Automated Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

48 papers in the last four weeks, up 12% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 321

Sep 22, 2026cs.AI

JEV-as-a-Judge: Accept When Confident, Escalate When Unsure

LLM-as-a-judge scales evaluation, but reasoning judges are slow and costly. We study JEV-as-a-Judge: evaluation with JEV, a decision-only judge that returns label probabilities instead of text, and whose confidence decides whether to accept its verdict or escalate to a reasoning judge. Against sixteen generative and reward-model judges, with blinded human adjudication, JEV comes within three points of GPT-6 wherever a verdict can be read off the text, at 0.36% of its fee and a 0.15-second median latency, and falls behind where the verdict must be derived, as in math, code, and logic. Its confidence marks this boundary. With a threshold frozen in advance, accepting confident verdicts and escalating the rest is 0.9 points more accurate than GPT-6 on 1,610 held-out pairs at 41% of its fee, and in a pre-specified live test on two new workloads the cascade matches GPT-6's accuracy exactly. Confidence routing weakens on style-adversarial pairs and reference-free prose; we close with a simple recipe for validating thresholds locally.

Yubo Li, Yidi Miao, Ramayya Krishnan +1

Carnegie Mellon University

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Selective Prediction LLM Uncertainty Estimation Automated Evaluation

Sep 22, 2026cs.LG

Auditing Proxy-Based Validation Across Text Spans

Evaluation scores are often validated by their agreement with inexpensive proxy labels. When the score and the proxy are computed from the same text span, however, that agreement can arise from surface evidence the two share rather than from the semantic construct the proxy is meant to represent. We make the distinction explicit by declaring the score, its span, the proxy and the target construct as a validation contract, then re-evaluating that proxy rule strictly outside the scored span. In a controlled HotpotQA correctness experiment varying only the shared text boundary, the score agrees with its proxy far better than with correctness at a 50-character prefix: the gap is +0.184, collapsing to at most +0.045 from 120 characters onward. At that short prefix the score still predicts whether the answer string appears later (AUC 0.634) while an equivalence test places its agreement with correctness at chance, so the reported proxy agreement does not establish that the score ranks correctness. On OR-Bench, suppressing each model's recurring opening templates removes most of the score's association with the refusal proxy, while matched-volume deletion removes almost none and construct agreement stays at chance. Only three of eleven external contracts support the off-span control, and none of the routing studies we sampled released the generations it needs. We therefore ask that a proxy-based validation claim declare the span each label is read from, report the construct agreement beside the proxy agreement, and release the generations that let the proxy be re-read off the scored span.

Daein Weon, Dong Ho Kang

Kookmin University · UStechlab

Benchmark Validity Automated Evaluation Language Model Auditing

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

LLJ Cards: Best practices for the Use of LLMs as Judges

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these systems have been widely adopted by researchers and practitioners across a broad range of measurement tasks, driven by their strong performance, scalability, and cost-effectiveness relative to human judgment. However, a growing body of work has shown that the use of LLJs raise concerns about their validity and reliability as evaluators. Existing efforts to address these challenges have largely focused on developing bias-mitigation techniques and refining prompting strategies. While these approaches represent an important step forward, they primarily offer technical fixes and leave a more fundamental challenge unaddressed: the lack of standardized, transparent, and reproducible evaluation practices. In this paper, we introduce LLJ Cards, a framework that synthesizes best practices from measurement theory, natural language generation, and machine learning literature into practical guidelines for LLJ-based evaluations. While LLJs offer a promising path toward scalable evaluation, their effective use requires grounding in rigorous evaluation principles to ensure validity, reliability, and reproducibility. LLJ Cards addresses this need by providing a structured framework for applying these principles in the design and reporting of automated evaluations.

