Artificial Intelligence Evaluation

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

This work addresses the challenge of disseminating reusable artificial intelligence (AI) models accompanied by AI documentation (a.k.a., AI model cards). The work is motivated by the large number of trained AI models that are not reusable due to the lack of (a) AI documentation and (b) the temporal lag between rapidly changing requirements on AI model reusability and those specified in various AI model cards. Our objectives are to shorten the lag time in updating AI model card templates and align AI documentation more closely with current AI best practices. Our approach introduces a methodology for delivering agile, data-driven, and community-based AI model cards. We use the Hugging Face (HF) repository of AI models, populated by a subset of the AI research and development community, and the AI consortium-based Zero Draft (ZD) templates for the AI documentation of AI datasets and AI models, as our test datasets. We also address questions about the value of AI documentation for AI reusability. Our work quantifies the correlations between AI model downloads/likes (i.e., AI model reuse metrics) from the HF repository and their documentation alignment with the ZD documentation templates using tables of contents and word statistics (i.e., AI documentation quality metrics). Furthermore, our work develops the infrastructure to regularly compare AI documentation templates against community-standard practices derived from millions of uploaded AI models in the Hugging Face repository. The impact of our work lies in introducing a methodology for delivering agile, data-driven, and community-based standards for documenting AI models and improving AI model reuse.

Trustworthiness and transparency are essential for the clinical adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and biomedical research. Recent deep research systems aim to accelerate evidence-grounded scientific discovery by integrating AI agents with multi-hop information retrieval, reasoning, and synthesis. However, most existing systems lack explicit and inspectable criteria for evidence appraisal, creating a risk of compounding errors and making it difficult for researchers and clinicians to assess the reliability of their outputs. In parallel, current benchmarking approaches rarely evaluate performance on complex, real-world medical questions. Here, we introduce DeepER-Med, a Deep Evidence-based Research framework for Medicine with an agentic AI system. DeepER-Med frames deep medical research as an explicit and inspectable workflow of evidence-based generation, consisting of three modules: research planning, agentic collaboration, and evidence synthesis. To support realistic evaluation, we also present DeepER-MedQA, an evidence-grounded dataset comprising 100 expert-level research questions derived from authentic medical research scenarios and curated by a multidisciplinary panel of 11 biomedical experts. Expert manual evaluation demonstrates that DeepER-Med consistently outperforms widely used production-grade platforms across multiple criteria, including the generation of novel scientific insights. We further demonstrate the practical utility of DeepER-Med through eight real-world clinical cases. Human clinician assessment indicates that DeepER-Med's conclusions align with clinical recommendations in seven cases, highlighting its potential for medical research and decision support.

When building AI systems for decision support, one often encounters the phenomenon of predictive multiplicity: a single best model does not exist; instead, one can construct many models with similar overall accuracy that differ in their predictions for individual cases. Especially when decisions have a direct impact on humans, this can be highly unsatisfactory. For a person subject to high disagreement between models, one could as well have chosen a different model of similar overall accuracy that would have decided the person's case differently. We argue that this arbitrariness conflicts with the EU AI Act, which requires providers of high-risk AI systems to report performance not only at the dataset level but also for specific persons. The goal of this paper is to put predictive multiplicity in context with the EU AI Act's provisions on accuracy and to subsequently derive concrete suggestions on how to evaluate and report predictive multiplicity in practice. Specifically: (1) We introduce the AI Act's accuracy provisions and argue that incorporating information about predictive multiplicity could serve compliance with specific provisions for providers. (2) Based on this legally rigorous analysis, we suggest individual conflict ratios and $δ$-ambiguity as tools to quantify the disagreement between models on individual cases and to help detect individuals subject to conflicting predictions. (3) Based on computational insights, we derive easy-to-implement rules on how model providers could evaluate predictive multiplicity in practice. (4) Ultimately, we suggest that information about predictive multiplicity should be made available to deployers under the AI Act, enabling them to judge whether system outputs for specific individuals are reliable enough for their use case.

