Automated Evaluation

Evaluating long document summaries remains the primary bottleneck in summarization research. Existing metrics correlate weakly with human judgments and produce aggregate scores without explaining deficiencies or guiding improvement, preventing effective refinement in applications requiring verifiable accuracy. We introduce LongSumEval, a unified framework bridging evaluation and generation through structured question-answering feedback. The framework operationalizes summary quality as answerability and factual alignment of question-answer pairs, generating interpretable scores and actionable feedback that identifies coverage gaps and factual inconsistencies. This resolves the misalignment where evaluation operates independently of generation objectives. Meta-evaluation of our QA-based evaluation module across seven benchmarks demonstrates substantially stronger agreement with human judgments compared to established metrics. Structured feedback enables significant quality improvements through self-refinement without retraining. By demonstrating that evaluation feedback can serve as executable instructions for generation, this work establishes a generalizable paradigm for aligning assessment with improvement, with direct implications for controllable text generation requiring verifiable accuracy and transparent quality control. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub for reproducibility.

The increasing reliance on Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse sectors highlights the need for robust domain-specific and language-specific evaluation datasets; however, the collection of such datasets is challenging due to privacy concerns, regulatory restrictions, and the time cost for manual creation. Existing automated benchmarking methods are often limited by relying on pre-existing data, poor scalability, single-domain focus, and lack of multilingual support. We present STELLAR-E - a fully automated system to generate high-quality synthetic datasets of custom size, using minimal human inputs without depending on existing datasets. The system is structured in two stages: (1) We modify the TGRT Self-Instruct framework to create a synthetic data engine that enables controllable, custom synthetic dataset generation, and (2) an evaluation pipeline incorporating statistical and LLM-based metrics to assess the applicability of the synthetic dataset for LLM-based application evaluations. The synthetic datasets reach an average difference of +5.7% in terms of LLM-as-a-judge scores against existing language-specific benchmarks, demonstrating comparable quality for comprehensive assessment of big and small LLMs. While real datasets remain slightly more challenging for LLMs especially for smaller models, this work establishes a scalable and domain-adaptable benchmarking framework that supports fair evaluation of LLM applications, offering a faster alternative to manual approaches and enabling high-efficiency automated quality assurance cycles.

Automated code review (ACR) bots are increasingly used in industrial software development to assist developers during pull request (PR) review. As adoption grows, a key challenge is how to evaluate the usefulness of bot-generated comments reliably and at scale. In practice, such evaluation often relies on developer actions and annotations that are shaped by contextual and organizational factors, complicating their use as objective ground truth. We examine the feasibility and limitations of automating the evaluation of LLM-powered ACR bots in an industrial setting. We analyze an industrial dataset from Beko comprising 2,604 bot-generated PR comments, each labeled by software engineers as fixed/wontFix. Two automated evaluation approaches, G-Eval and an LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline, are applied using both binary decisions and a 0-4 Likert-scale formulation, enabling a controlled comparison against developer-provided labels. Across Gemini-2.5-pro, GPT-4.1-mini, and GPT-5.2, both evaluation strategies achieve only moderate alignment with human labels. Agreement ratios range from approximately 0.44 to 0.62, with noticeable variation across models and between binary and Likert-scale formulations, indicating sensitivity to both model choice and evaluation design. Our findings highlight practical limitations in fully automating the evaluation of ACR bot comments in industrial contexts. Developer actions such as resolving or ignoring comments reflect not only comment quality, but also contextual constraints, prioritization decisions, and workflow dynamics that are difficult to capture through static artifacts. Insights from a follow-up interview with a software engineering director further corroborate that developer labeling behavior is strongly influenced by workflow pressures and organizational constraints, reinforcing the challenges of treating such signals as objective ground truth.