Khaoula Chehbouni, Melina Medjdoub, Florian Carichon +2

McGill University · Mila - Quebec AI Institute · Concordia University

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Reliability Automated Evaluation

Sep 20, 2026cs.CL

Automated Evaluation of Multi-Turn Dialogues in In-Car Conversational Assistants

In-car conversational assistants (ICAs) are increasingly integrated into vehicles to support route planning, vehicle control, and information access. Ensuring their reliability is challenging due to multi-turn interactions, the absence of explicit ground truth, and strict safety constraints. Existing evaluation techniques fall short, as they target single-turn settings and fail to capture constraint handling, context retention, and safety-critical behavior across turns. We propose an automated framework for testing the multi-turn conversational capabilities of ICAs. The system is treated as a black box and evaluated via closed-loop simulation with a strategy-guided user simulator, an adversarial strategy manager, and a two-tier LLM judge assessing turn-level failures and conversation-level quality. We evaluate the approach on an industrial ICA with six LLM backends and twelve human annotators. The automated judge shows substantial agreement with humans, and strategy guidance uncovers 2.96 times more unique failure types per conversation and more than doubles the number of unique failing conversations compared to unguided simulation.

Vaishnav Negi, Lev Sorokin, Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh +1

Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany · BMW Group, Germany · Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany +2

Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation Voice Agent Evaluation Automated Evaluation User Simulation

Sep 18, 2026cs.CL

Preserving What Matters: Semantic Scaffolds Beyond Saturation in Summarization Evaluation

Summarization ships in countless production systems, making model selection a routine decision that depends on measuring summary quality. Existing metrics struggle to support this: ROUGE captures only surface overlap, while LLM-as-judge scores saturate to near-identical values that fail to rank models effectively. We observe this saturation across three public datasets, two proprietary datasets, and multilingual settings. Motivated by this, we introduce Semantic Scaffold, an evaluation framework that extracts a hierarchical representation of facts, questions, and entity attributes from a source text, labeling each as a main point or supporting detail, and reusing this structure as a fixed reference for scoring summaries. From this representation, we derive three diagnostic metrics: Fact Preservation Score (FPS), Question Preservation Score (QPS), and Entity Preservation Score (EPS), designed to reward the preservation of essential information while penalizing detail overload, and position them as interpretable diagnostics that remain informative where holistic axes collapse. Finally, we analyze four recurring failure modes of ROUGE and LLM-as-judge scores, demonstrating that scaffold-based evaluation remains informative where conventional metrics collapse.

Nikhil Reddy Pottanigari, Ramin Fahimi, Noah Bolger +2

ServiceNow Canada

LLM Evaluation Text Summarization Summarization Evaluation Automated Evaluation

Sep 18, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Reference-Based Evaluation: Reward Models for Meta-Evaluation of Grammatical Error Correction

Reference-based metrics for Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) such as M

^2

and ERRANT assume that the reference set enumerates all valid edits, and therefore often penalize corrections that are grammatical and meaning-preserving but phrased differently. We introduce RM-EVAL, a reward model trained on human preference data from SEEDA, as a reference-free meta-evaluator that predicts human-like quality judgments at both full-sequence and partial-sequence levels. Beyond evaluation, we show that the same reward model can be used as a learning signal to improve GEC generation via Reward-Guided Text Generation (RGTG), which keeps a base GEC model frozen and performs online, reward-driven decoding. Across SEEDA, RM-EVAL achieves strong agreement with human rankings, and RGTG yields consistent gains in reward and external validation, demonstrating a unified framework for both assessing and enhancing GEC systems without relying on gold references.

Ruotian Wu, Bill E. Johnson, Gene Saunders +3

University of Waterloo · Vector Institute · Scribendi Inc.

Grammatical Error Correction Automated Evaluation Reference-Free Evaluation Reward Model Evaluation Text Generation

Sep 17, 2026cs.DL

greCAPTCHA: Assessing Understanding as Evidence of Research Authorship Under Generative AI

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with

31

researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of

0.90

. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

Justin Payan, Bálint Gyevnár, Atoosa Kasirzadeh +1

Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University · Institute for Complex Social Dynamics, Carnegie Mellon University · Departments of Philosophy & Software and Societal Systems, Carnegie Mellon University +1

