Inter-Rater Variability

In automated clinical coding, where the label space spans tens of thousands of diagnosis and procedure codes, models are currently evaluated against a single gold annotation, treating any deviation as error. But we find when two teams code the same 110 ACI-Bench encounters, they agree on only 73% of codes (Jaccard similarity) for the same note; even after an independent clinical audit removes erroneous codes, agreement rises only to 77%. Is that gap error or something systematic? We model the systematic component as coding style $ψ$, a coder- or site-specific policy over what to code and how much to document, and recast coding as $p(\mathrm{code}\mid\mathrm{note},ψ)$, estimating $ψ$ with a 10-dimension rubric. If style were noise, conditioning on it would do nothing. Instead, across five datasets a model conditioned with a data-matching style raises ICD F1 by up to 26 points and an extreme mismatched one lowers it by up to 21. Four prompt based coding methods spanning 39-49 F1 converge to 52-56 once style is supplied (All p<0.05). Much of what single-gold evaluation charges to model error is recoverable, unmodeled style.

Large language models can report a numerical confidence together with generated content, but it is unclear whether this report is more than calibrated rhetoric. We analyze three training-free signals: confidence verbalized with the answer, post-hoc $P(\mathrm{True})$, and agreement with three additional generations on the same 100 TriviaQA questions for two model families. Direct verbalization is a surprisingly strong baseline: after auditing benchmark errors, it reaches AUROC 0.956 and 0.937 for correctness prediction. Three-sample agreement is substantially weaker (0.765 and 0.790), and a fixed interpolation with verbalized confidence has no statistically reliable benefit. Four of nine errors from one model and two of eight from the other receive unanimous sample support, showing that self-consistency can amplify shared misconceptions. Re-eliciting confidence for the same fixed answers with equivalent prompts changes scores by 0.043 to 0.084 on average and flips 4% to 9% of decisions at a 0.8 threshold. An exploratory audit of 100 confidence-tagged biography claims further finds only a modest confidence gap between supported and contradicted claims. These results argue that useful self-reports remain sensitive to elicitation, correlated errors, and benchmark noise.

High annotation reproducibility does not necessarily imply that an LLM-inferred measure captures the construct it is intended to measure. We test this distinction using a dataset from the European Commission's AI Act consultation, linking structured survey responses to free-text consultation submissions from the same stakeholders. LLM annotations of consultation submissions are highly reproducible (intraclass correlations > 0.99), yet show limited convergence with survey-reported measures of the nominal construct they were intended to approximate. Divergence between survey-and LLM-inferred text-based measures varies systematically across stakeholder groups: business associations express greater concern about AI risks in text-based consultations than in survey responses ({g} = +1.0), whereas public authorities and several nonbusiness groups show smaller or negative divergences. Divergences between scores suggest positive spatial autocorrelation across European countries (Moran's I = 0.347, p = 0.036), indicating that stakeholders from neighboring countries tend toward more similar text-based stances towards AI safety concerns. Despite divergence, survey-reported concerns remain strongly associated with support for explainability across all divergence levels. These results demonstrate that LLM annotation reproducibility can coexist with poor construct correspondence and motivate validation procedures that distinguish reproducibility, construct validity, and communication context variation when LLMs are used as measurement instruments.

Complexity measured from generated code is failure-dependent: a difficult prompt can yield a short failing program and be assigned low output complexity. We introduce a six-dimension prompt-side structural-complexity index scored before generation and kept separate from correctness. We select 5,000 Python prompts across six bands of a preliminary single-rater rubric. Four out-of-panel LLM raters rescore the locked prompts, giving 19,997 score rows; composite inter-rater reliability is ICC = 0.872 on the 4,998 prompts with all four ratings. We evaluate 21 models per prompt, yielding 105,000 generations. In the unadjusted mean-pooled analysis, pass rate has a nonmonotone breakpoint at composite 13.75, with 79.9% at or below and 87.6% above. This is not a universal failure cutoff. Task-type fixed effects shift the breakpoint to 10.75 and cut the regime gap from 7.6 to 2.1 points. A construction-frame control shifts it to 8.50 with a raw gap of -3.5 points, and neither frame alone reproduces the pooled +7.6-point change. Model-specific fits include 16 upward and five downward changes. A 365-prompt audit-clean extension matches the original five-model estimates at bins 15 and 16 but adds only 14 prompts above bin 16. Among zero-pass generations with computable Lizard complexity, 28.5% pair a prompt composite above 8 with output complexity at most 10. Human agreement is moderate and rater-dependent on a disagreement-enriched calibration set; paraphrase and cross-language rescoring preserve score ordering. Overidentification tests reject the joint restrictions on the six dimensions, so we treat the composite as an index and make no causal interpretation of the 2SLS estimates. The contribution is a pre-generation measurement framework and a bounded observational analysis of reliability regimes.

Purpose: Paired pre- and post-operative photographs are the standard unit of evidence for plastic surgical outcomes, yet no objective metric verifies whether two images of the same patient were captured under conditions consistent for comparison. Approach: We developed a perceptually motivated pipeline that analyzes pre/post pairs across thirteen calibrated sub-metrics, partitioned by unsupervised correlation-structure analysis into five data-driven clusters (photometric, texture / sharpness, pose, illumination direction, and pitch), averaged within each cluster and combined across clusters by a weighted sum into a single consistency score. Each sub-metric is calibrated so that its median difference across published within-patient pairs scores 0.5, which is a reference point and carries no pass/fail meaning. The pipeline was calibrated on 134 matched within-patient published pre/post pairs and evaluated against identical-image pairs, synthetic-perturbation pairs, and 134 mismatched cross-publication pairs. Results: The master consistency score S separated matched from mismatched pairs (sensitivity index d' = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.83, 2.55]; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve AUC = 0.928, 95% CI [0.896, 0.959]), closely matching Gaussian-equal-variance predictions. The three head-pose angles did not fall in one cluster: yaw and roll grouped together while pitch separated. Identical pairs scored at ceiling (S = 0.99) and the master score fell monotonically with perturbation magnitude on all five perturbation axes. Conclusions: The score quantifies photographic comparability, not aesthetic or surgical quality, and provides a freely available web tool for auditing the photographic comparability of pre/post pairs, pending validation against expert judgment.

Machine olfaction trains on pooled public descriptor corpora, but whether a shared descriptor word measures the same thing across corpora has not been tested, nor has the ceiling of what any of them can measure. We audit four corpora from Pyrfume. Conditioning on the molecule makes McNemar's test the exact conditional test of the corpus effect. Corpora disagree heterogeneously across descriptors ($I^2 = 80\%$) and non-uniformly with labelling breadth ($z = 17.2$), so no single offset repairs pooling. Median tetrachoric agreement is 0.795 against median $\kappa$ of 0.413: sources largely concur on which molecules deserve a word and differ on how readily they apply it. Of 109 descriptors with an estimable effect, 36 show large differential functioning on the ETS scale. Against a human panel's reliability, Morgan fingerprints with the full RDKit descriptor block reach 32.9% of achievable; adding every label from two merged corpora reaches 33.9%. The gap does not close with model capacity, encoding choice, more molecules, or more words. The missing variance is valence. One pleasantness rating per molecule reaches 54.6% of achievable (57.1% on an independent older instrument). Valence recovered from descriptors ($\rho = 0.457$) yields only 16.6%, so it must be measured. Five raters exceed structure plus the full descriptor record; fifteen to twenty saturate. We release a descriptor crosswalk and twenty machine-checked theorems.