Automatic speech recognition systems often produce confident yet incorrect transcriptions under noisy or ambiguous conditions, which can be misleading for both users and downstream applications. Standard evaluation based on Word Error Rate focuses solely on accuracy and fails to capture transcription reliability. We introduce an abstention-aware transcription framework that enables ASR models to explicitly abstain from uncertain segments. To evaluate reliability under abstention, we propose RAS, a reliability-oriented metric that balances transcription informativeness and error aversion, with its trade-off parameter calibrated by human preference. We then train an abstention-aware ASR model through supervised bootstrapping followed by reinforcement learning. Our experiments demonstrate substantial improvements in transcription reliability while maintaining competitive accuracy.

The rapid proliferation of Generative AI necessitates rigorous documentation standards for transparency and governance. However, manual creation of Model and Data Cards is not scalable, while automated approaches lack large-scale, high-fidelity benchmarks for systematic evaluation. We introduce MetaGAI, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 2,541 verified document triplets constructed through semantic triangulation of academic papers, GitHub repositories, and Hugging Face artifacts. Unlike prior single-source datasets, MetaGAI employs a multi-agent framework with specialized Retriever, Generator, and Editor agents, validated through four-dimensional human-in-the-loop assessment, including human evaluation of editor-refined ground truth. We establish a robust evaluation protocol combining automated metrics with validated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks. Extensive analysis reveals that sparse Mixture-of-Experts architectures achieve superior cost-quality efficiency, while a fundamental trade-off exists between faithfulness and completeness. MetaGAI provides a foundational testbed for benchmarking, training, and analyzing automated Model and Data Card generation methods at scale. Our data and code are available at: https://github.com/haoxuan-unt2024/MetaGAI-Benchmark.

Educational NLP systems are typically evaluated using engagement metrics and satisfaction surveys, which are at best a proxy for meeting pedagogical goals. We introduce six computational metrics for automated evaluation of pedagogical alignment in student-AI dialogue. We validate our metrics through analysis of 12,650 messages across 500 conversations from four courses. Using our metrics, we identify a fundamental misalignment: educators design conversational tutors for sustained learning dialogue, but students mainly use them for answer-extraction. Deployment context is the strongest predictor of usage patterns, outweighing student preference or system design: when AI tools are optional, usage concentrates around deadlines; when integrated into course structure, students ask for solutions to verbatim assignment questions. Whole-dialogue evaluation misses these turn-by-turn patterns. Our metrics will enable researchers building educational dialogue systems to measure whether they are achieving their pedagogical goals.

Autonomous multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed to investigate operational incidents and produce structured diagnostic reports. Their trustworthiness hinges on whether each claim is grounded in observed evidence rather than model-internal inference. Existing groundedness evaluators (binary classifiers, LLM-as-judge scalars, self-correction loops) treat supporting evidence as interchangeable and emit a single signal that offers no principled control over downstream action. We present GSAR, a grounding-evaluation and replanning framework that (i) partitions claims into a four-way typology (grounded, ungrounded, contradicted, complementary), giving first-class standing to non-redundant alternative perspectives; (ii) assigns evidence-type-specific weights reflecting epistemic strength; (iii) computes an asymmetric contradiction-penalised weighted groundedness score; and (iv) couples that score to a three-tier decision function (proceed, regenerate, replan) driving a bounded-iteration outer loop under an explicit compute budget. We formalise the algorithm, prove six structural properties, and evaluate five design claims on FEVER with gold Wikipedia evidence under four independently-trained LLM judges (gpt-5.4, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, gemini-2.5-pro). Every ablation reproduces in the same direction on every judge: bootstrap 95% CIs on the rho=0 effect exclude 0 on all four; the no-complementary ablation under Opus 4.7 has CI [-96,-68] of 200; at n=1000 three independent judges converge to DeltaS(rho=0)=+0.058. A head-to-head against Vectara HHEM-2.1-Open is included. To our knowledge, GSAR is the first published groundedness framework coupling evidence-typed scoring with tiered recovery under an explicit compute budget.