Authorship Attribution Automated Evaluation Human Oversight of AI

Sep 17, 2026cs.AI

E-AVI: Evidence-Grounded Multimodal Assessment for Automated Video Interviews

Automated video interview assessment integrates verbal content, acoustic delivery, and visual behavior, yet numerical predictions alone provide limited inspectable support. We present E-AVI, an evidence-grounded framework that extracts timestamped multimodal evidence and integrates dimension-conditioned evidence attention with source-level embeddings for scoring. A shared evidence pool further supports natural-language feedback and follow-up question answering. On RecruitView and a private hospitality dataset, E-AVI consistently outperforms fine-tuned multimodal baselines in rank correlation. Ablation, evidence-deletion, bootstrap, human-audit, and QA analyses characterize the predictive contribution, grounding, and practical utility of the evidence pathway. Together, these results demonstrate that our proposed E-AVI framework improves predictive performance while providing inspectable support for assessment, feedback, and interactive analysis.

Haoshen Wang, Dongbo Che, Zeyi Xie +3

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Independent Researcher

Multimodal Grounding Audio-Visual Understanding Automated Evaluation

Sep 16, 2026cs.CL

A Benchmark Framework for Screening Automation in Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews (SR) are essential for evidence-based research, but their screening phase is highly time-consuming and labor-intensive. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising opportunity to reduce this workload by assisting with article relevance classification. However, existing evaluation approaches often rely on traditional metrics that may be misleading for highly imbalanced SR screening datasets. This paper presents a benchmark dataset of

45\,064

labeled entries for evaluating LLM performance in SR screening across 32 curated secondary studies. It proposes an evaluation framework that accounts for class imbalance, i.e., the natural prevalence of excluded articles relative to included articles in SRs. It also introduces PromptSR, a tool designed to support prompt experimentation, experiment management, and result analysis for LLM-based screening. We also present a use case demonstrating the application of SRBench and PromptSR.

Gauransh Kumar, Luciano Marchezan, Guillaume Genois +2

Université de Montréal Montreal, Canada

LLM Evaluation Evidence Selection Automated Evaluation

Sep 16, 2026cs.CL

I code or AI code: A comparative evaluation of AI-rated scores in classroom observations

Classroom observations are widely recognized as a key tool for establishing benchmarks of education quality and guiding pedagogical improvement, yet they remain resource-intensive and dependent on trained observers. This study evaluated the feasibility of using a LLM (GPT-5 model) to score teacher-child interactions in early childhood classrooms, benchmarked against human raters. The study analyzed 87 video-recorded observations from 38 classrooms across 30 kindergartens in Hong Kong. Using observation transcripts, the AI model was configured to apply the full Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) framework. AI-rated scores were then compared with human ratings by examining correlations and differences in mean scores of the CLASS domains and dimensions. The results showed greater convergence between AI and raters for the Emotional Support domain and, in particular, the Quality of Feedback dimension, which captures how teachers use feedback to extend children's learning. Greater divergence emerged for interactions that were more procedural or context-dependent, particularly within the Classroom Organization and Instructional Support domains. These findings suggest that transcript-based AI scoring may capture some of the relative variation in teacher-child interactions but cannot yet reproduce calibrated human judgements consistently across the full CLASS framework. AI-assisted observation may therefore be more appropriate as a preliminary screening tool rather than as a replacement for trained observers, providing teachers with evidence for reflection rather than high-stakes evaluation. Future research should examine whether domain-specific training and incorporation of contextual and visual information can improve alignment between AI and human rated scores.

Y. Fong, J. Xiang, T. Y. D. Chan +2

Department of Early Childhood Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong SAR, China · Yew Chung College of Early Childhood Education, 2 Tin Wan Hill Road, Tin Wan, Hong Kong SAR, China

LLM-as-a-Judge Educational Assessment AI in Education Automated Evaluation Generative AI Evaluation

Sep 14, 2026cs.LG

The record is part of the task: matched-record evaluation of text classifiers across maintenance, safety and recall reporting

