantify interactional robustness by combining reversal susceptibility with counterbalanced directional effects. Our findings identify post-decision interaction as a distinct failure mode for LLM-as-judge evaluation and motivate evaluation protocols that measure not only static agreement, but robustness under challenge.

Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited. Existing RWG evaluations largely inherit summarization-oriented metrics, using lexical or semantic similarity to reference sections as proxies for quality. However, related work writing is fundamentally a citation-level scholarly positioning task: it requires selecting, organizing, and framing prior work to clarify how a target paper relates to, differs from, and contributes beyond existing research.As a result, models may generate coherent and semantically-relevant text while exhibiting academically critical failures, such as inappropriate citation selection or misplaced references, that conventional metrics do not capture.To this end, we introduce \textbf{RWGBench}, a benchmark that evaluates RWG from the perspective of citation decision-making rather than text similarity. RWGBench is constructed from a large-scale collection of 40,108 computer science papers and a retrieval corpus of 1.09 million documents, with a carefully curated test set comprising 100 papers and their corresponding published related work sections.We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that assesses citation selection, contextual appropriateness, organization, and discourse structure.Experiments reveal systematic limitations in current systems that are obscured by standard evaluations, while Oracle studies further disentangle retrieval-level and generation-level bottlenecks. Human evaluation further shows that our citation-centric metrics align substantially better with expert judgment than surface-level text metrics. RWGBench offers a citation-centric testbed for developing and evaluating related work generation systems that are better aligned with scholarly writing practices.

Synthetic data is widely used in healthcare to create datasets that preserve statistical properties of real data without exposing sensitive patient information. Generating and evaluating synthetic data across privacy, utility, and fairness dimensions is crucial for enabling high-quality data availability in downstream prediction tasks and clinical decision making. We present \textbf{Memisis}, a tool that orchestrates and evaluates synthetic data by leveraging existing synthesis libraries, large language models (LLMs), and state-of-the-art evaluation metrics. Our tool creates a unified workflow for data generation, validation, and evaluation. Users can control training size, training epochs, and the number of synthetic rows to sample. Beyond manual configuration, an interactive agent mode allows users to specify data generation goals in natural language, and the tool orchestrates the full pipeline by invoking existing synthesizers while performing the requisite evaluation. For the demo, we use an open-source schizophrenia dataset with protected attributes related to race and gender, evaluate six synthesizers spanning GANs, VAEs, diffusion models, and normalizing flows, and use a local LLM to orchestrate the workflow. The system affords users flexibility and control over the data generation and evaluation process.

Real-time duplex interaction is essential for multimodal AI systems operating in real-world scenarios, where models must continuously process streaming inputs and respond at appropriate moments. However, most existing multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are evaluated in offline settings, where the entire video input is processed before any response is generated. While recent work has started to explore real-time duplex MLLMs, there is still no comprehensive benchmark or automatic evaluation method for this setting. To address this gap, we propose Omni-DuplexEval, a benchmark for systematically evaluating real-time duplex interaction. The benchmark consists of two complementary scenarios: (1) Real-Time Description, which evaluates the ability to generate continuous, time-aligned responses that track evolving multimodal inputs, and (2) Proactive Reminder, which evaluates the ability to identify salient events and respond at appropriate moments. Omni-DuplexEval contains 660 videos with fine-grained, human-annotated labels and precise temporal metadata, spanning 9 tasks grounded in real-world scenarios, where all questions are formulated as open-ended queries. We further introduce an automatic evaluation framework based on LLM-as-a-Judge, which enables systematic assessment by jointly evaluating response-content alignment and response timing through timestamp-aware and sequential reasoning, achieving strong alignment with human judgments. Experiments on state-of-the-art duplex MLLMs reveal substantial limitations. The best-performing model achieves only 39.6% overall, while scoring only 20.0% on Proactive Reminder. Our analysis identifies two key challenges: models struggle to balance timely responses with coherent, holistic content generation, and they often fail to determine both when to respond and what to produce. We hope our work facilitates further progress in MLLMs.

Microscopy images contain rich information about how cells respond to perturbations, making them essential to applications like drug screening. To quantify images, researchers often use representation extraction methods, and recent years have seen a proliferation of deep learning methods. While measuring the quality of these representations is essential, evaluation remains fragmented, with each proposed model evaluated on different tasks and datasets, using custom pipelines and metrics, making it difficult to fairly compare models. Here, we introduce MorphoHELM, a comprehensive open benchmark for evaluating feature extraction methods for Cell Painting, the most widely-used morphological profiling assay. MorphoHELM consolidates evaluation standards in the field, extends and corrects them to be more robust, and evaluates on the widest range of methods to date. A defining feature of the benchmark is that each task is evaluated at different degrees of batch effects (or technical noise), directly quantifying how the ability of methods to detect biological signal degrades as noise increases. Together, these properties enable MorphoHELM to detect trade-offs between methods, and we demonstrate that models that excel at certain kinds of biological signal are weaker at others. We show that no existing model outperforms classic computer vision analytic strategies across all settings, which remain the strongest general use-case representations. All datasets, code, and evaluation tools are publicly available at https://github.com/microsoft/MorphoHELM.