Criterion-level grading connects examination performance to learning outcomes, but manual marking introduces workload and variation between markers. This study evaluates vision-language models (VLMs) for handwritten outcome-based assessment across five dimensions: accuracy, human agreement, repeated-run reliability, error concentration, and explanation quality. Using 1,982 criterion-level records from 485 undergraduate examination answers, we compare 20 configurations spanning Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3, Pixtral, a Donut baseline, and a cascade ensemble. Evaluation setups include zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, partial fine-tuning, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). Two independent faculty markers regraded all 291 test criteria, providing a human agreement baseline on the same assessment materials. Qwen2.5-VL with LoRA achieved Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.727 and mean absolute error of 0.435 marks against the examiner, compared with mean human-pair QWK of 0.551. This comparison reflects calibration to the examiner's training marks. LoRA outperformed partial fine-tuning for all three instruction-tuned VLMs, while few-shot prompting reduced QWK in every configuration with valid prompted scores. Aggregate reliability and exact repeatability diverged: intraclass correlations ranged from 0.790 to 0.874, yet 50.2-63.6% of criteria changed marks across five sampled runs. Attention-guided deletion showed no statistically significant advantage over random masking, and four faculty reviewers reached no consensus on explanation usefulness. These findings highlight the need for rubric-specific calibration, repeatable scoring, review of consequential errors, and separate validation of explanations. The released evaluation protocol supports criterion-level assessment research and grading tools with teacher oversight.

Human simultaneous interpreting (SI) is commonly assessed with analytic rubrics separating meaning transfer, delivery quality, and temporal synchrony, yet no automatic metric is designed for rubric-aligned segment-level SI evaluation. We construct a professionally annotated corpus of 1,101 SI segments with scores for meaning transfer (LQ), delivery quality (EXP), and perceived latency (LAT). We show that structured LLM prompting and scalar supervision collapse rubric dimensions, yielding near-zero correlation with human ratings and strong cross-dimension coupling. To isolate supervision structure under identical backbone capacity, we introduce dual regression heads on a LoRA-adapted COMET-KIWI encoder. On a held-out talk-level test set, the model achieves Pearson correlations of 0.388 (LQ) and 0.301 (EXP), improving over frozen COMET-KIWI. Given low absolute rater agreement, we interpret results relative to human consistency and target stable ranking signals for formative assessment.

Reliable evaluation of automated coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) report generation requires standardized multicentre benchmarks and clinically structured metrics. We established a four-centre benchmark comprising 3,021 CCTA series from 818 patient-report pairs to evaluate seven open-source three-dimensional vision-language models. We developed CSM$_{\text{CCTA}}$, a clinically structured metric for CCTA report evaluation, with patient-, vessel-, and segment-level variables defined according to clinical guidelines. Report pairs are compared at the finest shared anatomical level, and the contributions of different clinical components are weighted based on expert assessments. We estimated these weights using 70 expert-scored cases and evaluated clinical alignment in a non-overlapping set of 30 cases. CSM$_{\text{CCTA}}$ showed a strong correlation with radiologist scores (Pearson's $r=0.97$, $p<0.001$), exceeding the next-best metric, FORTE ($r=0.70$), by 0.27, and agreed with expert preferences in 115 of 160 pairwise comparisons (71.9%). Under controlled perturbations, CSM$_{\text{CCTA}}$ remained stable to clinically equivalent wording and decreased monotonically with progressive information omission. In the multicenter benchmark, the CCTA-trained C2RG model achieved the highest CSM$_{\text{CCTA}}$ scores across all four hospitals, although its performance remained far from optimal. In contrast, CCTA-irrelevant reports accounted for up to 98.7% of the outputs from generalist models. Together, the benchmark provides a standardized setting for model comparison, while CSM$_{\text{CCTA}}$ enables clinically structured evaluation of finding agreement and anatomical specificity. These results support a more clinically aligned and anatomically resolved approach to evaluating CCTA report generation. Code is available at https://openi.pcl.ac.cn/OpenMedIA/CSM_CCTA.

Understanding how psychiatric patients subjectively experienced a clinical conversation is important for feedback and alliance-related process monitoring. While interviewers form post-session judgments about patient experience, these judgments do not always match patients' self-reports. Automatic approaches for predicting perceived interaction quality from conversation have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether such approaches can complement human judgment rather than simply replicate it. To address this gap, we evaluate a clinician-support framework in which post-session interviewer ratings are combined with automatic language-based predictions to estimate patient-reported interaction quality in free clinical interviews. We assess this integration across multiple standard model types, including Ridge, SVR, MLP, GRU, and BiLSTM, all trained on sentence embeddings extracted from dyadic transcripts of 107 free conversations between psychiatric patients and interviewers. Our results show that combining interviewer judgments with model predictions through simple averaging yields the strongest overall performance. The interviewer-only baseline reached a Pearson correlation of 0.365. Among fully automatic models, Ridge achieved the strongest Pearson correlation (r = 0.286), while BiLSTM achieved r = 0.270. The strongest result was obtained by BiLSTM interviewer integration (r = 0.403). Our findings suggest that automatic language analysis and interviewer judgment capture complementary aspects of patient experience and that their combination provides a more accurate approximation of the patient's own report than either source alone.

Visual instruction tuning is crucial for advancing the vision-language alignment and instruction-following capabilities of Vision-Language Models (VLMs). However, identifying optimal subsets under a fixed ratio constraint from rapidly expanding datasets remains a significant bottleneck. While existing methods largely depend on distribution diversity or heuristic filtering, they often overlook the internal coherence within individual samples. To bridge this gap, we propose Data Intrinsic Consistency (DIC), a self-scoring metric designed to quantify the sample-level inter-component consistency. DIC consists of two modules: Visual Information Consistency (VIC), evaluating the alignment between visual content and instructions, and Response Information Consistency (RIC), assessing response coherence relative to the instruction. Building upon DIC, we introduce Data Intrinsic Consistency Selection (DICS), an adaptive data selection method that optimizes the trade-off between high intra-sample consistency and global distributional diversity under varying data budgets. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DICS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across diverse dataset scales and model architectures, surpassing full-dataset fine-tuning while using only 25% of the LLaVA-1.5-665K data. We further curate DICS-6M, a 6M-sample multi-modal instruction corpus that enables the largest-scale visual instruction selection study to date; remarkably, DICS reaches 94.52% of the official InternVL3-8B-Instruct performance using less than 25% of its reported training data. Code can be seen at https://github.com/cqu-student/DICS

Label noise is common in medical imaging datasets due to factors such as inter-rater variability, annotation errors, and ambiguous cases. This can severely undermine the reliability and clinical effectiveness of machine learning models trained using those datasets. To address this challenge, we introduce Lightweight Noise Correction (LiNC), which adds a single trainable trust parameter per training sample and learns when to use the observed label and when to defer to the model during a standard training loop. The key idea is to train using a convex combination of the observed label and the model's own predictive distribution, controlled by a per-sample trust parameter. We show that the gradient of this objective drives trust values in opposite directions for clean versus noisy samples in the early training phase, yielding separable trust distributions. We use a 3-component Gaussian Mixture Model over the trust values to separate them into clean, ambiguous, and noisy cases and then execute a short soft-correction phase on the noisy cases and a final hard correction phase. Experiments on ten 2D datasets from MedMNISTv2 under label noise of up to 50% show consistent gains in accuracy and strong mislabel detection. LiNC adds negligible asymptotic overhead: the training-time complexity remains dominated by the base network, with additional memory growing linearly with the size of the training set.