Many operational cases are documented more than once, at different workflow stages and for different purposes, yet model evaluations normally select one of these records before model comparison begins. We treat that selection as part of the evaluation and compare matched records of the same cases under fixed labels and splits in three systems: GE Aerospace repair events, NASA ASRS safety reports and NHTSA vehicle recalls. Across the three GE fields, for events whose label comes from parts transactions independently of the narratives, held-out macro-F1 ranged from 0.33 to 0.91. A difference of 0.46 separated the customer report, written before shop work, from the technician report, written after diagnosis but before the transaction that generates the label. That difference is substantially larger than the representation and architecture differences tested on the same events. The public systems showed different patterns: the NHTSA defect summary remained strongest under every model family tested, whereas the ASRS analyst synopsis outperformed the reporter narrative under learned sequence models but not under lexical baselines. Secondary analyses showed that some model comparisons were also record-dependent. Evaluations should be run on the information available at the intended decision point and should report how both the record and the label were produced.

Hisham Ihshaish, Peter Mayhew, Tasnim M. A. Zayet +1

School of Computing and Creative Technologies, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK · Department of Computer Science, Birzeit University, Birzeit, Palestine · GE Aerospace, Cheltenham, UK +1

Text Classification Automated Evaluation

Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

Don't Count the Edits, Judge by the Outcome Alone: Reward-Based Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction

Grammatical error correction (GEC) evaluation has traditionally relied on reference or edit overlap, which can penalize valid rewrites that differ from gold corrections. Reference-free metrics reduce this dependence, but evaluating whether a fluent output is a valid correction of the source remains challenging. We propose SURE, a source-conditioned reward evaluator trained on within-source preferences spanning minimal-edit and rewrite-oriented corrections. SURE jointly learns an overall reward with criteria-level supervision for grammaticality, faithfulness, and fluency, together with span-level grounding for source-side error resolution. Experiments on SEEDA show that SURE performs competitively against strong baselines, with particular gains on rewrite-style corrections and more disentangled criteria-level diagnostics. Our code is available at https://github.com/hayeonggg/SURE.

Hayeong Ryu, Sunhee Jo, Seunguk Yu +1

Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University · Graduate School of Advanced Imaging Sciences, Multimedia and Film, Chung-Ang University

Reward Modeling Reference-Free Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation Automated Evaluation

Sep 14, 2026cs.SE

WebCraftBench: Evaluating Web Application Generation from a Software Testing Perspective

Human evaluation provides a direct measure of the quality of LLM-generated web applications. However, fitting human judgments through automated evaluation remains challenging. Static benchmarks can credit functionality that exists in source code but is unreachable at runtime. Interactive benchmarks exercise the application, yet incomplete exploration can cause them to miss implemented functionality and confound application defects with agent execution failures. To address these limitations, we propose WebCraftBench, an interactive benchmark for evaluating web application generation from a software testing perspective. WebCraftBench instruments each generated application and uses code coverage to guide an agent in exploring its functionality through user-simulated interactions. It then abstracts the interaction trace into a state-transition graph and evaluates the application along three dimensions: visual aesthetics, usability, and requirement alignment. By separating exploration from scoring, WebCraftBench collects runtime evidence without constraining exploration to predefined acceptance criteria. WebCraftBench comprises 369 real-world user requirements and 5,088 acceptance criteria. Evaluation of 17 frontier LLMs reveals distinct strengths across the three dimensions, with no model leading on every dimension. On 197 validated sessions sampled from an internal arena, WebCraftBench achieves 85.3% agreement with human preferences, with agreement generally increasing as the score difference between paired applications grows. Further experiments show that coverage guidance improves exploration coverage and the model rankings remain stable when the judge model is replaced.