Millions of people now use generative AI chatbots for psychological support. Despite their promise, the most pressing question in AI for mental health is whether these tools are safe. The field currently lacks a validated, automated benchmark for evaluating AI chatbot safety, particularly for users at risk of suicide. The Validation of Ethical and Responsible AI in Mental Health (VERA-MH) evaluation was recently proposed to address this need. This human validation study examined the alignment of VERA-MH safety ratings with expert clinician judgments. We simulated conversations between large language model (LLM)-based users spanning a range of suicide risk levels and disclosure styles and general-purpose AI chatbots. Licensed mental health clinicians from Spring Health independently rated chatbot safety using the VERA-MH scoring rubric. An LLM-based evaluator ("judge") applied the same rubric to the same conversations. We examined agreement among clinicians, between clinician consensus and the LLM judge, and across different judge LLMs. Clinicians also rated user-agent realism, suicide risk, and disclosure. Clinicians showed strong agreement in safety ratings (chance-corrected inter-rater reliability [IRR] = 0.77), establishing a reliable clinical consensus reference. The LLM judge was strongly aligned with this consensus (IRR = 0.81), and ratings were stable across judge models and repeated evaluations. Ratings of user-agent realism and fidelity to intended suicide risk and disclosure styles were mixed. These findings support the reliability of VERA-MH as an open-source, fully automated benchmark for evaluating AI chatbot suicide risk detection and response. Because these results reflect an earlier version of the benchmark, future work should validate updated versions, assess generalizability and robustness, and expand VERA-MH to additional domains of AI safety in mental health.

Multi-agent frameworks (MAFs) promise to simplify LLM-driven software development, yet no principled metric captures how well AI coding assistants can generate correct, framework-specific code. We introduce \textit{AI-assistability} ($\mathcal{AI}$), a composite metric that quantifies a framework's amenability to AI-assisted development by combining structural alignment ($\barσ$) with functional correctness (pass@1). To evaluate this metric in a controlled setting, we design DDL2PropBank, a novel benchmark task that maps relational database schemas to PropBank semantic rolesets, and implement identical agent logic across ten frameworks using the Agent-as-a-Tool pattern. Our results challenge the intuition that declarative framework design guarantees AI-assistability: Agno, with a single canonical pattern and convention-aligned API, achieves the highest $\mathcal{AI}$ score (0.55), while DSPy -- the most declarative framework by design -- scores lowest (0.07), as its novel abstractions are insufficiently represented in AI training data. We find that convention alignment, not declarative design alone, is the primary driver of AI-assistability ($r = 0.576$ between $\barσ$ and pass@1). All artifacts -- DDL2PropBank, PropBank MCP server, and all implementations -- are available at https://github.com/ahmeshaf/ddl2propbank

Large language models (LLMs) deployed in clinical decision support may acquiesce to patient requests for care that conflicts with evidence-based guidelines. We developed SycoEval-EM, a multi-agent simulation framework to evaluate LLM robustness to adversarial patient persuasion in emergency medicine. Across 19 contemporary LLMs and 1,425 simulated clinical encounters spanning three Choosing Wisely scenarios, acquiescence rates ranged from 0% to 100%, revealing a bimodal distribution. Seven models maintained near-perfect guideline adherence, while six acquiesced in the majority of encounters. Vulnerability varied substantially across clinical scenarios. Acquiescence was highest for CT imaging requests, intermediate for antibiotic prescriptions for sinusitis, and lowest for opioid prescriptions for acute back pain. Model scale, recency, and performance on static medical benchmarks did not consistently predict robustness. All five persuasion tactics produced similar acquiescence rates, with no statistically significant differences after correction for multiple comparisons, suggesting a generalized susceptibility rather than tactic-specific weaknesses. LLM-as-judge evaluation was validated against two independent physician raters across 95 matched conversations and demonstrated near-perfect agreement for the primary outcome of acquiescence (Cohens kappa = 0.957). These findings indicate that static medical benchmarks are insufficient to predict safety performance under sustained social pressure and support incorporating multi-turn adversarial testing into clinical AI evaluation. Notably, two models achieved perfect guideline adherence across all encounters, demonstrating that robustness to patient pressure is attainable without sacrificing effective clinical communication.

