Automated Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Automated evaluation studies how to measure the quality, correctness, safety, and usefulness of AI outputs and systems without relying entirely on manual review. Common approaches include reference-based metrics, reference-free scoring, LLM-as-a-judge, rubric and checklist scoring, pairwise comparisons, and executable tests that verify code, tools, or interactive behavior. Benchmarks increasingly assess agents through full task trajectories and evidence from browsers, databases, or other environments, while statistical calibration and targeted human review help interpret results. The central challenge is making automated scores valid, robust across tasks and populations, and resistant to bias or gaming; agreement with human ratings alone does not guarantee that an evaluator measures the intended capability.

Latest papers

398 papers38 papers in the last four weeks, down 16% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Apr 6, 2026

What Makes a Good Response? An Empirical Analysis of Quality in Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews provide essential insights into human experiences when they elicit high-quality responses. While qualitative and NLP researchers have proposed various measures of interview quality, these measures lack validation that high-scoring responses actually contribute to the study's goals. In this work, we identify, implement, and evaluate 10 proposed measures of interview response quality to determine which are actually predictive of a response's contribution to the study findings. To conduct our analysis, we introduce the Qualitative Interview Corpus, a newly constructed dataset of 343 interview transcripts with 16,940 participant responses from 14 real research projects. We find that direct relevance to a key research question is the strongest predictor of response quality. We additionally find that two measures commonly used to evaluate NLP interview systems, clarity and surprisal-based informativeness, are not predictive of response quality. Our work provides analytic insights and grounded, scalable metrics to inform the design of qualitative studies and the evaluation of automated interview systems.

Jonathan Ivey, Anjalie Field, Ziang Xiao

Johns Hopkins University

Automated Evaluation

Apr 5, 2026

Adaptive Cost-Efficient Evaluation for Reliable Patent Claim Generation

Automated patent claim validation demands low error tolerance. However, existing approaches face a rigidity-resource dilemma: lightweight encoders cannot track long-range legal dependencies, while exhaustive LLM verification incurs 4-5X higher overhead at million-claim scale. A naive confidence-based cascade cannot resolve this because binary validity scores fail to distinguish structurally distinct error types which require different reasoning depths. We propose a two-stage framework: Adaptive Cost-efficient Evaluation (ACE), which exploits the categorical structure of patent errors for uncertainty-aware routing. In the first stage, a fine-tuned encoder projects claims into a K+1 distribution over legal error types, whose predictive entropy serves as the routing signal. Claims exceeding an entropy threshold are escalated to the second stage, where an expert LLM executes a schema-constrained Chain-of-Patent-Thought (CoPT) protocol to map claim elements against 35 U.S.C. standards whose schema constraint reduces per-claim latency by 42% while producing legally grounded verdicts. We further present a 40,000-claim dataset ACE-40k with MPEP-grounded annotations, where ACE surpasses competitive baselines including a supervised 70B-parameter LLM while reducing costs by 78%. On real USPTO rejection data, the routing mechanism transfers without re-calibration, reducing inference time by 60% while maintaining competitive recall.

Yongmin Yoo, Qiongkai Xu, Longbing Cao

Frontier AI Research Centre, Macquarie University · School of Computing, FSE, Macquarie University

Claim Verification Automated Evaluation Adaptive Inference Efficient Language Model Inference

Apr 4, 2026

Adaptive Rigor in AI System Evaluation using Temperature-Controlled Verdict Aggregation via Generalized Power Mean

Existing evaluation methods for LLM-based AI systems, such as LLM-as-a-Judge, verdict systems, and NLI, do not always align well with human assessment because they cannot adapt their strictness to the application domain. This paper presents Temperature-Controlled Verdict Aggregation (TCVA), a method that combines a five-level verdict-scoring system with generalized power-mean aggregation and an intuitive temperature parameter T [0.1, 1.0] to control evaluation rigor. Low temperatures yield pessimistic scores suited for safety-critical domains; high temperatures produce lenient scores appropriate for conversational AI. Experimental evaluation on three benchmark datasets with human Likert-scale annotations (SummEval and USR) shows that TCVA achieves correlation with human judgments comparable to RAGAS on faithfulness (Spearman = 0.667 vs. 0.676) while consistently outperforming DeepEval. The method requires no additional LLM calls when adjusting the temperature parameter.

Aleksandr Meshkov

Independent Researcher, Budva, Montenegro.