Web-scale 3D asset collections are abundant but rarely deployment-ready, suffering from arbitrary metric scaling, incorrect pivots, brittle geometry, and incomplete textures, defects that limit their use in embodied AI, robotics, and spatial computing. We present AmaraSpatial-10K, a dataset of over 10,000 synthetic 3D assets optimised for zero-shot deployment. Each asset ships as a metric-scaled, deterministically anchored .glb with separated PBR maps, a convex collision hull, a paired reference image, and multi-sentence text metadata. Alongside the dataset we introduce a reusable evaluation suite for 3D asset banks, a continuous Scale Plausibility Score (SPS), an LLM Concept Density metric, anchor-error auditing, and a cross-modal CLIP coherence protocol, and apply it to AmaraSpatial-10K alongside matched subsets of Objaverse, HSSD, ABO, and GSO. AmaraSpatial-10K improves CLIP Recall@5 by $3.4\times$ over Objaverse ($0.612$ vs. $0.181$, median rank $267 \rightarrow 3$), achieves a $99.1\%$ physics-stability rate under Habitat-Sim with $\sim 20\times$ wall-time speed-up, and produces zero-overlap scenes when used as a drop-in asset bank for Holodeck. Controlled ablations on the same asset bank attribute the retrieval gain to description richness.

LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on. However, the scalability and trustworthiness of this approach can be substantially distorted by Self-Preference Bias (SPB), which is a directional evaluative deviation in which LLMs systematically favor or disfavor their own generated outputs during evaluation. Existing measurements rely on costly human annotations and conflate generative capability with evaluative stance, and thus are impractical for large-scale deployment in real-world systems. To address this issue, we introduce a fully automated framework to quantifying and mitigating SPB, which constructs equal-quality pairs of responses with negligible quality differences, enabling statistical disentanglement of discriminability from bias propensity without human gold standards. Empirical analysis across 20 mainstream LLMs reveals that advanced capabilities are often uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with low SPB. To mitigate this bias, we propose a structured multi-dimensional evaluation strategy grounded in cognitive load decomposition, which reduces SPB by 31.5% on average.

We introduce Deep FinResearch Bench, a practical and comprehensive evaluation framework for deep research (DR) agents in financial investment research. The benchmark assesses three dimensions of report quality: qualitative rigor, quantitative forecasting and valuation accuracy, and claim credibility and verifiability. Particularly, we define corresponding qualitative and quantitative evaluation metrics and implement an automated scoring procedure to enable scalable assessment. Applying the benchmark to financial reports from frontier DR agents and comparing them with reports authored by financial professionals, we find that AI-generated reports still fall short across these dimensions. These findings underscore the need for domain-specialized DR agents tailored to finance, and we hope the work establishes a foundation for standardized benchmarking of DR agents in financial research.

Content moderation systems are typically evaluated by measuring agreement with human labels. In rule-governed environments this assumption fails: multiple decisions may be logically consistent with the governing policy, and agreement metrics penalize valid decisions while mischaracterizing ambiguity as error -- a failure mode we term the Agreement Trap. We formalize evaluation as policy-grounded correctness and introduce the Defensibility Index (DI) and Ambiguity Index (AI). To estimate reasoning stability without additional audit passes, we introduce the Probabilistic Defensibility Signal (PDS), derived from audit-model token logprobs. We harness LLM reasoning traces as a governance signal rather than a classification output by deploying the audit model not to decide whether content violates policy, but to verify whether a proposed decision is logically derivable from the governing rule hierarchy. We validate the framework on 193,000+ Reddit moderation decisions across multiple communities and evaluation cohorts, finding a 33-46.6 percentage-point gap between agreement-based and policy-grounded metrics, with 79.8-80.6% of the model's false negatives corresponding to policy-grounded decisions rather than true errors. We further show that measured ambiguity is driven by rule specificity: auditing 37,286 identical decisions under three tiers of the same community rules reduces AI by 10.8 pp while DI remains stable. Repeated-sampling analysis attributes PDS variance primarily to governance ambiguity rather than decoding noise. A Governance Gate built on these signals achieves 78.6% automation coverage with 64.9% risk reduction. Together, these results show that evaluation in rule-governed environments should shift from agreement with historical labels to reasoning-grounded validity under explicit rules.