Biomedical literature is increasingly mined for knowledge beyond the questions it was written to answer. Because the target concepts are not known in advance, annotators prefer open-ended labels, whose agreement is hard to quantify. We study soft inter-rater reliability for annotators providing unstructured texts for biomedical annotation tasks. Synthetic experiments show that soft reliability can be quantified using a variety of semantic equivalence measures, and that the choice of measure affects failure modes of the estimation. Embeddings are scalable, but limited when differentiating similar but distinct concepts. Large language models are promising, but limited by scalability for estimating agreement by chance. Finally, we suggest measures based on natural language inference as a sensible compromise.

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.

Multi-agent language-model systems increasingly route local interactions, yet the runtime interaction graph is often treated as an implementation detail. We study convention formation in open-weight LM populations spanning 1.1B-32B parameters with a naming-game protocol. Restricted first-token scores over tokenizer-safe labels let us measure prompt-conditioned score-state distributions, construct state-similarity graphs, and separate sampled-label agreement from latent state-space consensus. Across controlled interventions, in the main open-weight repair grids, retained partner-label evidence is necessary but not sufficient: homophilous threshold-similarity routing deletes cross-basin exposure and amplifies fragmentation, while bridge-seeking routing often repairs fragmentation when memory is available. In a three-seed mixed four-model grid, threshold-similarity produces no final behavioral or state consensus in 189 setting-seed runs, whereas state-component and label-disagreement bridges recover final behavioral consensus in 14/18 retained-memory runs. Across homogeneous model populations, retained history generally shifts fragmented dynamics toward consensus; the clearest case is Qwen2.5-32B, which reaches stable behavioral and final state consensus in all 18 retained-history well-mixed settings, while threshold-similarity reaches neither form of consensus in 189 settings. Robustness over state thresholds, population size, and vocabulary size preserves the qualitative ordering, and early-window graph-energy features provide useful within-grid diagnostics.

Large-scale, richly annotated career trajectory data underpins workforce planning, job recommendation, and labour market analysis, yet publicly available datasets are either small, closed to independent use, or built from pre-standardized occupational codes with LLM-synthesized rather than authentic free text. We present JobHopv2, an improved version of the publicly available JobHop dataset, constructed through end-to-end large language model (LLM) extraction from a corpus of ${\sim}440{,}000$ pseudonymized, multilingual resumes provided by VDAB, the Flemish Public Employment Service. The released dataset comprises $355{,}315$ career trajectories annotated with ESCO occupational codes, quarter-level temporal information, and normalized five-level education attainment, broadening both the coverage and the annotation richness of the original release. Relative to v1, JobHopv2 introduces a redesigned extraction pipeline based on reasoning-controlled LLM inference with a retry mechanism (achieving a 100% JSON parse rate), a richer extraction schema, and a revised evaluation protocol scored against three complementary annotation baselines. Evaluated against these baselines, our best extractor comes closest to the inter-annotator agreement ceiling among all compared models, trailing it by only 1.1-2.7 percentage points. The dataset and code are publicly released to support reproducible career-trajectory research.

Large language models show promise for mental health support, yet therapeutic quality improves only when evaluation functions as an actionable control signal rather than a passive metric. We introduce a framework that formulates therapeutic response generation as a decision-refinement problem driven by multi-dimensional, human-aligned evaluation. In Stage I, we introduce TheraJudge, an open-source therapeutic evaluator trained via preference-based optimization on human-annotated data to produce reliable judgments across 7 psychological dimensions. In Stage II, we introduce TheraAgent, which operationalizes TheraJudge's evaluations through a coordinated refinement process with specialized Critic, Coach, and Therapist roles that translate evaluative signals into targeted response revisions. Empirically, TheraJudge achieves strong agreement with clinician ratings, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.87-0.95), surpassing supervised baselines and strong closed-source judges, particularly on critical dimensions such as Safety, Relevance, and Empathy. Acting on these evaluations, TheraAgent yields a +0.43 improvement in human-rated therapeutic quality (on a 5-point scale) under blind evaluation, with 96% clinician inter-rater reliability. Low-quality responses ($\leq 3$) improve by +2.45 points with a 94% recovery rate, demonstrating targeted correction of unsafe outputs. Overall, our results indicate that effective alignment of mental-health LLMs stems from acting on human-aligned evaluation, rather than relying solely on stronger generation. We release code at https://github.com/vis-nlp/TheraAlign.

When a large language model (LLM) codes a construct in text as a human annotator would, that agreement makes the LLM a reliable coder. Yet reliability leaves construct validity untouched. The instrument may be theory-naive, reaching the code through a correlate that meets none of the demands the construct's theory makes, and no current method tells that apart from genuine measurement. We propose grain calibration as a method that closes the gap. It decomposes a construct into clause-level components, tests each against the text with extractive evidence, and combines the results through an explicit, theory-derived rule. Because the rule is stated rather than lodged in one opaque pass, its structure is evidence about the process rather than the output. It shows which components settled a code, and, when the code is wrong, whether a component was missed or an adjacent construct mistaken for it. Validation shifts from scoring an instrument's outputs against an annotator to showing that the instrument runs on the construct its theory specifies.

Data from affected populations are crucial for informing humanitarian response, but their value depends on timely and consistent interpretation of nuanced accounts of need. Humanitarian organizations often lack the staff, time, and specialist expertise required to analyze this information at scale. Large language models (LLMs) may expand this capacity, but their reliability for coding qualitative humanitarian data has not been directly established. This benchmark study compares 46 LLMs to a human Gold Standard using 150 high-fidelity synthetic humanitarian transcripts. Evaluation combined inter-rater reliability testing with Krippendorff's alpha, discrepancy analysis distinguishing correct, near-correct, and incorrect codes, and qualitative assessment across humanitarian-specific criteria including discrimination, complex needs hierarchies, and non-standard communication styles. The authors find that multiple LLMs can perform deductive coding at reliability levels comparable to experienced human coders, especially when structured prompts and reasoning-enabled configurations are used. At the same time, aggregate reliability metrics alone are insufficient for deployment decisions. Models varied in recognizing needs expressed indirectly, needs outside predefined categories, and protection-relevant concerns such as physical safety and discrimination. These findings suggest that LLMs can materially expand humanitarian analytical capacity, but not as substitutes for human judgment. Appropriate use requires structured codebooks, reasoning-enabled models, attention to theme-specific performance, and tiered oversight focused on categories where miscoding would have the greatest programmatic consequences. For sensitive humanitarian data, open-weights models deployed on self-hosted infrastructure may offer a viable path for combining analytical scalability with stronger data governance.

Deep learning-based medical image segmentation models are trained using annotations that exhibit systematic bias and variability across raters. While probabilistic multi-rater approaches can emulate annotator-specific delineations, annotator characteristics are typically encoded implicitly in deep latent feature space, making direct analysis of their influence on predictive distributions less straightforward. We propose a logit-space probabilistic segmentation framework based on stochastic variational Gaussian Process that explicitly decomposes predictions into an image-dependent reference logit distribution and annotator specific perturbations parameterised by bias and variance. This formulation enables more explicit analysis on how intra- and inter-rater variability propagate to predictive distributions. We evaluate the method on a multi-annotator medical image dataset, which shows that explicitly modelling annotator specific perturbations improves uncertainty calibration while maintaining comparable segmentation accuracy, compared with state-of-the-art multi-rater probabilistic segmentation method. The learned bias and variance parameters quantitatively reflect annotator-specific behaviour. Furthermore, controlled perturbation experiments over bias and variance demonstrate how changes in annotator parameters systematically influence predictive performance. The code used in this paper is made publicly available at https://github.com/QiLi111/GPS-Var.