Automated Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge

Apr 3, 2026

The Impact of LLM Self-Consistency and Reasoning Effort on Automated Scoring Accuracy and Cost

Strategic model selection and reasoning settings are more effective than ensembling for optimizing automated scoring with large language models (LLMs). We examined self-consistency (intra-model majority voting) and reasoning effort for scoring conversation-based assessment items in high school mathematics, evaluating 900 student conversations against human-scored ground truths using frontier and low-cost models from OpenAI and Google. Temperature sampling significantly improved accuracy over deterministic calls, but increasing ensemble size (j = 1 to 7) produced no significant gains. Higher reasoning effort showed a significant positive linear trend with scoring accuracy, though the benefit varied by model family. An efficiency frontier analysis identified Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview at low reasoning as the most accurate but costly configuration; GPT-5.4 Nano and Mini with no reasoning offered the best cost-performance balance.

Scott Frohn

Khan Academy, Mountain View, CA, USA

Mathematics Education Automated Evaluation Self-Consistency in Language Models LLM Evaluation

Apr 2, 2026

Diagnosing Translated Benchmarks: An Automated Quality Assurance Study of the EU20 Benchmark Suite

Machine-translated benchmark datasets reduce costs and offer scale, but noise, loss of structure, and uneven quality weaken confidence. What matters is not merely whether we can translate, but also whether we can measure and verify translation reliability at scale. We study translation quality in the EU20 benchmark suite, which comprises five established benchmarks translated into 20 languages, via a three-step automated quality assurance approach: (i) a structural corpus audit with targeted fixes; (ii) quality profiling using a neural metric (COMET, reference-free and reference-based) with translation service comparisons (DeepL / ChatGPT / Google); and (iii) an LLM-based span-level translation error landscape. Trends are consistent: datasets with lower COMET scores exhibit a higher share of accuracy/mistranslation errors at span level (notably HellaSwag; ARC is comparatively clean). Reference-based COMET on MMLU against human-edited samples points in the same direction. We release cleaned/corrected versions of the EU20 datasets, and code for reproducibility. In sum, automated quality assurance offers practical, scalable indicators that help prioritize review -- complementing, not replacing, human gold standards.

Klaudia Thellmann, Bernhard Stadler, Michael Färber

TU Dresden and ScaDS.AI · InfAI e.V.

Benchmark Auditing MT Evaluation Automated Evaluation Multilingual Language Model Evaluation

Apr 2, 2026

REAP: Automatic Curation of Coding Agent Benchmarks from Interactive Production Usage

Production deployment of AI coding agents requires fast, reproducible evaluation signals. Existing industrial practices trade off speed and fidelity: online A/B testing takes weeks and risks user experience, shadow deployment yields signals that are not reproducible across runs, and public benchmarks diverge from production workloads in language distribution, prompt style, and codebase structure. This paper presents REAP (Relevance and Execution-Audited Pipeline), an automated curation pipeline that constructs production-derived benchmarks from real developer-agent sessions without manual labeling. Such curation, while in-distribution to production usage, runs into several challenges. Untestable prompts, misaligned tests, and test flakiness all compromise evaluation reliability. While tasks can be manually audited to ensure only high-quality tasks remain in the benchmark, this approach is infeasible in the monorepo setting: the build infrastructure state is often ephemeral in large monorepos and requires the benchmark to be continuously re-curated against the current codebase. As manual verification cannot be sustained at this cadence, REAP adds an automated verification layer using LLM-based task classification, agentic test-relevance validation, and multi-run stability checks to ensure the executable benchmark yields trustworthy signals. We use REAP to curate Harvest, a benchmark where each task feeds the coding agent a real developer prompt and verifies the resulting code change against fail-to-pass tests retrieved from production. Harvest's distribution spans more than four programming languages with a majority of tasks drawn from Hack. Model and harness evaluations reveal that solve rates range from 42.9% to 58.2% across five frontier models, surfacing capability differences that inform concrete deployment decisions.

Smriti Jha, Matteo Paltenghi, Chandra Maddila +3

Meta, USA

Coding Agent Benchmarks Benchmark Construction AI Agent Benchmarks AI Coding Agents Automated Evaluation

Apr 1, 2026

When VLMs 'Fix' Students: Identifying and Penalizing Over-Correction in the Evaluation of Multi-line Handwritten Math OCR

Accurate transcription of handwritten mathematics is crucial for educational AI systems, yet current benchmarks fail to evaluate this capability properly. Most prior studies focus on single-line expressions and rely on lexical metrics such as BLEU, which fail to assess the semantic reasoning across multi-line student solutions. In this paper, we present the first systematic study of multi-line handwritten math Optical Character Recognition (OCR), revealing a critical failure mode of Vision-Language Models (VLMs): over-correction. Instead of faithfully transcribing a student's work, these models often "fix" errors, thereby hiding the very mistakes an educational assessment aims to detect. To address this, we propose PINK (Penalized INK-based score), a semantic evaluation metric that leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) for rubric-based grading and explicitly penalizes over-correction. Our comprehensive evaluation of 15 state-of-the-art VLMs on the FERMAT dataset reveals substantial ranking reversals compared to BLEU: models like GPT-4o are heavily penalized for aggressive over-correction, whereas Gemini 2.5 Flash emerges as the most faithful transcriber. Furthermore, human expert studies show that PINK aligns significantly better with human judgment (55.0% preference over BLEU's 39.5%), providing a more reliable evaluation framework for handwritten math OCR in educational settings.