In many real-world machine learning (ML) applications, the true target cannot be precisely defined due to ambiguity or subjectivity information. To address this challenge, under the assumption that the true target for a given ML task is not assumed to exist objectively in the real world, the EL-MIATTs (Evaluation and Learning with Multiple Inaccurate True Targets) framework has been proposed. Bridging theory and practice in implementing EL-MIATTs, in this paper, we develop two complementary mechanisms: LAF (Logical Assessment Formula)-based evaluation algorithms and UTTL (Undefinable True Target Learning)-based learning strategies with MIATTs, which together enable logically coherent and practically feasible modeling under uncertain supervision. We first analyze task-specific MIATTs, examining how their coverage and diversity determine their structural property and influence downstream evaluation and learning. Based on this understanding, we formulate LAF-grounded evaluation algorithms that operate either on original MIATTs or on ternary targets synthesized from them, balancing interpretability, soundness, and completeness. For model training, we introduce UTTL-grounded learning strategies using Dice and cross-entropy loss functions, comparing per-target and aggregated optimization schemes. We also discuss how the integration of LAF and UTTL bridges the gap between logical semantics and statistical optimization. Together, these components provide a coherent pathway for implementing EL-MIATTs, offering a principled foundation for developing ML systems in scenarios where the notion of "ground truth" is inherently uncertain. An application of this work's results is presented as part of the study available at https://www.qeios.com/read/EZWLSN.

Recognizing individual animals over time is central to many ecological and conservation questions, including estimating abundance, survival, movement, and social structure. Recent advances in automated identification from images and even acoustic data suggest that this process could be greatly accelerated, yet their promise has not translated well into ecological practice. We argue that the main barrier is not the performance of the automated methods themselves, but a mismatch between how those methods are typically developed and evaluated, and how ecological data is actually collected, processed, reviewed, and used. Future progress, therefore, will depend less on algorithmic gains alone than on recognizing that the usefulness of automated identification is grounded in ecological context: it depends on what question is being asked, what data are available, and what kinds of mistakes matter. Only by centering these questions can we move toward automated identification of individuals that is not only accurate but also ecologically useful, transparent, and trustworthy.

Evaluation of musical source separation (MSS) has traditionally relied on Blind Source Separation Evaluation (BSS-Eval) metrics. However, recent work suggests that BSS-Eval metrics exhibit low correlation between metrics and perceptual audio quality ratings from a listening test, which is considered the gold standard evaluation method. As an alternative approach in singing voice separation, embedding-based intrusive metrics that leverage latent representations from large self-supervised audio models such as Music undERstanding with large-scale self-supervised Training (MERT) embeddings have been introduced. In this work, we analyze the correlation of perceptual audio quality ratings with two intrusive embedding-based metrics: a mean squared error (MSE) and an intrusive variant of the Fréchet Audio Distance (FAD) calculated on MERT embeddings. Experiments on two independent datasets show that these metrics correlate more strongly with perceptual audio quality ratings than traditional BSS-Eval metrics across all analyzed stem and model types.

LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ conversational behavior rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks. We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable: surface-level prompt construction choices, although entirely orthogonal to the fairness question being tested, account for the majority of score variance, shift fairness conclusions in both the direction and the magnitude, and result in severe discordance in model rankings. We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue for in-situ behavior evaluation, examining how models' conversational behavior shifts when identity is varied as part of natural multi-agent interaction. Repurposing standardized-test questions as conversation seeds rather than as the evaluation instrument, we evaluate position persistence (how they hold positions, from the self-perspective) and peer receptiveness (how receptive they are to peers, from the other-perspective) across 8 million conversation transcripts spanning multiple models and identity presence configurations. In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies, a form of evidence the standardized-test paradigm does not offer.