Automated assessment in software engineering education has advanced significantly for code grading and essay scoring. However, reviewing software architecture deliverables, which requires analyzing structural completeness and requirements traceability, has not yet been fully automated. Applying Large Language Models (LLMs) to this task requires robust architectures to ensure technical feedback is accurate and reliable for students. This paper presents CAPRA (Configurable Architecture Proficiency Report Assessment), a multi-agent LLM system that analyzes software architecture deliverables to generate personalized, template-compliant LaTeX feedback. As a core design choice, CAPRA coordinates multiple specialized agents and employs a Python-based microservice for multi-modal document extraction, utilizing PyMuPDF and vision-enabled LLMs (specifically gpt-4o) to parse text and UML diagrams. To ensure educational reliability and mitigate hallucinations, CAPRA introduces a deterministic Evidence Anchoring step using fuzzy matching via normalized Levenshtein distance, along with a ConsistencyManager agent that cross-verifies, deduplicates, and merges findings. System performance is assessed using a structured eight-criterion binary evaluation taxonomy covering: (i) extraction completeness, (ii) feature validation, (iii) issue grounding and severity detection, (iv) recommendation specificity and traceability, and (v) template and tone compliance. A preliminary empirical evaluation on 10 student reports shows that CAPRA satisfied 88.8% of the evaluated criteria under a strict two-rater aggregation rule, achieved moderate inter-rater agreement with human evaluators (kappa = 0.582), and processed each report in slightly over 4 minutes. While these results support the viability of LLM-supported architectural feedback, human oversight remains essential for subjective assessment dimensions.

Several studies have examined the use of large language models (LLMs) for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs), reporting mixed accuracy. However, questions of reliability remain largely unaddressed. In this study, we go beyond quantitative LLM-human agreement metrics and qualitatively investigate how and why LLMs fail. We also propose actionable recommendations. We analyzed disagreements between LLMs and researchers across six software engineering SRs and over 1,000 primary study papers. For each SR, papers were screened independently by human experts and LLMs in zero-shot mode, resulting in Kappa values ranging from 0.52 to 0.77. Qualitative analysis suggests that human-LLM disagreement results from recurring, identifiable causes, such as boundary ambiguity in key terms, keyword overemphasization, and incorrect topic inference. Based on these findings, we propose recommendations such as validating semantic understanding before deployment, running multiple LLMs, and focusing validation efforts on borderline cases. Future studies are needed to validate the impact of our recommendations, and community efforts are needed to develop normative guidelines on LLM usage in SRs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for bias using adaptations of human psychological paradigms, yet methodological limitations-particularly the conflation of refusal behavior with task performance-have hindered clear interpretation. Here, we adapt the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to a controlled, forced-choice framework and introduce a two-stage modeling approach that separates response compliance from task-consistent classification. Across three contemporary LLMs (Claude Sonnet-4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-5), we evaluate associative interference, defined as reduced task-consistency in incongruent relative to congruent conditions. While compliance with the structured response format was uniformly high, interference effects varied substantially across models and domains. Claude Sonnet-4 exhibited strong interference in the Gender--Career domain (DeltaP = 0.086, 95% CrI [0.026, 0.173]) and smaller but credible effects in Gender--Science. Gemini 2.5 Pro showed attenuated interference, and GPT-5 exhibited minimal or no detectable interference across domains. These findings demonstrate that IAT-style associative asymmetries are not a universal property of LLMs, but instead depend on model-specific characteristics. By isolating interference from compliance and modeling item-level variability, this study provides a principled framework for evaluating structured response patterns in LLMs. The results highlight the importance of model-specific assessment and suggest that associative interference can be substantially mitigated in modern systems.

"Integrative" solutions are widely praised but rarely defined: we lack an operational way to tell a genuine integration -- one that makes the world cheaper to describe -- from a tidy re-description. Building on the lineage that treats creativity and intelligence as compression, we give such a criterion for creative integration (CI): the resolution of a real conflict between A and B is CI if and only if, under a fixed description language, the description length strictly shrinks (C = L_pre/L_post > 1), with the reduction located in the conflict itself. We make the judgment decidable through four binary, conjunctive gates, and we fix its extension through a taxonomy of pseudo-integration that names and rejects the look-alikes. We back the criterion with a curated, multi-domain corpus and -- crucially -- validate it not by human inter-rater agreement but by four falsifiable tests it could fail: an independent computational check, discrimination against hard negatives, out-of-sample prediction, and description-language robustness; all pass with margin. The contribution is not "creativity is compression" but its decidability, discrimination, and corpus: on this account, what makes a move genuinely creative -- rather than merely novel -- is that it compresses a conflict, with novelty and value as downstream symptoms; whether all creativity is so constituted we state as an explicit conjecture. We claim only the sign of C-1; we judge, not generate. The result is a citable primitive for a broader program.

Clickbait content on video-sharing platforms poses a significant challenge to information reliability, yet progress in automated detection has been constrained by the lack of large-scale, high-quality multimodal datasets. We present YTClickbait21K, a human-annotated YouTube clickbait dataset comprising 21,238 videos collected from 40 channels across 29 countries, covering diverse content categories such as news, entertainment, education, and gaming. Each sample includes structured metadata (title, description, engagement statistics) along with associated thumbnail images, enabling comprehensive multimodal analysis. To ensure annotation quality, every video was independently labeled by three annotators using a standardized decision framework that incorporates textual, visual, and cross-modal consistency cues, with final labels determined through majority voting. The dataset exhibits substantial inter-annotator agreement (k=0.65), confirming reliable labeling despite the inherent subjectivity of clickbait detection. By combining scale, annotation rigor, and multimodal richness, this dataset provides a robust benchmark for developing and evaluating machine learning models, facilitating research in cross-modal semantic understanding, and advancing automated content moderation systems.

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.

Objectives: Automatic data extraction from free-text radiology reports enables large-scale research, but few studies assessed the performance of large language models (LLMs) on Dutch neuroradiology reports. Methods: We analyzed 947 brain MRI reports from a tertiary memory clinic (2016-2021), authored by consultant neuroradiologists. Trained medical students annotated thirty variables; 100 reports were double-annotated to assess inter-rater reliability. We evaluated the performance of the open-weight LLM LLaMA 3.1 using different languages (Dutch vs. English translation) and few-shot prompting with different example selection strategies. Performance was evaluated using balanced accuracy for categorical variables, accuracy and mean absolute error for counts, and text similarity for free-text. Metrics were computed across 10 random splits of the 947 reports. Results: LLaMA 3.1 demonstrated high zero-shot performance for visual rating scores (mean [95%-CI]): Medial Temporal Atrophy: 90% [77-100%] on the left and 96% [94-99%] on the right, Global Cortical Atrophy: 87% [83-91%], and Fazekas: 94% [93-96%]. Microbleed mentions were detected with 93% accuracy [92-95%] and infarct mentions with 82% [80-84%]. Text similarity for lesion location reached 0.95 [0.95-0.96]. Performance was lower for numerical variables: 80% [78-82%] for the number of microbleeds and 66% [63-68%] for infarcts. English translation yielded comparable results. Few-shot prompting improved performance for numerical variables, achieving 92% [90-93%] for microbleeds and 81% [77-85%] for infarcts using structural similarity-based selection. Conclusion: LLaMA 3.1 shows strong potential for extracting data from Dutch neuroradiology reports. Few-shot prompting enhances performance for numerical variables, whereas challenges remain for location-specific variables.