Jin Seong, Wencke Liermann, Minho Kim +2

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, Republic of Korea

Handwritten Mathematical Expression Recognition Self-Correction in VLMs Optical Character Recognition VLM Evaluation Automated Evaluation

Mar 30, 2026

SEA: Evaluating Sketch Abstraction Efficiency via Element-level Commonsense Visual Question Answering

A sketch is a distilled form of visual abstraction that conveys core concepts through simplified yet purposeful strokes while omitting extraneous detail. Despite its expressive power, quantifying the efficiency of semantic abstraction in sketches remains challenging. Existing evaluation methods that rely on reference images, low-level visual features, or recognition accuracy do not capture abstraction, the defining property of sketches. To address these limitations, we introduce SEA (Sketch Evaluation metric for Abstraction efficiency), a reference-free metric that assesses how economically a sketch represents class-defining visual elements while preserving semantic recognizability. These elements are derived per class from commonsense knowledge about features typically depicted in sketches. SEA leverages a visual question answering model to determine the presence of each element and returns a quantitative score that reflects semantic retention under visual economy. To support this metric, we present CommonSketch, the first semantically annotated sketch dataset, comprising 23,100 human-drawn sketches across 300 classes, each paired with a caption and element-level annotations. Experiments show that SEA aligns closely with human judgments and reliably discriminates levels of abstraction efficiency, while CommonSketch serves as a benchmark providing systematic evaluation of element-level sketch understanding across various vision-language models.

Jiho Park, Sieun Choi, Jaeyoon Seo +3

Dongguk University, Republic of Korea

Automated Evaluation VLM Evaluation

Mar 29, 2026

Learning in Blocks: A Multi Agent Debate Assisted Personalized Adaptive Learning Framework for Language Learning

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.

Nicy Scaria, Silvester John Joseph Kennedy, Deepak Subramani

Indian Institute of Science, India · Talking Yak, India · Indian Institute of Technology Patna, India

Multi-Agent Debate Automated Evaluation Adaptive Learning

Mar 27, 2026

CREval: An Automated Interpretable Evaluation for Creative Image Manipulation under Complex Instructions

Instruction-based multimodal image manipulation has recently made rapid progress. However, existing evaluation methods lack a systematic and human-aligned framework for assessing model performance on complex and creative editing tasks. To address this gap, we propose CREval, a fully automated question-answer (QA)-based evaluation pipeline that overcomes the incompleteness and poor interpretability of opaque Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) scoring. Simultaneously, we introduce CREval-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed for creative image manipulation under complex instructions. CREval-Bench covers three categories and nine creative dimensions, comprising over 800 editing samples and 13K evaluation queries. Leveraging this pipeline and benchmark, we systematically evaluate a diverse set of state-of-the-art open and closed-source models. The results reveal that while closed-source models generally outperform open-source ones on complex and creative tasks, all models still struggle to complete such edits effectively. In addition, user studies demonstrate strong consistency between CREval's automated metrics and human judgments. Therefore, CREval provides a reliable foundation for evaluating image editing models on complex and creative image manipulation tasks, and highlights key challenges and opportunities for future research.

Chonghuinan Wang, Zihan Chen, Yuxiang Wei +5

Harbin Institute of Technology · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab · Pengcheng Lab, Guangzhou

Image Editing Evaluation Automated Evaluation Text-Guided Image Editing

Mar 25, 2026

When AI Meets Early Childhood Education: Large Language Models as Assessment Teammates in Chinese Preschools

High-quality teacher-child interaction (TCI) is fundamental to early childhood development, yet traditional expert-based assessment faces a critical scalability challenge. In large systems like China's-serving 36 million children across 250,000+ kindergartens-the cost and time requirements of manual observation make continuous quality monitoring infeasible, relegating assessment to infrequent episodic audits that limit timely intervention and improvement tracking. In this paper, we investigate whether AI can serve as a scalable assessment teammate by extracting structured quality indicators and validating their alignment with human expert judgments. Our contributions include: (1) TEPE-TCI-370h (Tracing Effective Preschool Education), the first large-scale dataset of naturalistic teacher-child interactions in Chinese preschools (370 hours, 105 classrooms) with standardized ECQRS-EC and SSTEW annotations; (2) We develop Interaction2Eval, a specialized LLM-based framework addressing domain-specific challenges-child speech recognition, Mandarin homophone disambiguation, and rubric-based reasoning-achieving up to 88% agreement; (3) Deployment validation across 43 classrooms demonstrating an 18x efficiency gain in the assessment workflow, highlighting its potential for shifting from annual expert audits to monthly AI-assisted monitoring with targeted human oversight. This work not only demonstrates the technical feasibility of scalable, AI-augmented quality assessment but also lays the foundation for a new paradigm in early childhood education-one where continuous, inclusive, AI-assisted evaluation becomes the engine of systemic improvement and equitable growth.