The evaluation of narrative quality remains a complex challenge, as it involves subjective factors such as plot, character development, and emotional impact. This work proposes a quantitative approach to narrative assessment by focusing on the linguistic dimension as a primary indicator of quality. The paper presents a methodology for the automatic evaluation of narrative based on the extraction of a comprehensive set of 33 quantitative linguistic features categorized into lexical, syntactic, and semantic groups. To test the model, an experiment was conducted on a specialized corpus of 23 books, including canonical masterpieces and self-published works. Through a similarity matrix, the system successfully clustered the narratives, distinguishing almost perfectly between professionally edited and self-published texts. Furthermore, the methodology was validated against a human-annotated dataset; it significantly outperforms traditional story-level evaluation metrics, demonstrating the effectiveness of quantitative linguistic features in assessing narrative quality.

Small language models (SLMs), such as BART, can achieve summarization performance comparable to large language models (LLMs) via distillation. However, existing LLM-based ranking strategies for summary candidates suffer from instability, while classical metrics (e.g., ROUGE) are insufficient to rank high-quality summaries. To address these issues, we introduce \textbf{SCURank}, a framework that enhances summarization by leveraging \textbf{Summary Content Units (SCUs)}. Instead of relying on unstable comparisons or surface-level overlap, SCURank evaluates summaries based on the richness and semantic importance of information content. We investigate the effectiveness of SCURank in distilling summaries from multiple diverse LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that SCURank outperforms traditional metrics and LLM-based ranking methods across evaluation measures and datasets. Furthermore, our findings show that incorporating diverse LLM summaries enhances model abstractiveness and overall distilled model performance, validating the benefits of information-centric ranking in multi-LLM distillation. The code for SCURank is available at https://github.com/IKMLab/SCURank.

Tactile graphics require careful expert validation before reaching blind and visually impaired (BVI) learners, yet existing datasets provide only coarse holistic quality ratings that offer no actionable repair signal. We present TactileEval, a three-stage pipeline that takes a first step toward automating this process. Drawing on expert free-text comments from the TactileNet dataset, we establish a five-category quality taxonomy; encompassing view angle, part completeness, background clutter, texture separation, and line quality aligned with BANA standards. We subsequently gathered 14,095 structured annotations via Amazon Mechanical Turk, spanning 66 object classes organized into six distinct families. A reproducible ViT-L/14 feature probe trained on this data achieves 85.70% overall test accuracy across 30 different tasks, with consistent difficulty ordering suggesting the taxonomy suggesting the taxonomy captures meaningful perceptual structure. Building on these evaluations, we present a ViT-guided automated editing pipeline that routes classifier scores through family-specific prompt templates to produce targeted corrections via gpt-image-1 image editing. Code, data, and models are available at https://TactileEval.github.io/

Constructing environments for training and evaluating claw-like agents remains a manual, human-intensive process that does not scale. We argue that what is needed is not just a dataset, but an automated pipeline capable of generating diverse, verified environments on demand. To this end, we introduce ClawEnvKit, an autonomous generation pipeline that instantiates this formalism from natural language descriptions. The pipeline comprises three modules: (1) a parser that extracts structured generation parameters from natural language input; (2) a generator that produces the task specification, tool interface, and scoring configuration; and (3) a validator that enforces feasibility, diversity, structural validity, and internal consistency across the generated environments. Using ClawEnvKit, we construct Auto-ClawEval, the first large-scale benchmark for claw-like agents, comprising 1,040 environments across 24 categories. Empirically, Auto-ClawEval matches or exceeds human-curated environments on coherence and clarity at 13,800x lower cost. Evaluated across 4 model families and 8 agent harness frameworks, we find that harness engineering boosts performance by up to 15.7 percentage points over a bare ReAct baseline, completion remains the primary axis of variation with no model saturating the benchmark, and automated generation enables evaluation at a scale previously infeasible. Beyond static benchmarking, ClawEnvKit enables live evaluation: users describe a desired capability in natural language and obtain a verified environment on demand, turning evaluation into a continuous, user-driven process. The same mechanism serves as an on-demand training environment generator, producing task distributions that adapt to an agent's current weaknesses rather than being bounded by existing user logs.