Performance evaluation is essential for assessing the quality of machine learning (ML) models and guiding deployment decisions. In federated learning (FL), assessing the performance is challenging because data are distributed across participants. Consequently, the coordinator must rely on locally computed evaluation metrics and aggregate them to assess the global model. A key challenge is that common aggregation strategies, such as weighted averaging based on the local samples per participant, do not always produce the same results as centralized evaluation. Existing definitions of performance evaluation are largely tailored to accuracy and do not generalize to other metrics, leading to inconsistencies between participant-based and centralized evaluation. However, such discrepancies are inconsistent with the FL objective and lead to a wrong calculation of the metric. To address this issue, we examine the underlying reasons for these discrepancies and propose FLAM, a performance evaluation method based on aggregatable measures that yields the same results as centralized evaluation without the need for a global test dataset.

Large language models (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports, yet these citations cannot be reliably verified. Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance, or factual consistency. We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST parser to extract and evaluate inline citations from LLM-generated Markdown reports at scale. Unlike methods that verify claims in isolation, our framework closes the loop by retrieving the actual cited content, enabling human or model evaluators to judge each citation against its source. Citations are evaluated along three dimensions. (1) Link Works verifies URL accessibility, (2) Relevant Content measures topical alignment, and (3) Fact Check validates factual accuracy against source content. We benchmark 14 closed-source and open-source LLMs across three evaluation dimensions using rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluators calibrated through human review. Our results reveal that even the strongest frontier models maintain link validity above 94% and relevance above 80%, yet achieve only 39-77% factual accuracy, while fewer than half of open-source models successfully generate cited reports in a one-shot setting. Ablation studies on research depth show that Fact Check accuracy drops by approximately 42% on average across two frontier models as tool calls scale from 2 to 150, demonstrating that more retrieval does not produce more accurate citations. These findings reveal a critical disconnect between surface-level citation quality and factual reliability, and our framework provides the evaluation infrastructure to assess the disconnect.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed across critical domains, their security vulnerabilities pose growing risks of high-profile exploits and consequential system failures. Yet systematic approaches to evaluating AI security remain underdeveloped. In this paper, we introduce AVISE (AI Vulnerability Identification and Security Evaluation), a modular open-source framework for identifying vulnerabilities in and evaluating the security of AI systems and models. As a demonstration of the framework, we extend the theory-of-mind-based multi-turn Red Queen attack into an Adversarial Language Model (ALM) augmented attack and develop an automated Security Evaluation Test (SET) for discovering jailbreak vulnerabilities in language models. The SET comprises 25 test cases and an Evaluation Language Model (ELM) that determines whether each test case was able to jailbreak the target model, achieving 92% accuracy, an F1-score of 0.91, and a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.83. We evaluate nine recently released language models of diverse sizes with the SET and find that all are vulnerable to the augmented Red Queen attack to varying degrees. AVISE provides researchers and industry practitioners with an extensible foundation for developing and deploying automated SETs, offering a concrete step toward more rigorous and reproducible AI security evaluation.

Over the past decade, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved great success on machine learning tasks with relational data. However, recent studies have found that heterophily can cause significant performance degradation of GNNs, especially on node-level tasks. Numerous heterophilic benchmark datasets have been put forward to validate the efficacy of heterophily-specific GNNs, and various homophily metrics have been designed to help recognize these challenging datasets. Nevertheless, there still exist multiple pitfalls that severely hinder the proper evaluation of new models and metrics: 1) lack of hyperparameter tuning; 2) insufficient evaluation on the truly challenging heterophilic datasets; 3) missing quantitative evaluation for homophily metrics on synthetic graphs. To overcome these challenges, we first train and fine-tune baseline models on $27$ most widely used benchmark datasets, and categorize them into three distinct groups: malignant, benign and ambiguous heterophilic datasets. We identify malignant and ambiguous heterophily as the truly challenging subsets of tasks, and to our best knowledge, we are the first to propose such taxonomy. Then, we re-evaluate $11$ state-of-the-arts (SOTA) GNNs, covering six popular methods, with fine-tuned hyperparameters on different groups of heterophilic datasets. Based on the model performance, we comprehensively reassess the effectiveness of different methods on heterophily. At last, we evaluate $11$ popular homophily metrics on synthetic graphs with three different graph generation approaches. To overcome the unreliability of observation-based comparison and evaluation, we conduct the first quantitative evaluation and provide detailed analysis.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs), like Large Language Models (LLMs), may memorize sensitive, copyrighted, or harmful knowledge from their pretraining corpora. Removing such knowledge is essential for building trustworthy AI systems. However, existing studies primarily focus on forgetting within individual modalities. Although recent work has begun to explore cross-modal consistency in unlearning, the cross-modal transfer of real-world knowledge unlearning remains insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we introduce UNLINK-VL, a real-world benchmark for cross-modal knowledge unlearning in VLMs. Under a post-hoc unlearning setting in which the original forget and retain corpora are unavailable, UNLINK-VL selects visually identifiable real-world entities as unlearning targets and associates them with corresponding images and one-hop and multi-hop facts derived from Wikidata. The benchmark comprises four complementary subsets that evaluate direct forgetting of target knowledge, the propagation of forgetting through relational knowledge, the preservation of related non-target knowledge, and robustness to semantically equivalent queries. We train models under text-only and multimodal unlearning settings and evaluate forgetting effectiveness and retained utility across textual, visual, and cross-modal scenarios. Extensive experiments reveal a pronounced asymmetry in cross-modal transfer: multimodal unlearning remains effective under textual evaluation, whereas text-only unlearning transfers poorly to visual and cross-modal scenarios. Meanwhile, the evaluated methods largely preserve the models' general capabilities. These findings demonstrate that relying solely on intra-modal evaluation, particularly text-only evaluation, may substantially overestimate the effectiveness of knowledge unlearning in VLMs, underscoring the need for cross-modal unlearning and evaluation.