Radiology report evaluation must distinguish clinical compatibility from surface similarity, because negation, laterality, or normal-abnormal polarity can reverse a finding. We propose RadSEM (Radiology Sentence-Level Evaluation Metric), a constrained LLM-assisted metric for reference-based evaluation of radiology Findings. RadSEM rewrites reference and generated reports into ordered atomic finding sentences, each expressing one site-finding proposition. It then performs contradiction-constrained many-to-many matching: incompatible pairs such as "effusion" and "no effusion" receive no credit, while compatible granularity differences can receive partial credit. A deterministic stage weights pairs by part-whole and abnormal-detail relationships, counts unmatched findings, and produces an abnormal-focused weighted F1 score. Thus, the LLM supports structured rewriting and local alignment rather than acting as an opaque judge. We evaluate RadSEM with SSREE, a controlled monotonicity stress test built from 2,448 de-identified reports expanded into five graded corruption levels. RadSEM achieves Kendall tau_b of 0.957, all-pairs concordance of 97.8%, adjacent concordance of 95.0%, and strict five-level ordering for 81.9% of reports, outperforming radiology-specific and general text metrics while avoiding the failure in which polarity-inverted reports regain lexical overlap. On the same SSREE set, RadSEM outperforms the Ref-anchored RadSEM-Alt policy, improving adjacent concordance from 90.7% to 95.0% and strict ordering from 67.2% to 81.9%. On a 599-triplet synonym/antonym subset, RadSEM prefers synonyms in 597 cases (99.67%). These results suggest that explicit finding units, contradiction-aware matching, and abnormal-focused deterministic scoring make report scoring more interpretable and sensitive to clinically meaningful errors. Code is available at https://github.com/jdh-algo/RadSEM.

Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) requires high-quality datasets to train reliable models. However, existing annotation tools treat output as flat files, leaving researchers to manually consolidate multi-annotator data, reconstruct relational structures, and compute reliability metrics through custom scripts. This paper introduces ACAT (Aspect-based sentiment analysis Collaborative Annotation Tool), a web-based platform natively supporting four ABSA workflows: (1) Aspect-Category Sentiment Analysis, (2) Clause-Level Segmentation, (3) Aspect-Term Sentiment Analysis with character-level position tracking, and (4) Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction with dual span offset preservation. Its core contribution is an automated Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) pipeline that aligns collaborative annotations and computes Inter-Annotator Agreement (IAA) metrics directly at export, yielding training-ready datasets. In a preliminary validation on 1,002 restaurant reviews with two annotators of differing expertise, ACAT achieves a median annotation time of 31.58 seconds and a raw IAA ranging from 0.78 to 0.86 across all tasks.

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from $65.0\%$ to $68.6\%$, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from $46.4\%$ to $36.0\%$ with little change in inter-judge agreement ($α{=}.531\to.519$).

Federal agencies are deploying large language models (LLMs) to categorize public comment corpora, where the model's organization of the record shapes what policymakers see and which arguments register. Standard evaluation, anchored on stance accuracy against a small validated set, cannot detect when different models produce materially different categorizations of the same public input. We propose an Interpretive Audit Pipeline that treats multi-model disagreement as diagnostic of interpretive complexity and directs human review toward genuinely ambiguous public input. Analyzing 1,260 public comments on a federal USDA docket across four LLMs, we find that inter-model thematic divergence exceeds within-model prompt variation, and that an expert rubric suppresses deep interpretive disagreement without resolving it. In a two-stage labeling study on a stratified 40-comment subsample, four LLMs and a human annotator labeled independently and then revised after seeing the others' labels. Revision behavior varied across labelers, and the human annotator's revisions frequently introduced framings absent from the ensemble's collective output. We argue disagreement-based evaluation is a necessary complement to accuracy metrics for LLM-assisted interpretive coding.

Benchmarking is mature where answers are verifiable -- math, code, reasoning -- but the fastest-growing uses of LLMs are subjective and human-facing: companionship, emotional support, counseling. There the default validity test, correlating a metric to human judgment, has no stable anchor: inter-rater agreement is low, structured by annotator identity, barely reproducible, and length-biased. So we cannot answer the question that matters: does capability that scales on objective benchmarks transfer to subjective behavior, and would our instruments even tell us if it did not? We build an instrument for this regime and report what it reveals at the frontier. We contribute, first, a self-evolving instrument that selects and then authors its own behavioral dimensions under a multiplicative anti-gaming fitness, self-halting when it stops improving; second, a trust-by-construction paradigm that earns belief through three certificates established without a human gold standard, where human raters saturate (rho ~ 0.45); and third, the finding it makes visible -- capability transfer is dissociable. Across 49 models, 8 families, and 24 months, subjective behaviors are where objective-benchmark scaling fails to carry over: the sharpest case, advice-restraint (knowing when not to give advice), is the frontier's universal-lowest dimension, and at gpt-4.1->gpt-5 it ran backwards while the aggregate score hid it -- a regression one instruction recovers. Warm restraint is moved by model generation, not by raw scale, MoE width, inference budget, or reasoning mode; the open-weight Pareto frontier matches closed flagships at ~10-80x lower per-call cost; and four judge families replicate the rubric on held-out human ESConv conversations. Data, code, the locked rubric, and judge prompts will be released upon publication.

Annotation quality is difficult to sustain when campaigns span weeks or months with small annotator pools. We present a Setswana sentiment dataset of 3,565 tweets annotated by three native-speaker annotators across eight batches and examine why inter-annotator agreement (IAA) declines over time. Despite an aggregate Randolph's free-marginal Kappa of $κ= 0.76$, "excellent," per-batch $κ$ falls by more than 32 points across the annotation task. Through six targeted analyses, we find that (i) label confusion concentrates on the negative/neutral boundary, (ii) two annotators show run-length drift consistent with autopilot labeling, and (iii) the dominant predictor of $κ$ is temporal simultaneity: tweets labeled within one minute achieve $κ= 0.98$, while those labeled more than a day apart reach only $κ= 0.65$. Annotation speed and tweet-level linguistic features show no meaningful association with $κ$. We benchmark three open multilingual encoders and proprietary models (GPT-5 and Gemini) on three-class sentiment classification; fine-tuning yields gains of 29 to 43 macro-F1 points over pretrained baselines, with GPT-5 few-shot leading overall (62.2 macro-F1). We release the dataset, per-annotation timestamps, and analysis code to support reproducible quality auditing for future African language NLP resources.

Free-form legal essay evaluation in NLP treats expert inter-rater stability as a single ceiling number, and treats LLM-judge agreement with that ceiling as evidence of judge stability. We test both assumptions on the Thai bar examination through an identical-inputs protocol: three Bar Council-trained examiners (A, B, C) and a 26-LLM judge panel score the same 15 cross-graded answers from the same four inputs (question, official Bar Council grading regulation, gold answer, candidate answer). The headline finding is asymmetric. On 10 of 15 cells where the rubric prescribes both axes, all 29 raters converge in a tight band: panel agreement is universal. On the remaining 5 cells where the rubric does not prescribe how to grade a correct final answer that omits a decisive statutory citation, the human panel splits between two coherent readings (B/C majority at the upper rubric band, score 6-8; A minority at the lower band, score 1-2). The LLM judge population does not split symmetrically: 22 of 26 LLMs score in or near B/C's contested band, 3 sit in the regulation-silent middle gap, and only 1 (GPT-5.4 Nano) approaches A's band without consistently scoring within it. Zero LLMs in our 26-judge panel reproduce the minority human reading on the contested cells. The B/C-direction cluster spans every model size, vendor, and price tier we tested. An instrumented three-LLM anchor sub-panel (Claude 4.6 Opus, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4 Pro) carries determinism probes, input ablations, and bootstrap CIs, and reaches anchor panel $α= 0.77$ on the 15 cells against human-panel $α= 0.36$. The high LLM-panel $α$ reflects systematic convergence on the majority reading rather than balanced reproduction of both readings; a benchmark that selects its LLM judge by maximising agreement with a human reference panel will inherit this asymmetry by construction.