Chenxu Liu, Zilu Zou, Peizhong Gao +9

Hunyuan Team, Tencent · Tsinghua University · Peking University

Automated Software Testing Web Application Generation Automated Evaluation

Sep 14, 2026cs.AI

ProIQA: A Process-Based Framework for Fine-Grained Math Item Quality Assessment

Automatic Item Generation (AIG) is pivotal for personalized education, yet guaranteeing the pedagogical value of generated items remains a bottleneck. Existing Item Quality Assessment (IQA) methods typically rely on unscalable manual reviews or shallow stem-based metrics, failing to capture the reasoning process required for mathematical problem-solving. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes Process-based Item Quality Assessment (ProIQA), a process-aware framework for fine-grained quality assessment of math items. We first formulate IQA across three heterogeneous dimensions, including knowledge concepts, difficulty, and disciplinary competencies, under a unified process-aware perspective. Based on this formulation, we construct a process-enhanced IQA resource by augmenting original item data with structured reasoning trees derived from raw solutions. Technically, ProIQA leverages Large Language Modelsto construct hierarchical reasoning trees and employs Graph Neural Networks (GNN) to encode their topological dependencies and procedural semantics. The resulting solving representation is fused with stem semantics through a dual-view (``Stem + Solving'') architecture, enabling comprehensive assessment across learning objectives. Extensive experiments on K12 mathematical datasets show that ProIQA effectively captures process-oriented features, offering a scalable data-driven solution for evaluating AIG outputs in intelligent education systems.

Junkai Tong, Mingjia Li, Haoran Chen +4

East China Normal University · Shanghai, China · East China Normal University, Shanghai, China +1

Educational Assessment Automated Evaluation

Sep 13, 2026cs.AI

AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewing

Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it leads to a measurable improvement in the paper. We present AppliedScientist, a closed-loop system that couples an autonomous AI scientist with an AI reviewer, and evaluate it by iteratively revising rejected papers from a range of research subfields. To mirror how human authors build on earlier drafts, the AI scientist has access to its previous versions during revision. To avoid bias from prior judgments, however, each review is generated independently, with the reviewer having no memory of earlier feedback or scores. We compare three revision settings: one initialized with the original venue reviews, one initialized with AI-generated reviews, and autonomous self-revision using the same fixed prompt in every round. Because the reviewer both guides and evaluates the revision, we also assess the human-initialized revisions using Stanford Reviewer as an independent evaluator. Reviewer-guided revision consistently improves more than fixed-prompt self-revision, and Stanford Reviewer also assigns higher scores to later revisions. AppliedScientist resolves 128 of 150 execution-related weaknesses (85.3%), but only 2 of 18 idea-related weaknesses (11.1%), suggesting that iterative revision is effective at improving experiments and implementation, but rarely changes concerns about novelty or significance.

Vidushee Vats, Karun Sharma, Shengzhi Li +1

Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts Boston

AI-Assisted Scientific Research Automated Peer Review Autonomous Research Agents Automated Evaluation

Sep 12, 2026cs.CL

Inter-Rater Reliability of LLM and Rule-Based Annotation for Inferential Narrative Features: Three Studies on a Turkish Corpus

Datasets that ship automatically generated feature annotations invite a question rarely asked of them: would a human agree with those labels? This report answers that for the Objective Projection corpus, a Turkish narrative dataset whose scenes carry a per-scene applied_rules field from a rule-based detector over six craft features -- two prohibitions (emotion labelling, simile) and four positive techniques (materialized metaphor, micro-focus, temporal anchor, atmosphere contradiction). Three studies are reported. Study 1 (

n = 120

) scores the detector against blind labels from the scheme's own author. Study 2 (

n = 100

, a disjoint scene set) scores the detector plus Gemini 2.5 Flash and Grok against an independent non-expert rater whose labels were locked before any machine ran. Study 2b re-runs the identical protocol with Claude Fable 5 (High) and ChatGPT 5.5. The central result concerns one rule. On materialized metaphor -- closest to the methodology's theoretical core -- the five machine labellers returned positive rates of

0

,

1

,

40

,

72

and

78

out of

100

scenes, against a human count of

9

. Cohen's

κ

was at or indistinguishable from chance for five of six labellers, across both human references and both scene sets:

0.004

,

0.015

,

0.000

,

0.019

,

0.027

. Raw agreement ranged from

74.7\%

to

84.5\%

, an artefact of class imbalance rather than a sign of competence. We deliberately do not resolve this into a single story. Two readings survive: the feature is genuinely inferential and beyond current automatic detection, or the rule's definition is not yet operational enough for any rater to apply consistently -- including the human. Distinguishing them needs a second independent human rater, which this report does not have and therefore does not claim.