Approximate multipliers can reduce hardware area and energy consumption in Deep Neural Network (DNN) inference; however, they introduce computational errors. Assessing the accuracy of numerous approximate multiplier designs across diverse DNN models and large-scale datasets remains challenging due to prohibitive evaluation times. This overhead primarily stems from the slow emulation of approximate multiplier behavior using look-up tables (LUTs) on CPU and GPU platforms. Moreover, the resulting accuracy degradation must be carefully quantified and, if necessary, mitigated (e.g., through retraining), further increasing the overall evaluation cost. To address these challenges, we propose FAME, an FPGA-based platform for evaluating approximate multipliers. The platform exploits the reconfigurable logic of Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) to implement approximate multipliers directly in hardware, eliminating the need for LUT-based emulation on CPU/GPU platforms and thereby enabling efficient DNN inference while significantly reducing evaluation time on large datasets. Furthermore, we introduce a pattern-guided DNN retraining technique to mitigate accuracy degradation induced by approximate multipliers. Specifically, retraining is guided by multiplier-specific patterns to effectively recover potential accuracy losses. We evaluate FAME using two DNN models, ResNet-18 and MobileNetV2, on the ImageNet dataset across 27 approximate multipliers. During inference, our approach achieves up to a 3.47x speedup in approximate multiplier evaluation compared to prior LUT-based emulation methods. Furthermore, the proposed retraining technique improves accuracy by up to 65.5% over existing retraining approaches for the evaluated multipliers. The code is publicly available at: https://github.com/gicLAB/FAME

Multi-modal image generation, particularly subject-driven customization, has garnered growing attention in recent years. Despite the rapid advancement of generative models, their evaluation remains largely lagging. Existing methods, whether embedding-based or Multi-modal Large Language Model (MLLM)-based, evaluate alignment with each modal condition in isolation, which contradicts the simultaneous condition alignment objective of multi-modal image generation, leading to poor consistency with human judgments. To address this challenge, we propose UFO, the first unified framework for omni-condition alignment simultaneous evaluation. Specifically, UFO introduces a novel Atomized Chain-of-Evaluation paradigm, i.e., it first decomposes omni-condition alignment into a sequential chain of fine-grained, disentangled Atomic Evaluation Units (AEUs), categorizes them into distinct modality-relevance classes, and then employs general or dedicated functional calls for accurate verification of different AEU types. Experimental results demonstrate that UFO achieves the highest correlation with human evaluation preferences, delivering an average improvement of 15.25%. Furthermore, we present UFO-Bench, a dedicated benchmark designed to holistically evaluate the performance of existing customization models under the diverse mutual interactions of textual and visual conditions.

Text-to-SQL systems translate natural language queries into executable SQL, democratizing access to structured data. Despite recent advances driven by large language models (LLMs), evaluation remains a major bottleneck: public benchmarks fail to capture the complexity of enterprise schema, while building private evaluation sets is costly and nondeterministic, making evaluation results difficult to reproduce. To address this issue, we present SQLMorph, a framework for Text-to-SQL evaluation via query mutation. SQLMorph introduces two techniques to automatically generate and expand evaluation sets: Join Query Expansion (JQE), which systematically increases structural complexity through valid join additions, and Textual Query Augmentation (TQA), which generates controlled natural language perturbations to assess robustness to linguistic variation. JQE and TQA create targeted choke points to challenge specific system components. When applied to state-of-the-art systems, JQE increases query coverage and reveals accuracy degradation as the number of joins grows. Meanwhile, TQA shows that linguistic brittleness induced by heavy abbreviation can reduce accuracy by up to 17%. Beyond evaluation sets, SQLMorph introduces a family of execution-level metrics that address the limitations of current binary measures, such as Execution Accuracy. We define Execution Precision (EXP) and Execution Recall (EXR) to quantify the fraction of correct and recovered results, respectively, and combine them via F1 for unified scoring. Our experiments show that these relaxed metrics enable fine-grained analysis of over- and under-prediction, revealing differences across systems that binary metrics obscure. Together, SQLMorph's query mutation and fine-grained metrics support debugging and better align Text-to-SQL evaluation practices with real-world deployments.