Xingming Li, Runke Huang, Yanan Bao +3

National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Educational Assessment Automated Evaluation AI in Education Generative AI in Education

Mar 23, 2026

Evaluating the Reliability and Fidelity of Automated Judgment Systems of Large Language Models

A Large Language Model (LLM) as judge evaluates the quality of victim Machine Learning (ML) models, specifically LLMs, by analyzing their outputs. An LLM as judge is the combination of one model and one specifically engineered judge prompt that contains the criteria for the analysis. The resulting automation of the analysis scales up the complex evaluation of the victim models' free-form text outputs by faster and more consistent judgments compared to human reviewers. Thus, quality and security assessments of LLMs can cover a wide range of the victim models' use cases. Being a comparably new technique, LLMs as judges lack a thorough investigation for their reliability and agreement to human judgment. Our work evaluates the applicability of LLMs as automated quality assessors of victim LLMs. We test the efficacy of 37 differently sized conversational LLMs in combination with 5 different judge prompts, the concept of a second-level judge, and 5 models fine-tuned for the task as assessors. As assessment objective, we curate datasets for eight different categories of judgment tasks and the corresponding ground-truth labels based on human assessments. Our empirical results show a high correlation of LLMs as judges with human assessments, when combined with a suitable prompt, in particular for GPT-4o, several open-source models with

\geqslant

32B parameters, and a few smaller models like Qwen2.5 14B.

Tom Biskupski, Stephan Kleber

Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart, Germany · Ravensburg-Weingarten University of Applied Sciences Weingarten, Germany

LLM-as-a-Judge Automated Evaluation LLM Reliability Human-AI Agreement

Mar 19, 2026

Beyond String Matching: Semantic Evaluation of PDF Table Extraction

Reliably extracting tables from PDFs is essential for large-scale scientific data mining and knowledge base construction, yet existing evaluation approaches rely on rule-based metrics that fail to capture semantic equivalence of table content. We present a benchmarking framework based on synthetically generated PDFs with precise LaTeX ground truth, using tables sourced from arXiv to ensure realistic complexity and diversity. As our central methodological contribution, we apply LLM-as-a-judge for semantic table evaluation, integrated into a matching pipeline that accommodates inconsistencies in parser outputs. Through a human validation study comprising over 1,500 quality judgments on extracted table pairs, we show that LLM-based evaluation achieves substantially higher correlation with human judgment (Pearson r=0.93) compared to currently used Tree Edit Distance-based Similarity (TEDS, r=0.68) and Grid Table Similarity (GriTS, r=0.70). Evaluating 21 contemporary PDF parsers across 100 synthetic documents containing 451 tables reveals significant performance disparities. Our results offer practical guidance for selecting parsers for tabular data extraction and establish a reproducible, scalable evaluation methodology for this critical task. Code and data: https://github.com/phorn1/pdf-parse-bench Metric study and human evaluation: https://github.com/phorn1/table-metric-study

Pius Horn, Janis Keuper

Institute for Machine Learning and Analytics (IMLA), Offenburg University, Offenburg, Germany · University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

Document Parsing Benchmarks Document Information Extraction Automated Evaluation Table Structure Recognition LLM-as-a-Judge

Mar 17, 2026

CoMAI: A Collaborative Multi-Agent Framework for Robust and Equitable Interview Evaluation

Ensuring robust and fair interview assessment remains a key challenge in AI-driven evaluation. This paper presents CoMAI, a general-purpose multi-agent interview framework designed for diverse assessment scenarios. In contrast to monolithic single-agent systems based on large language models (LLMs), CoMAI employs a modular task-decomposition architecture coordinated through a centralized finite-state machine. The system comprises four agents specialized in question generation, security, scoring, and summarization. These agents work collaboratively to provide multi-layered security defenses against prompt injection, support multidimensional evaluation with adaptive difficulty adjustment, and enable rubric-based structured scoring that reduces subjective bias. Experimental results demonstrate that CoMAI achieved 90.47% accuracy, 83.33% recall, and 84.41% candidate satisfaction. These results highlight CoMAI as a robust, fair, and interpretable paradigm for AI-driven interview assessment.