Feature selection is a fundamental machine learning and data mining task, involved with discriminating redundant features from informative ones. It is an attempt to address the curse of dimensionality by removing the redundant features, while unlike dimensionality reduction methods, preserving explainability. Feature selection is conducted in both supervised and unsupervised settings, with different evaluation metrics employed to determine which feature selection algorithm is the best. In this paper, we propose FSEVAL, a feature selection evaluation toolbox accompanied with a visualization dashboard, with the goal to make it easy to comprehensively evaluate feature selection algorithms. FSEVAL aims to provide a standardized, unified, evaluation and visualization toolbox to help the researchers working in the field, conduct extensive and comprehensive evaluation of feature selection algorithms with ease.

Automatic evaluation metrics are central to the development of machine translation systems, yet their robustness under domain shift remains unclear. Most metrics are developed on the Workshop on Machine Translation (WMT) benchmarks, raising concerns about their robustness to unseen domains. Prior studies that analyze unseen domains vary translation systems, annotators, or evaluation conditions, confounding domain effects with human annotation noise. To address these biases, we introduce a systematic multi-annotator Cross-Domain Error-Span-Annotation dataset (CD-ESA), comprising 18.8k human error span annotations across three language pairs, where we fix annotators within each language pair and evaluate translations of the same six translation systems across one seen news domain and two unseen technical domains. Using this dataset, we first find that automatic metrics appear surprisingly robust to domain-shifts at the segment level (up to 0.69 agreement), but this robustness largely disappears once we account for human label variation. Averaging annotations increases inter-annotator agreement by up to +0.11. Metrics struggle on the unseen chemical domain compared to humans (inter-annotator agreement of 0.78-0.83 vs. 0.96). We recommend comparing metric-human agreement against inter-annotator agreement, rather than comparing raw metric-human agreement alone, when evaluating across different domains.

Evaluating meeting effectiveness is crucial for improving organizational productivity. Current approaches rely on post-hoc surveys that yield a single coarse-grained score for an entire meeting. The reliance on manual assessment is inherently limited in scalability, cost, and reproducibility. Moreover, a single score fails to capture the dynamic nature of collaborative discussions. We propose a new paradigm for evaluating meeting effectiveness centered on novel criteria and temporal fine-grained approach. We define effectiveness as the rate of objective achievement over time and assess it for individual topical segments within a meeting. To support this task, we introduce the AMI Meeting Effectiveness (AMI-ME) dataset, a new meta-evaluation dataset containing 2,459 human-annotated segments from 130 AMI Corpus meetings. We also develop an automatic effectiveness evaluation framework that uses a Large Language Model (LLM) as a judge to score each segment's effectiveness relative to the overall meeting objectives. Through substantial experiments, we establish a comprehensive benchmark for this new task and evaluate the framework's generalizability across distinct meeting types, ranging from business scenarios to unstructured discussions. Furthermore, we benchmark end-to-end performance starting from raw speech to measure the capabilities of a complete system. Our results validate the framework's effectiveness and provide strong baselines to facilitate future research in meeting analysis and multi-party dialogue. Our dataset and code will be publicly available. The AMI-ME dataset and the Automatic Evaluation Framework are available at https://github.com/ku-nlp/AMI-ME.