Validating an LLM judge against human annotations usually means reporting several agreement statistics: accuracy, precision, recall, $F_1$, Cohen's $κ$, and one or more rank correlations. A survey of 24 recent LLM-as-judge papers finds metric choice entangled with the judgment scale, tie handling, invalid outputs, and abstention handling, and those choices rarely stated. For binary criteria -- the common case in rubric-based evaluation, where each criterion is graded MET or UNMET -- most of the reported numbers are redundant: Pearson's $r$, Spearman's $ρ$, Kendall's $τ_b$, the phi coefficient $φ$, and the Matthews Correlation Coefficient all reduce to a single number on non-degenerate binary data, so reporting several of them only creates an illusion of corroborating evidence. Cohen's $κ$ is the one agreement coefficient that adds information: it shares $φ$'s numerator but normalizes differently, and the gap between them measures how far the judge's positive-label rate has drifted from the human's. We then trace what changes when a judge may abstain with a CANNOT_ASSESS verdict: the three common ways of handling abstentions are not interchangeable preprocessing choices but answer different questions, and they break the binary equivalences. The same equivalences reappear, up to a negligible finite-sample correction, for multi-judge ensembles scored with Fleiss' $κ$ or Krippendorff's $α$. We close with a reporting checklist that names the judgment scale, the abstention and tie handling mode, coverage, the confusion matrix, and the aggregation level alongside any scalar agreement coefficient.

Bridge inspection in Japan requires mandatory visual assessments every five years, yet qualitative damage ratings (levels a-e) assigned by different engineers exhibit significant inter-rater variability -- a critical barrier to consistent infrastructure management. The aging of skilled engineers further threatens inspection capacity. This paper presents a methodology for automating bridge damage understanding and repair priority scoring using fine-tuned Vision-Language Models (VLMs). We fine-tune LLaVA-1.5-7B with QLoRA on up to 4,000 paired bridge damage images and inspection text records, then evaluate on a fixed test set of 800 images. The model outputs natural language descriptions identifying structural members and damage patterns, from which a rule-based scoring engine calculates a five-level repair priority index. A progressive training study (1k/2k/3k/4k samples) reveals that 2k training samples achieve near-optimal validation loss in only 2.9 hours of training; beyond 2k, validation loss improves by no more than 0.2% per doubling of training samples, exhibiting clear diminishing returns. Furthermore, semantic similarity on the held-out test set peaks at 3k (0.6909) and degrades at 4k (0.6739), indicating that quality-curated mid-scale data outperforms larger but noisier corpora. Inference optimization combining torch.compile() and batch processing (batch_size=8) achieves 10.06 seconds per image -- a 70.2% reduction over the unoptimized baseline. Our approach contributes to data governance in bridge inspection, reduces inter-rater variability, and provides AI-assisted triage to augment expert engineers in inspection workflows. Furthermore, we introduce a two-stage Quality Guard using a fine-tuned Swallow-8B SLM to reject low-quality VLM outputs before priority scoring, preventing spurious scores from damaged or unrecognised images.

The study of online discourse has become central to understanding societal polarization. While much research has focused on detecting overt toxicity, the subtle dynamics of social cohesion, meaning the interaction between divisive and unifying narratives, remain computationally underexplored (Bail, 2021; Gonzalez-Bailon and Lelkes, 2023). This paper presents Cohesion-6K, a manually and ChatGPT-assisted annotated dataset of six thousand Arabic public Facebook posts related to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. Each post is assigned to one of five discourse categories that represent a continuum from conflict to cohesion: Conflict, Resolution, Community Engagement, Supportive Interactions, and Shared Values. The annotation process combines expert human judgment with model-assisted pre-labeling verified by trained annotators, achieving substantial inter-annotator agreement (Cohens kappa = 0.85). Quantitative analysis reveals a consistent engagement gap, where conflict-oriented posts receive between two and four times more user interaction than resolution-oriented ones (p < 0.01). This pattern illustrates how divisive discourse tends to attract disproportionate visibility in Arabic social media spaces. Cohesion-6K provides a transparent and reproducible resource for the study of online cohesion and polarization. The dataset, annotation guidelines, and preprocessing code will be released for research use under an open license, supporting future work in computational social science, digital communication, and Arabic natural language processing.

Current state-of-the-art Quality Estimation (QE) in machine translation relies on massive, proprietary LLMs, raising data privacy concerns. We demonstrate that smaller, open-source LLMs (<30B parameters) are a viable, cost-effective and privacy-preserving alternative. Using a single-pass prompting strategy, our models simultaneously generate quality scores, MQM error annotations, suggested error corrections, and full post-editions. Our analysis shows these models achieve highly competitive system-level correlations with human judgments that outperform traditional neural metrics, fine-tuned models, and human inter-annotator agreement, effectively approximating the capabilities of much larger proprietary LLMs.

Jung et al. (2025) introduce a hypothesis testing framework for guaranteeing agreement between large language models (LLMs) and human judgments, relying on the assumption that the model's estimated confidence is monotonic with respect to human-disagreement risk. In practice, however, this assumption may be violated, and the generalization behavior of the confidence estimator is not explicitly analyzed. We mitigate these issues by learning a dedicated confidence estimator instead of relying on heuristic confidence signals. Our approach leverages simulated annotator diversity and a margin-based ranking formulation to explicitly model how confidently an LLM distinguishes between human-agreement and human-disagreement cases. We further derive generalization guarantees for this estimator, revealing a margin-dependent trade-off that informs the design of an adaptive estimator training procedure. When integrated into fixed-sequence testing, the learned confidence estimator yields improved ranking accuracy and empirically strengthens the monotonic relationship between confidence and disagreement risk, leading to higher success rates in satisfying target agreement levels across multiple datasets and judge models.

This paper audits benchmark evaluation in clinical-interview depression detection through four complementary probes across DAIC/E-DAIC, CMDC, ANDROIDS, MODMA, and PDCH. First, we re-evaluate E-DAIC under strict subject-disjoint leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. A lightweight hybrid text-plus-LLM-score model reaches macro-F1 = 0.723 - the highest reported under this protocol, to our knowledge - providing a conservative out-of-fold reference point that does not depend on the privileged official holdout. Second, we test whether the E-DAIC official split supports fine-grained leaderboard rankings by sweeping 96 model configurations across modality bundles, pooling strategies, and learners. Development-side cross-validation and official-test rankings align only moderately: the best cross-validation configuration ranks twentieth on the official test, the official-test winner ranks forty-first by cross-validation, top-3 overlap is zero, and the apparent winner is rank-1 in only 32.3% of subject bootstraps. Third, we externally validate strong public CMDC and ANDROIDS baselines that achieve near-ceiling in-domain performance. Zero-shot transfer to external corpora is substantially weaker. Finally, we stress-test E-DAIC text and audio models using paired symptom-dense versus symptom-light interview slices defined by an SRDS-based annotator. Text scores rise sharply on symptom-dense slices, whereas audio scores remain nearly flat; the text-minus-audio gap is positive across all five seeds.