Gengxin Sun, Ruihao Yu, Liangyi Yin +3

Shandong University, Qingdao, China · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Shandong University, Jinan, China

Automated Evaluation Multi-Agent Systems AI Agent Evaluation

Mar 16, 2026

Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose: User-aware Agent Evaluation with Automated Error Analysis

Agent applications are increasingly adopted to automate workflows across diverse tasks. However, due to the heterogeneous domains they operate in, it is challenging to create a scalable evaluation framework. Prior works each employ their own methods to determine task success, such as database lookups, regex match, etc., adding complexity to the development of a unified agent evaluation approach. Moreover, they do not systematically account for the user's role nor expertise in the interaction, providing incomplete insights into the agent's performance. We argue that effective agent evaluation goes beyond correctness alone, incorporating conversation quality, efficiency and systematic diagnosis of agent errors. To address this, we introduce the TED framework (Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose). (1) Talk: We leverage reusable, generic expert and non-expert user persona templates for user-agent interaction. (2) Evaluate: We adapt existing datasets by representing subgoals-such as tool signatures, and responses-as natural language grading notes, evaluated automatically with LLM-as-a-judge. We propose new metrics that capture both turn efficiency and intermediate progress of the agent complementing the user-aware setup. (3) Diagnose: We introduce an automated error analysis tool that analyzes the inconsistencies of the judge and agents, uncovering common errors, and providing actionable feedback for agent improvement. We show that our TED framework reveals new insights regarding agent performance across models and user expertise levels. We also demonstrate potential gains in agent performance with peaks of 8-10% on our proposed metrics after incorporating the identified error remedies into the agent's design.

Penny Chong, Harshavardhan Abichandani, Jiyuan Shen +4

SAP · Stanford University

LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation Automated Agent Evaluation Automated Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Mar 16, 2026

Beyond Benchmark Islands: Toward Representative Trustworthiness Evaluation for Agentic AI

Agentic AI systems increasingly act through tool-augmented, multi-step workflows whose failures (unsafe tool use, unauthorised actions, social harm) carry deployment-level consequences. Evaluation practice remains fragmented across isolated benchmark slices, and "trustworthiness" is frequently invoked but rarely defined operationally. We argue the central limitation is twofold: (i) the absence of a measurable specification of what agent trustworthiness means, and (ii) the lack of a principled notion of representativeness allowing assessment over a socio-technical scenario distribution rather than disconnected benchmark instances. We address (i) by defining agentic trustworthiness as a five-property profile (Reliability, Robustness, Safety, Social-Ethical Alignment, Operational Integrity) grounded in current AI risk frameworks, and (ii) with the Holographic Agent Assessment Framework (HAAF), which measures this profile over a scenario manifold through static policy analysis, sandbox simulation, social-ethical alignment assessment, and distribution-aware sampling, connected through an iterative Trustworthy Optimization Factory that converts red-team diagnoses into blue-team interventions. Our contributions are: (1) an operational five-property definition of agentic trustworthiness; (2) a distribution-aware scenario-sampling framework that surfaces property-level trade-offs invisible to scalar leaderboards; and (3) a cross-family transfer experiment in which interventions designed from a single focal model generalise -- without per-model or per-scenario tuning -- to 13 systems from seven model families (Llama, Mistral, Kimi, GLM, Qwen, GPT, DeepSeek) on a 100-scenario suite, where all 13 systems improve and two reach a perfect risk-weighted profile, establishing HAAF's Factory as a model-agnostic deployment-readiness pipeline. Code: https://github.com/TonyQJH/haaf-pilot

Jinhu Qi, Yifan Li, Minghao Zhao +4

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · Macao Polytechnic University, Macao SAR, China · Jilin University, Changchun, China

AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Safety Automated Evaluation AI Agent Reliability

Mar 13, 2026

Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications

LLM applications are AI systems whose nondeterministic outputs and evolving model behavior make traditional testing insufficient for release governance. We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions (PROMOTE/HOLD/ROLLBACK) across five empirically grounded dimensions: task success rate, research context preservation, P95 latency, safety pass rate, and evidence coverage. We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system with specific marketing capabilities in active development, covering 38 evaluation runs across 20+ internal releases. The gate identified two ROLLBACK-grade builds in early runs and supported stable quality evolution over a four-week staging lifecycle while exercising persona-grounded, multi-turn, adversarial, and evidence-required scenarios. Statistical analysis (Mann-Kendall trends, Spearman correlations, bootstrap confidence intervals), gate ablation, and overhead scaling indicate that evidence coverage is the primary severe-regression discriminator and that runtime scales predictably with suite size. A human calibration study (n=60 stratified cases, two independent evaluators, LLM-as-judge cross-validation) reveals complementary multi-modal coverage: LLM-judge disagreements with the system gate (kappa=0.13) are attributable to structural failure modes - latency violations and routing errors - invisible in response text alone, while the judge independently surfaces content quality failures missed by structural checks, consistent with a multi-dimensional gate design. The framework, supplementary pseudocode, and calibration artifacts are provided to support AI-system quality assurance and independent replication.