Recent advances in summary evaluation are based on model-based metrics to assess quality dimensions, such as completeness, conciseness, and faithfulness. However, these methods often require large language models, and predicted scores are frequently miscalibrated, limiting their reliability. Moreover, evaluating the average quality across different summaries for a single document typically requires access to multiple reference summaries. Here, we propose a general framework that generates individual and average proxy scores without relying on reference summaries, human annotations, or expensive model-based metrics. We also propose group isotonic regression binning (GIRB), a calibration method that adjusts the raw predictions to better align with ground-truth evaluation metrics. While we focus on continuous-value scenarios, such as summarization, the method is applicable to discrete-value tasks, such as question answering. Experiments on seven datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms existing baselines.

LLM-as-judge frameworks are increasingly used for automatic NLG evaluation, yet their per-instance reliability remains poorly understood. We present a two-pronged diagnostic toolkit applied to SummEval: $\textbf{(1)}$ a transitivity analysis that reveals widespread per-input inconsistency masked by low aggregate violation rates ($\barρ = 0.8$-$4.1\%$), with $33$-$67\%$ of documents exhibiting at least one directed 3-cycle; and $\textbf{(2)}$ split conformal prediction sets over 1-5 Likert scores providing theoretically-guaranteed $\geq(1{-}α)$ coverage, with set width serving as a per-instance reliability indicator ($r_s = {+}0.576$, $N{=}1{,}918$, $p < 10^{-100}$, pooled across all judges). Critically, prediction set width shows consistent cross-judge agreement ($\bar{r} = 0.32$-$0.38$), demonstrating it captures document-level difficulty rather than judge-specific noise. Across four judges and four criteria, both diagnostics converge: criterion matters more than judge, with relevance judged most reliably (avg. set size $\approx 3.0$) and coherence moderately so (avg. set size $\approx 3.9$), while fluency and consistency remain unreliable (avg. set size $\approx 4.9$). We release all code, prompts, and cached results.

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly introduced into systems engineering activities, particularly within requirements engineering, where quality assessment and validation remain heavily dependent on expert judgment. While recent AI tools demonstrate promising capabilities in analyzing and generating requirements, their role within formal systems engineering processes-and their alignment with established INCOSE criteria-remains insufficiently understood. This paper investigates the extent to which AI-based tools can support systems engineers in evaluating requirement quality, without replacing professional expertise. The research adopts a structured systems engineering methodology to compare AI-assisted requirement evaluation with human expert assessment. A controlled study was conducted in which system requirements were evaluated against established INCOSE ``good requirement'' criteria by both experienced systems engineers and an AI-based assessment tool. The evaluation focused on consistency, completeness, clarity, and testability, examining not only accuracy but also the decision logic underlying each assessment. Results indicate that AI tools can provide consistent and rapid preliminary assessments, particularly for syntactic and structural quality attributes. However, expert judgment remains essential for contextual interpretation, ambiguity resolution, and trade-off reasoning. Rather than positioning AI as a replacement for systems engineers, the findings support its role as a decision-support mechanism within the RE lifecycle. From a systems engineering perspective, this study contributes empirical evidence on how AI can be integrated into RE workflows while preserving traceability, accountability, and engineering consistency.

Behavioral Profile (BP) annotation is difficult to automate because it requires simultaneous coding across multiple linguistic dimensions. We treat BP annotation as a bundle of annotation skills rather than a single task and evaluate LLM-assisted BP annotation from this perspective. Using 3,134 concordance lines of 30 Chinese metaphorical color-term derivatives and a 14-feature BP schema, we implement a skill-file-driven pipeline in which each feature is externally defined through schema files, decision rules, and examples. Two human annotators completed a two-round schema-only protocol on a 300-instance validation subset, enabling BP skills to be classified as directly operable, recoverable under focused re-annotation, or structurally underspecified. GPT-5.4 and three locally deployable open-source models were then evaluated under the same setup. Results show that BP annotation is highly heterogeneous at the skill level: 5 skills are directly operable, 4 are recoverable after focused re-annotation, and 5 remain structurally underspecified. GPT-5.4 executes the retained skills with substantial reliability (accuracy = 0.678, \k{appa} = 0.665, weighted F1 = 0.695), but this feasibility is selective rather than global. Human and GPT difficulty profiles are strongly aligned at the skill level (r = 0.881), but not at the instance level (r = 0.016) or lexical-item level (r = -0.142), a pattern we describe as shared taxonomy, independent execution. Pairwise agreement further suggests that GPT is better understood as an independent third skill voice than as a direct human substitute. Open-source failures are concentrated in schema-to-skill execution problems. These findings suggest that automatic annotation should be evaluated in terms of skill feasibility rather than task-level automation.