Text-to-image (T2I) generation has advanced rapidly, making reliable evaluation critical as performance differences between models narrow. Existing evaluation practices typically apply uniform annotation mechanisms, such as Likert-scale or binary question answering (BQA), across heterogeneous evaluation skills, despite fundamental differences in their nature. In this work, we revisit T2I evaluation through the lens of skill-aligned annotation, where annotation strategies reflect the underlying characteristics of each evaluation skill. We systematically compare skill-aligned annotation against uniform baselines and show that it produces more consistent evaluation signals, with higher inter-annotator agreement and improved stability across models. Finally, we present an automated pipeline that instantiates the proposed evaluation protocol, enabling scalable and fine-grained evaluation with spatially grounded feedback. Our work highlights that improving the foundations of image evaluation can increase reliability and efficiency without simply scaling annotation effort. We hope this motivates further research on refining evaluation protocols as a central component of reliable model assessment.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are now routinely deployed for visual understanding, generation, and curation. A substantial fraction of these applications require an explicit aesthetic judgment. Most existing solutions reduce this judgment to predicting a scalar score for a single image. We first ask whether such scores faithfully capture comparative preference: in a controlled study with eight expert annotators, score-derived rankings align poorly with the same annotators' direct comparisons, while direct ranking yields substantially higher inter-annotator agreement on best- and worst-image labels. Motivated by this finding, we introduce the Visual Aesthetic Benchmark (VAB), which casts aesthetic evaluation as comparative selection over candidate sets with matched subject matter. VAB contains 400 tasks and 1,195 images across fine art, photography, and illustration, with labels derived from the consensus of 10 independent expert judges per task. Evaluating 20 frontier MLLMs and six dedicated visual-quality reward models, we find that the strongest system identifies both the best and the worst image correctly across three random permutations of the candidate order in only 26.5% of tasks, far below the 68.9% achieved by human experts. Fine-tuning a 35B-parameter model on 2,000 expert examples brings its accuracy close to that of a 397B-parameter open-weight model, suggesting that the comparative signal in VAB is transferable. Together, these results expose a clear and measurable gap between current multimodal models and expert aesthetic judgment, and VAB provides the first set-based, expert-grounded testbed on which that gap can be tracked and closed.

Detecting levels of psychological defence mechanisms in supportive conversations is inherently ambiguous. In the PsyDefDetect shared task at BioNLP 2026 the eight positive defence categories share surface language and differ only in pragmatic function and trained raters reach only moderate inter-annotator agreement. On such a task the decisive lever is not a stronger single model but error independence, since any single representation will waver on the overlapping defence boundaries. We translate this insight into a 9-voter ensemble spanning three orthogonal axes: class granularity (all nine classes for the gatekeeper, only the eight defence classes for the specialists), training method (generative and discriminative) and base model. The system reaches $F1_{test}{=}.420$ on the hidden test set, placing first among 21 registered teams.

Autoraters, also referred to as LLM-as-judges, are increasingly used for evaluation and automated content moderation. However, there is limited statistical analysis of how modifications in a rubric presented to both humans and autoraters affect their score agreement. Rubrics that ask for an overall or \emph{holistic} judgment - for example, rating the quality'' of an essay - may be inconsistently interpreted due to the complexity or subjectivity of the criteria. Conversely, rubrics can ask for \emph{analytic} judgments, which decompose assessment criteria - for example, quality'' into fluency'' and organization''. While these rubrics can be edited to improve the individual accuracy of both human and automated scoring, this approach may result in disagreement between the two scores, or with the associated holistic judgment. Designing and deploying reliable autoraters requires understanding not just the relationship between human and autorater annotations but how that relationship changes as holistic or analytic judgments are elicited. The results indicate that rubric edits providing representative examples and additional context, and reducing positional bias in the rubric increased human-autorater agreement, while higher rubric complexity and conservative aggregation methods tended to decrease it. The findings from the automatic essay scoring and instruction-following evaluation domains suggest that practitioners should carefully analyze domain- and rubric-specific performance to move towards higher human-autorater agreement.

Self-consistency detects hallucinations by generating multiple sampled answers to a question and measuring agreement, but this requires repeated decoding and can be sensitive to lexical variation. Semantic self-consistency improves this by clustering sampled answers by meaning using natural language inference, but it adds both sampling cost and external inference overhead. We show that first-token confidence, phi_first, computed from the normalized entropy of the top-K logits at the first content-bearing answer token of a single greedy decode, matches or modestly exceeds semantic self-consistency on closed-book short-answer factual question answering. Across three 7-8B instruction-tuned models and two benchmarks, phi_first achieves a mean AUROC of 0.820, compared with 0.793 for semantic agreement and 0.791 for standard surface-form self-consistency. A subsumption test shows that phi_first is moderately to strongly correlated with semantic agreement, and combining the two signals yields only a small AUROC improvement over phi_first alone. These results suggest that much of the uncertainty information captured by multi-sample agreement is already available in the model's initial token distribution. We argue that phi_first should be reported as a default low-cost baseline before invoking sampling-based uncertainty estimation.

We introduce Knowledge-Free Correlated Agreement (KFCA) to reward client contributions in federated learning (FL) without relying on ground truth, a public test set, or distribution knowledge. Under categorical reports and an honest majority, KFCA is strictly truthful, addressing the label-flipping vulnerability of Correlated Agreement (CA). We evaluate KFCA on federated LLM adapter tuning and a real-world PCB inspection task, showing efficient real-time reward computation suitable for decentralized and blockchain-based incentive designs.

Empirical fixation densities, spatial distributions estimated from human eye-tracking data, are foundational to saliency benchmarking. They directly shape benchmark conclusions, leaderboard rankings, failure case analyses, and scientific claims about human visual behavior. Yet the standard estimation method, fixed-bandwidth isotropic Gaussian KDE, has gone essentially unchanged for decades. This matters now more than ever: as the field shifts toward sample-level evaluation (failure case analysis, inverse benchmarking, per-image model comparison), reliable per-image density estimates become critical. We propose a principled mixture model that combines an adaptive-bandwidth KDE based on Abramson's method, center bias and uniform components, and a state-of-the-art saliency model, to capture different spatial and semantic types of interobserver consistency, and optimize all parameters per image via leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. Our method yields substantially higher interobserver consistency estimates across multiple benchmarks, with median per-image gains of 5-15% in log-likelihood and up to 2 percentage points in AUC. For the most affected images -- precisely those most relevant to failure case analysis -- improvements exceed 25%. We leverage these improved estimates to identify and analyze remaining failure cases of state-of-the-art saliency models, demonstrating that significant headroom for model improvement remains. More broadly, our findings highlight that empirical fixation densities should not be treated as fixed ground truths but as evolving estimates that improve with better methodology.