Alexandre Cristovão Maiorano

Automated Evaluation

Mar 12, 2026

AnimeScore: A Preference-Based Dataset and Framework for Evaluating Anime-Like Speech Style

Evaluating 'anime-like' voices currently relies on costly subjective judgments, yet no standardized objective metric exists. A key challenge is that anime-likeness, unlike naturalness, lacks a shared absolute scale, making conventional Mean Opinion Score (MOS) protocols unreliable. To address this gap, we propose AnimeScore, a preference-based framework for automatic anime-likeness evaluation via pairwise ranking. We collect 15,000 pairwise judgments from 187 evaluators with free-form descriptions, and acoustic analysis reveals that perceived anime-likeness is driven by controlled resonance shaping, prosodic continuity, and deliberate articulation rather than simple heuristics such as high pitch. We show that handcrafted acoustic features reach a 69.3% AUC ceiling, while SSL-based ranking models achieve up to 90.8% AUC, providing a practical metric that can also serve as a reward signal for preference-based optimization of generative speech models.

Joonyong Park, Jerry Li

Spellbrush, USA

Automated Evaluation Speech Quality Assessment

Mar 11, 2026

ECoLAD: Selecting Anomaly Detectors for Automotive Deployment via Compute-Reduction Evaluation

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.

Kadir-Kaan Özer, René Ebeling, Markus Enzweiler

Mercedes-Benz AG, Germany. · Esslingen University of Applied Sciences, Germany.

Efficient Neural Network Inference Automated Evaluation Time-Series Anomaly Detection Anomaly Detection

Mar 11, 2026

End-to-End Chatbot Evaluation with Adaptive Reasoning and Uncertainty Filtering

Large language models (LLMs) combined with retrieval augmented generation have enabled the deployment of domain-specific chatbots, but these systems remain prone to generating unsupported or incorrect answers. Reliable evaluation is therefore critical, yet manual review is costly and existing frameworks often depend on curated test sets and static metrics, limiting scalability. We propose an end-to-end automatic evaluator designed to substantially reduce human effort. Our system generates Q&A pairs directly from the underlying knowledge base, uses LLMs to judge chatbot responses against reference answers, and applies confidence-based filtering to highlight uncertain cases. Applied to a Vietnamese news dataset, the evaluator achieves high agreement with human judgments while significantly lowering review overhead. The framework is modular and language-agnostic, making it readily adaptable to diverse domains. This work introduces a practical, scalable solution for evaluating chatbots with minimal reliance on manual intervention.

Nhi Dang, Tung Le, Huy Tien Nguyen

Faculty of Information Technology, University of Science, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Automated Evaluation RAG Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge

Mar 11, 2026

Is this Idea Novel? An Automated Benchmark for Judgment of Research Ideas

Judging the novelty of research ideas is crucial for advancing science, enabling the identification of unexplored directions, and ensuring contributions meaningfully extend existing knowledge rather than reiterate minor variations. However, given the exponential growth of scientific literature, manually judging the novelty of research ideas through literature reviews is labor-intensive, subjective, and infeasible at scale. Therefore, recent efforts have proposed automated approaches for research idea novelty judgment. Yet, evaluation of these approaches remains largely inconsistent and is typically based on non-standardized human evaluations, hindering large-scale, comparable evaluations. To address this, we introduce RINoBench, the first comprehensive benchmark for large-scale evaluation of research idea novelty judgments. It comprises 1,381 research ideas derived from and judged by human experts as well as nine automated evaluation metrics designed to assess both rubric-based novelty scores and textual justifications of novelty judgments. Using this benchmark, we evaluate several state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on their ability to judge the novelty of research ideas. Our findings reveal that while LLM-generated reasoning closely mirrors human rationales, this alignment does not reliably translate into accurate novelty judgments, which diverge significantly from human gold standard judgments - even among leading reasoning-capable models. Data and code available at: https://github.com/TimSchopf/RINoBench.