Most digital language learning curricula rely on discrete-item quizzes that test recall rather than applied conversational proficiency. When progression is driven by quiz performance, learners can advance despite persistent gaps in using grammar and vocabulary during interaction. Recent work on LLM-based judging suggests a path toward scoring open-ended conversations, but using interaction evidence to drive progression and review requires scoring protocols that are reliable and validated. We introduce Learning in Blocks, a framework that grounds progression in demonstrated conversational competence evaluated using CEFR-aligned rubrics. The framework employs heterogeneous multi-agent debate (HeteroMAD) in two stages: a scoring stage where role-specialized agents independently evaluate Grammar, Vocabulary, and Interactive Communication, engage in debate to address conflicting judgments, and a judge synthesizes consensus scores; and a recommendation stage that identifies specific grammar skills and vocabulary topics for targeted review. Progression requires demonstrating 70% mastery, and spaced review targets identified weaknesses to counter skill decay. We benchmark four scoring and recommendation methods on CEFR A2 conversations annotated by ESL experts. HeteroMAD achieves a superior score agreement with a 0.23 degree of variation and recommendation acceptability of 90.91%. An 8-week study with 180 CEFR A2 learners demonstrates that combining rubric-aligned scoring and recommendation with spaced review and mastery-based progression produces better learning outcomes than feedback alone.

Automotive anomaly detectors are often selected from accuracy only benchmarks on workstation class hardware, whereas in-vehicle monitoring requires predictable scoring latency under limited CPU parallelism. This mismatch can make methods that appear competitive offline infeasible for deployment. We present ECoLAD (Efficiency Compute Ladder for Anomaly Detection), a deployment-oriented evaluation protocol for automotive time-series anomaly detection (TSAD). ECoLAD defines a monotone compute reduction ladder with explicit CPU thread caps, mechanical integer only hyperparameter scaling, inference/full run timing separation, and auditable run logs. Applied to proprietary in-vehicle telemetry and two public benchmarks, it shows that accuracy stability and deployment feasibility can diverge: some deep detectors retain AUC-PR while losing feasible throughput, whereas lightweight classical detectors sustain high scoring rates with positive lift above the random baseline, providing a practical screening procedure for detector selection under deployment relevant constraints.

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

The pursuit of human-like conversational agents has long been guided by the Turing test. For modern speech-to-speech (S2S) systems, a critical yet unanswered question is whether they can converse like humans. To tackle this, we conduct the first Turing test for S2S systems, collecting 2,968 human judgments on dialogues between 9 state-of-the-art S2S systems and 28 human participants. Our results deliver a clear finding: no existing evaluated S2S system passes the test, revealing a significant gap in human-likeness. To diagnose this failure, we develop a fine-grained taxonomy of 18 human-likeness dimensions and crowd-annotate our collected dialogues accordingly. Our analysis shows that the bottleneck is not semantic understanding but stems from paralinguistic features, emotional expressivity, and conversational persona. Furthermore, we find that off-the-shelf AI models perform unreliably as Turing test judges. In response, we propose an interpretable model that leverages the fine-grained human-likeness ratings and delivers accurate and transparent human-vs-machine discrimination, offering a powerful tool for automatic human-likeness evaluation. Our work establishes the first human-likeness evaluation for S2S systems and moves beyond binary outcomes to enable detailed diagnostic insights, paving the way for human-like improvements in conversational AI systems.