Fact-checking systems must be scalable and epistemically trustworthy. We introduce Althea, a retrieval-augmented system for user-driven claim evaluation that matches standard pipelines on AVeriTeC while improving supported/refuted discrimination. A longitudinal survey experiment (N=961) treats a ten-day follow-up as a fading test: after modeling a verification procedure, we remove the system and ask whether users reproduce it unaided, testing metalearning rather than one-time accuracy. We compare two AI-assisted treatments, Exploratory (guided reasoning) and Summary (synthesized verdicts), against two baselines, unrelated news and Self-search. The treatments yield the strongest immediate accuracy and confidence gains but do not survive the fading test: on unseen claims they perform no better than news, while Self-search, with no procedure to fade, retains a large advantage. This reveals a factchecking-metalearning tradeoff: conditions that most improve immediate accuracy are least likely to produce metalearning, cautioning against treating AI-delivered verdicts as a source of durable literacy gains.

Existing benchmarks for large multimodal models (LMMs) often fail to capture their performance in real-time, adversarial environments. We introduce LM Fight Arena (Large Model Fight Arena), a novel framework that evaluates LMMs by pitting them against each other in the classic fighting game Mortal Kombat II, a task requiring rapid visual understanding and tactical, sequential decision-making. In a controlled tournament, we test six leading open- and closed-source models, where each agent operates controlling the same character to ensure a fair comparison. The models are prompted to interpret game frames and state data to select their next actions. Unlike static evaluations, LM Fight Arena provides a fully automated, reproducible, and objective assessment of an LMM's strategic reasoning capabilities in a dynamic setting. This work introduces a challenging and engaging benchmark that bridges the gap between AI evaluation and interactive entertainment.

Reliable evaluation of machine learning models for neonatal seizure detection is critical for clinical adoption. Current practices often rely on inconsistent and biased metrics, hindering model comparability and interpretability. Expert-level claims about AI performance are frequently made without rigorous validation, raising concerns about their reliability. This study aims to systematically evaluate common performance metrics and propose best practices tailored to the specific challenges of neonatal seizure detection. Using real and synthetic seizure annotations, we assessed standard performance metrics, consensus strategies, and human-expert level equivalence tests under varying class imbalance, inter-rater agreement, and number of raters. Matthews and Pearson's correlation coefficients outperformed the area under the curve in reflecting performance under class imbalance. Consensus types are sensitive to the number of raters and agreement level among them. Among human-expert level equivalence tests, the multi-rater Turing test using Fleiss k best captured expert-level AI performance. We recommend reporting: (1) at least one balanced metric, (2) Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV, (3) Multi-rater Turing test results using Fleiss k, and (4) All the above on held-out validation set. This proposed framework provides an important prerequisite to clinical validation by enabling a thorough and honest appraisal of AI methods for neonatal seizure detection.

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

The rapid adoption of generative AI has created new opportunities for teaching, learning, and quality assurance. Existing applications, however, remain largely student-facing, with comparatively limited attention to institution-level needs. This paper presents a course intelligence platform deployed across more than 100 universities and serving over 10,000 instructors in China. By linking competency requirements, knowledge structures, teaching activities, and assessment evidence, it establishes a shared foundation for knowledge organization, instructional design, learning assessment, and quality evaluation. The course evaluation module is examined as a representative institution-facing application of the platform, which integrates national evaluation standards, structured educational evidence, customized prompting strategies, and domain-adapted LLMs to generate quantitative scores and qualitative feedback. A case study involving 100 authentic university courses is conducted to evaluate its alignment with expert judgments and the interpretability of its outputs. Statistical analyses show substantial agreement between AI-generated assessments and expert ratings, while qualitative results highlight the credibility of the feedback. The findings further suggest that AI-assisted evaluation requires not only capable models but also structured domain knowledge and transparent criteria. In this context, human ratings should be treated as an informative reference rather than an error-free gold standard, and the objective is to achieve consistent, interpretable, and defensible judgments instead of merely replicating expert scores.

Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act. In this context, the black-box nature of machine learning models limits the use of conventional avenues of approach towards certifying complex technical systems. As a potential solution, methods to give insights into this black-box - devised in the field of eXplainable AI (XAI) - could be used. In this study, the potential and shortcomings of such methods for the purpose of safe AI development and certification are discussed in 15 qualitative interviews with experts out of the areas of (X)AI and certification. We find that XAI methods can be a helpful asset for safe AI development, as they can show biases and failures of ML-models, but since certification relies on comprehensive and correct information about technical systems, their impact is expected to be limited.