Tim Schopf, Michael Färber

TU Dresden & ScaDS.AI Dresden/Leipzig, Germany · National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan

Automated Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Evaluation

Mar 10, 2026

One-Eval: An Agentic System for Automated and Traceable LLM Evaluation

Reliable evaluation is essential for developing and deploying large language models, yet in practice it often requires substantial manual effort: practitioners must identify appropriate benchmarks, reproduce heterogeneous evaluation codebases, configure dataset schema mappings, and interpret aggregated metrics. To address these challenges, we present One-Eval, an agentic evaluation system that converts natural-language evaluation requests into executable, traceable, and customizable evaluation workflows. One-Eval integrates (i) NL2Bench for intent structuring and personalized benchmark planning, (ii) BenchResolve for benchmark resolution, automatic dataset acquisition, and schema normalization to ensure executability, and (iii) Metrics & Reporting for task-aware metric selection and decision-oriented reporting beyond scalar scores. The system further incorporates human-in-the-loop checkpoints for review, editing, and rollback, while preserving sample evidence trails for debugging and auditability. Experiments show that One-Eval can execute end-to-end evaluations from diverse natural-language requests with minimal user effort, supporting more efficient and reproducible evaluation in industrial settings. Our framework is publicly available at https://github.com/OpenDCAI/One-Eval.

Chengyu Shen, Yanheng Hou, Minghui Pan +8

Peking University · Beijing Institute of Technology · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications +1

Automated Evaluation LLM Evaluation Agent Evaluation

Mar 10, 2026

MiniAppBench: Evaluating the Shift from Text to Interactive HTML Responses in LLM-Powered Assistants

With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation, human-AI interaction is evolving from static text responses to dynamic, interactive HTML-based applications, which we term MiniApps. These applications require models to not only render visual interfaces but also construct customized interaction logic that adheres to real-world principles. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on algorithmic correctness or static layout reconstruction, failing to capture the capabilities required for this new paradigm. To address this gap, we introduce MiniAppBench, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate principle-driven, interactive application generation. Sourced from a real-world application with 10M+ generations, MiniAppBench distills 500 tasks across six domains (e.g., Games, Science, and Tools). Furthermore, to tackle the challenge of evaluating open-ended interactions where no single ground truth exists, we propose MiniAppEval, an agentic evaluation framework. Leveraging browser automation, it performs human-like exploratory testing to systematically assess applications across three dimensions: Intention, Static, and Dynamic. Our experiments reveal that current LLMs still face significant challenges in generating high-quality MiniApps, while MiniAppEval demonstrates high alignment with human judgment, establishing a reliable standard for future research. Our homepage is available in miniappbench.github.io.

Zuhao Zhang, Chengyue Yu, Yuante Li +3

Inclusion AI, Ant Group, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Web Application Generation LLM Evaluation Automated Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Mar 9, 2026

Evaluating LLM-Based Grant Proposal Review via Structured Perturbations

As AI-assisted grant proposals outpace manual review capacity in a kind of ``Malthusian trap'' for the research ecosystem, this paper investigates the capabilities and limitations of LLM-based grant reviewing for high-stakes evaluation. Using six EPSRC proposals, we develop a perturbation-based framework probing LLM sensitivity across six quality axes: funding, timeline, competency, alignment, clarity, and impact. We compare three review architectures: single-pass review, section-by-section analysis, and a 'Council of Personas' ensemble emulating expert panels. The section-level approach significantly outperforms alternatives in both detection rate and scoring reliability, while the computationally expensive council method performs no better than baseline. Detection varies substantially by perturbation type, with alignment issues readily identified but clarity flaws largely missed by all systems. Human evaluation shows LLM feedback is largely valid but skewed toward compliance checking over holistic assessment. We conclude that current LLMs may provide supplementary value within EPSRC review but exhibit high variability and misaligned review priorities. We release our code and any non-protected data.

William Thorne, Joseph James, Yang Wang +2

University of Sheffield, UK · University of Manchester, UK

Automated Peer Review Automated Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Robustness

Mar 9, 2026

Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization

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.

Hongli Zhou, Hui Huang, Rui Zhang +5

Faculty of Computing, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China

LLM-as-a-Judge Social Bias in Language Models Language Model Debiasing Language Model Bias Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Automated Evaluation

Mar 8, 2026

An Efficient and Effective Evaluator for Text2SQL Models on Unseen and Unlabeled Data

Recent advances in large language models have strengthened Text2SQL systems that translate natural language questions into database queries. A persistent deployment challenge is to assess a newly trained Text2SQL system on an unseen and unlabeled dataset when no verified answers are available. This situation arises frequently because database content and structure evolve, privacy policies slow manual review, and carefully written SQL labels are costly and time-consuming. Without timely evaluation, organizations cannot approve releases or detect failures early. FusionSQL addresses this gap by working with any Text2SQL models and estimating accuracy without reference labels, allowing teams to measure quality on unseen and unlabeled datasets. It analyzes patterns in the system's own outputs to characterize how the target dataset differs from the material used during training. FusionSQL supports pre-release checks, continuous monitoring of new databases, and detection of quality decline. Experiments across diverse application settings and question types show that FusionSQL closely follows actual accuracy and reliably signals emerging issues. Our code is available at https://github.com/phkhanhtrinh23/FusionSQL.

