Automated Evaluation

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

A recent line of research on spoken language assessment (SLA) employs neural models such as BERT and wav2vec 2.0 (W2V) to evaluate speaking proficiency across linguistic and acoustic modalities. Although both models effectively capture features relevant to oral competence, each exhibits modality-specific limitations. BERT-based methods rely on ASR transcripts, which often fail to capture prosodic and phonetic cues for SLA. In contrast, W2V-based methods excel at modeling acoustic features but lack semantic interpretability. To overcome these limitations, we propose a system that integrates W2V with Phi-4 multimodal large language model (MLLM) through a score fusion strategy. The proposed system achieves a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.375 on the official test set of the Speak & Improve Challenge 2025, securing second place in the competition. For comparison, the RMSEs of the top-ranked, third-ranked, and official baseline systems are 0.364, 0.384, and 0.444, respectively.

The steady improvements of text-to-image (T2I) generative models lead to slow deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks that rely on static datasets, motivating researchers to seek alternative ways to evaluate T2I progress. We present Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE), an evaluation framework in which a single multimodal large language model (MLLM) acts as an evaluator agent, iteratively generating the evaluation prompts and scoring the resulting images. We show that MT2IE's image-text consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than metrics previously introduced in the literature. MT2IE generates prompts that are efficient at probing T2I model performance: closely recovering the official T2I model rankings of three structurally distinct benchmarks from just 20 generated evaluation prompts, 28-105x fewer than the benchmarks' own prompt sets. When compared to existing evaluation metrics such as CLIPScore, VIEScore, and VQAScore, MT2IE's T2I model rankings are more faithful and far more consistent across multiple evaluation seeds when using the same number of prompts. MT2IE can also adapt evaluation to the model being tested: rewriting each prompt based on the model's own measured performance to produce a bespoke per-model benchmark that still recovers the official rankings and keeps the evaluated model in an informative scoring range. We hope that these results will encourage the development of dynamic and interactive evaluation frameworks, and mitigate the deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness. Meanwhile, using LLMs themselves as evaluators without external grounding remains unreliable for objective tasks, as they systematically over-accept incorrect answers, fabricate supporting rationales, and degrade sharply on questions that fall outside their training data. We propose Search-AuGmented Evaluation (SAGE), a framework to assess LLM outputs without fixed ground-truth answers. Unlike conventional metrics that compare to static references or depend solely on LLM-as-a-judge knowledge, SAGE acts as an agent that actively retrieves and synthesizes external evidence. It iteratively generates web queries, collects information, summarizes findings, and refines subsequent searches through reflection. By reducing dependence on static reference-driven evaluation protocols, SAGE offers a scalable and adaptive alternative for evaluating the factuality of LLMs. Experimental results on multiple free-form QA benchmarks show that SAGE achieves substantial to perfect agreement with human evaluations.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly improved medical screening accuracy, particularly in cancer detection and risk assessment. However, traditional classification metrics often fail to account for imbalanced data, varying performance across cohorts, and patient-level inconsistencies, leading to biased evaluations. We propose the cohort-attention evaluation metrics for tied data (CAT). CAT introduces patient-level assessment, entropy-based distribution weighting, and cohort-weighted sensitivity and specificity. Key metrics like CAT Sensitivity, CAT Specificity, and CAT Mean ensure balanced and fair evaluation across diverse populations. This approach enhances predictive reliability, fairness, and interpretability, providing a robust evaluation method for AI-driven medical screening models.

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

Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting. There has been a significant increase in the usage of large language models (LLMs) in various applications, both in their original form and through fine-tuned adaptations. As a result, LLMs have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. However, one of the concerns with LLMs is the potential generation of socially biased content. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. In this work, we propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs (e.g., GPT-4 \cite{openai2023gpt4}) to assess bias in models. We also introduce prompts called Bias Attack Instructions, which are specifically designed for evaluating model bias. To enhance the credibility and interpretability of bias evaluation, our framework not only provides a bias score but also offers detailed information, including bias types, affected demographics, keywords, reasons behind the biases, and suggestions for improvement. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and usability of our bias evaluation framework.