Objective: Accurate probability estimates are essential for the safe deployment of medical image segmentation models in clinical decision-making. However, modern deep segmentation networks are often poorly calibrated, a problem exacerbated when multiple expert annotations exhibit substantial disagreement. While inter-rater variability is typically treated as noise, it provides valuable information about intrinsic annotation ambiguity that must be reflected in model confidence. Methods: We improve the probabilistic calibration of medical image segmentation models by reformulating multi-rater supervision as an ordinal learning problem. Voxel-wise annotator agreement is treated as an ordered target, linking predictive confidence to the empirical variability in training data. This formulation allows the use of ordinal-aware scoring rules, such as the Ranked Probability Score ordinal loss, combined with a standard binary objective to preserve discriminative performance. Results: We evaluated the proposed approach across four public segmentation benchmarks spanning ophthalmology, histopathology, and thoracic imaging. Calibration was assessed using a multi-rater extension of expected calibration error. Results consistently show that ordinal-aware training yields substantially improved calibration with respect to inter-rater agreement without degrading segmentation accuracy. Conclusions: Treating multi-rater annotations as ordered information provides a principled and architecture-agnostic route to more reliable probabilistic segmentation models.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

Quantitative analysis of the kinematic chain in sports motion is essential for performance evaluation and injury prevention. Conventional methods such as the kinematic-sequence (KS) and continuous relative phase (CRP) are confined to adjacent joint pairs and lack a unified framework for whole-body coordination, while segmental power-flow analysis requires force plates and inertial parameters that restrict it to laboratory environments. We apply Complex Hilbert Principal Component Analysis (CHPCA) separately to each motion phase (backswing and downswing) on markerless 3D pose estimation data, extracting the dominant whole-body phase pattern as a single complex eigenvector. The pipeline further includes a fully automatic signal-based phase segmentation (no priors on strike count or rest location) and an extension to 1,079 body-surface mesh vertices, so that the kinematic chain is represented as a continuous phase field across the body. On 14 hammer-striking trials of a single subject, the framework reveals (i) a trunk-anchored global phase architecture, (ii) a functional asymmetry between preparation and execution phases quantified by Mode-1 contribution (45.5% vs. 70.5%) and inter-trial Spearman consistency (0.38 vs. 0.58), and (iii) a consistent reorganisation across both skeletal joints and mesh vertices ($p < 10^{-10}$ on 1,079 vertices). As a methodological consistency check, pairwise phase differences from the Mode-1 eigenvector are compared against CRP on all 190 joint pairs by a permutation test ($ρ= 0.473$, $p = 0.0005$). A correspondence analysis between Mode-1 amplitude and kinetic-energy mobilisation variance further shows a strong positive correlation in the downswing ($ρ\approx 0.71$ on both skeleton and mesh) and no correlation in the backswing, indicating that the proposed framework bridges kinematic and kinetic descriptions of coordination through phase structure.

The growing availability of online support groups has opened up new windows to study mental health through natural language processing (NLP). However, it is hindered by a lack of high-quality, well-validated datasets. Existing studies have a tendency to build task-specific corpora without collecting them into widely available resources, and this makes reproducibility as well as cross-task comparison challenging. In this paper, we present a uniform benchmark set of four Reddit-based datasets for disjoint but complementary tasks: (i) detection of suicidal ideation, (ii) binary general mental disorder detection, (iii) bipolar disorder detection, and (iv) multi-class mental disorder classification. All datasets were established upon diligent linguistic inspection, well-defined annotation guidelines, and human-judgmental verification. Inter-annotator agreement metrics always exceeded the baseline agreement score of 0.8, ensuring the labels' trustworthiness. Previous work's evidence of performance on both transformer and contextualized recurrent models demonstrates that these models receive excellent performances on tasks (F1 ~ 93-99%), further validating the usefulness of the datasets. By combining these resources, we establish a unifying foundation for reproducible mental health NLP studies with the ability to carry out cross-task benchmarking, multi-task learning, and fair model comparison. The presented benchmark suite provides the research community with an easy-to-access and varied resource for advancing computational approaches toward mental health research.

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

We introduce IndiaFinBench, to our knowledge the first publicly available evaluation benchmark for assessing large language model (LLM) performance on Indian financial regulatory text. Existing financial NLP benchmarks draw exclusively from Western financial corpora (SEC filings, US earnings reports, English-language financial news), leaving a significant gap in coverage of non-Western regulatory frameworks. IndiaFinBench addresses this gap with 406 expert-annotated question-answer pairs drawn from 192 documents sourced from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), spanning four task types: regulatory interpretation (174 items), numerical reasoning (92 items), contradiction detection (62 items), and temporal reasoning (78 items). Annotation quality is validated through a model-based secondary pass (kappa=0.918 on contradiction detection; 90.7% overall agreement on a 150-item subset) and a 180-item human inter-annotator agreement study across three annotation rounds (kappa=0.645 on contradiction detection; 77.2% overall agreement; 44.3% benchmark coverage). We evaluate twelve models under zero-shot conditions, with accuracy ranging from 70.4% (Gemma 4 E4B) to 89.7% (Gemini 2.5 Flash). All models substantially outperform a non-specialist human baseline of 69.0%. Numerical reasoning is the most discriminative task, with a 35.9 percentage-point spread across models. Bootstrap significance testing (10,000 resamples) reveals three statistically distinct performance tiers. The dataset, evaluation code, and all model outputs are available at https://github.com/rajveerpall/IndiaFinBench

Vision Language Models (VLMs) achieved rapid progress in the recent years. However, despite their growth, VLMs development is heavily grounded on English, leading to two main limitations: (i) the lack of multilingual and multimodal datasets for training, and (ii) the scarcity of comprehensive evaluation benchmarks across languages. In this work, we address these gaps by introducing a new comprehensive suite of resources for VLMs training and evaluation spanning five European languages (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish). We adopt a regeneration-translation paradigm that produces high-quality cross-lingual resources by combining curated synthetic generation and manual annotation. Specifically, we build Multi-PixMo, a training corpus obtained regenerating examples from Pixmo pre-existing datasets with permissively licensed models: PixMo-Cap, PixMo-AskModelAnything, and CoSyn-400k. On the evaluation side, we construct a set of multilingual benchmarks derived translating widely used English datasets (MMbench, ScienceQA, MME, POPE, AI2D). We assess the quality of these resources through qualitative and quantitative human analyses, measuring inter-annotator agreement. Additionally, we perform ablation studies to demonstrate the impact of multilingual data, with respect to English only, in VLMs training. Experiments, comprising 3 different models show that using multilingual, multimodal examples for training VLMs aids is consistently beneficial on non-English benchmarks, with positive transfer to English as well.

LLM confidence signals are used for abstention, routing, and safety-critical decisions. No standard practice exists for checking whether a confidence signal carries item-level information before building on it. We transfer the validity screening principle from clinical personality assessment (PAI, MMPI-3) as a portable protocol for benchmark-based LLM confidence data. The protocol specifies three core indices (L, Fp, RBS), a structural indicator (TRIN), and an item-sensitivity statistic, computed from a single 2x2 contingency table. A three-tier classification system (Invalid, Indeterminate, Valid) draws on four clinical traditions. Validated on 20 frontier LLMs across 524 items, four models are classified Invalid, two Indeterminate. Valid-profile models show mean r = .18 (15/16 significant). Invalid-profile models show mean r = -.20 (d = 2.48). Cross-benchmark validation on 18 models using MMLU with verbalized confidence and on external data from Yang et al. (2024) confirms the screen transfers across benchmarks and probe formats. All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

We present a dataset and a model for sentiment analysis of German sign language (DGS) fairy tales. First, we perform sentiment analysis for three levels of valence (negative, neutral, positive) on German fairy tales text segments using four large language models (LLMs) and majority voting, reaching an inter-annotator agreement of 0.781 Krippendorff's alpha. Second, we extract face and body motion features from each corresponding DGS video segment using MediaPipe. Finally, we train an explainable model (based on XGBoost) to predict negative, neutral or positive sentiment from video features. Results show an average balanced accuracy of 0.631. A thorough analysis of the most important features reveal that, in addition to eyebrows and mouth motion on the face, also the motion of hips, elbows, and shoulders considerably contribute in the discrimination of the conveyed sentiment, indicating an equal importance of face and body for sentiment communication in sign language.