Trinh Pham, Thanh Tam Nguyen, Viet Huynh +2

Griffith University (Australia) · Edith Cowan University (Australia) · The University of Queensland (Australia)

Automated Evaluation Text-to-SQL Distribution Shift

Mar 8, 2026

Beyond Surrogates: A Quantitative Analysis for Inter-Metric Relationships

The Consistency property between surrogate losses and evaluation metrics has been extensively studied to ensure that minimizing a loss leads to metric optimality. However, the direct relationship between different evaluation metrics remains significantly underexplored. This theoretical gap results in the "Metric Mismatch" frequently observed in industrial applications, where gains in offline validation metrics fail to translate into online performance. To bridge this disconnection, this paper proposes a unified theoretical framework designed to quantify the relationships between metrics. We categorize metrics into different classes to facilitate a comparative analysis across different mathematical forms and interrogates these relationships through Bayes-Optimal Set and Regret Transfer. Through this framework, we provide a new perspective on identifying the structural asymmetry in regret transfer, enabling the design of evaluation systems that are theoretically guaranteed to align offline improvements with online objectives.

Yuanhao Pu, Defu Lian, Enhong Chen

School of Artificial Intelligence & Data Science, University of Science and Technology of China · State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, China · School of Computer Science & Technology, University of Science and Technology of China

Automated Evaluation

Mar 7, 2026

PresentBench: A Fine-Grained Rubric-Based Benchmark for Slide Generation

Slides serve as a critical medium for conveying information in presentation-oriented scenarios such as academia, education, and business. Despite their importance, creating high-quality slide decks remains time-consuming and cognitively demanding. Recent advances in generative models, such as Nano Banana Pro, have made automated slide generation increasingly feasible. However, existing evaluations of slide generation are often coarse-grained and rely on holistic judgments, making it difficult to accurately assess model capabilities or track meaningful advances in the field. In practice, the lack of fine-grained, verifiable evaluation criteria poses a critical bottleneck for both research and real-world deployment. In this paper, we propose PresentBench, a fine-grained, rubric-based benchmark for evaluating automated real-world slide generation. It contains 238 evaluation instances, each supplemented with background materials required for slide creation. Moreover, we manually design an average of 54.1 checklist items per instance, each formulated as a binary question, to enable fine-grained, instance-specific evaluation of the generated slide decks. Extensive experiments show that PresentBench provides more reliable evaluation results than existing methods, and exhibits significantly stronger alignment with human preferences. Furthermore, our benchmark reveals that NotebookLM significantly outperforms other slide generation methods, highlighting substantial recent progress in this domain.

Xin-Sheng Chen, Jiayu Zhu, Pei-lin Li +3

Tsinghua University

Benchmark Design Generative AI Evaluation Automated Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation

Mar 7, 2026

AutoChecklist: Composable Pipelines for Checklist Generation and Scoring with LLM-as-a-Judge

Checklists have emerged as a popular approach for interpretable and fine-grained evaluation, particularly with LLM-as-a-Judge. Beyond evaluation, these structured criteria can serve as signals for model alignment, reinforcement learning, and self-correction. To support these use cases, we present AutoChecklist, an open-source library that unifies checklist-based evaluation into composable pipelines. At its core is a taxonomy of five checklist generation abstractions, each encoding a distinct strategy for deriving evaluation criteria. A modular Generator

\rightarrow

Refiner

\rightarrow

Scorer pipeline connects any generator with a unified scorer, and new configurations can be registered via prompt templates alone. The library ships with ten built-in pipelines implementing published approaches and supports multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, OpenRouter, vLLM). Beyond the Python API, the library includes a CLI for off-the-shelf evaluation and a web interface for interactive exploration. Validation experiments confirm that these checklist methods significantly align with human preferences and quality ratings, and a case study on ICLR peer review rebuttals demonstrates flexible domain adaptation. AutoChecklist is publicly available at https://github.com/ChicagoHAI/AutoChecklist.

Karen Zhou, Chenhao Tan

University of Chicago

Automated Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge

Mar 6, 2026

Deep Research, Shallow Evaluation: A Case Study in Meta-Evaluation for Long-Form QA Benchmarks

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

Jena D. Hwang, Varsha Kishore, Amanpreet Singh +9

Allen Institute for AI

Automated Evaluation RAG Evaluation Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Question Answering