Levent Bulut

Independent Researcher

LLM-Assisted Annotation Inter-Rater Reliability Automated Evaluation

Sep 12, 2026cs.LG

Certifying Model Upgrades with Slice-Wise Non-Regression and Incumbent Fallback

An updated model can improve an aggregate metric while degrading a slice that matters to a downstream user. We study checkpoint selection subject to non-regression tolerances relative to a retained incumbent. The central distinction is between failing to detect harm and certifying non-inferiority: the former can release harmful updates with high probability when evaluation is noisy. We give a reproducible release procedure that separates candidate search from independent, paired evaluation and returns the exact incumbent when certification fails. Applying established intersection-union and Learn-then-Test principles, we state finite-sample guarantees for one frozen candidate, a finite candidate library, and a prespecified testing order. A joint release decision does not require a slice-count Bonferroni penalty, although certification power can still decrease with the number of slices. In bounded-score simulations, a no-detected-harm gate releases a harmful candidate in 99.7% of trials in one 32-slice setting, compared with 2.6% for an exact non-inferiority gate at a 5% target. A constructed two-block family yields larger certified utility than a scalar path under matched candidate counts. Public digits experiments, including a subsequent continuation that improves average aggregate accuracy, return the incumbent in every run because certification is underpowered. These results establish an auditable protocol and its limitations; they do not establish benefits on foundation-model or multilingual translation upgrades.

Shengwei Zhang, Tao Wu, Fei Qian

Model Selection Automated Evaluation Statistical Hypothesis Testing

Sep 11, 2026cs.CV

PA-CDM: Position-Aware Character Detection Matching for Evaluating Handwritten Mathematical Expression Recognition

Handwritten mathematical expression recognition (HMER) is conventionally scored by exact-match rates and string-similarity metrics that are blind to where an error occurs: two predictions with identical token-error counts receive identical scores whether they misplace a subscript or swap the operands of a fraction. Render-based character detection matching (CDM) aligns glyphs robustly but remains position-blind---on controlled fraction-operand swaps it scores 0.8595 where position-aware scoring yields 0.6253. Tree-edit metrics exhibit a complementary blind spot: rewrites outside the parser's normalization coverage are penalized as structural errors (0.8552 where render-based metrics score 1.0). We propose PA-CDM, a position-aware metric that couples character detection matching with position-forest encoding and divergence-level weighting; StructPerturb v2.0, a frozen benchmark of 1,340 controlled perturbation pairs across 15 type--intensity cells; and a cross-metric consistency protocol combining a sensitivity matrix, a human study, and LLM-judge calibration. In a six-annotator study, PA-CDM attains the highest correlation with human judgments among seven automatic metrics (Spearman rho=0.9535, n=990). A frontier LLM judge correlates slightly higher (rho=0.9613) but is costly, nondeterministic, and API-dependent; PA-CDM approaches it at zero marginal cost with deterministic, diagnosable behavior.

Shiliang Luo

East China Normal University

Automated Evaluation Optical Character Recognition

Sep 10, 2026cs.SE

PRISMA-LLM: An Empirical Reporting Framework for AI-Assisted Systematic Reviews

Large language models (LLMs) and AI-enabled software increasingly participate in systematic-review decisions, yet the information needed to audit these workflows is reported inconsistently. We analyze SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations. Automation has shifted toward LLM- and software-facing workflows, including stages that can alter the evidence base. Since 2023, 38.0% of software/product papers reported no evaluation, compared with 9.3% of LLM papers. Reporting coverage increased with LLM workflow complexity, yet 52% of positive-only LLM evaluations still reported an unmet reliability or performance requirement. From these patterns, we introduce PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.

Miguel Zabaleta, Baihan Lin

Department of AI and Human Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA · Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA · Department of Neuroscience, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

LLM Auditing AI-Assisted Scientific Research LLM Reliability Automated Evaluation

Sep 10, 2026cs.CL

Rubric-Aligned Disentangled Evaluation of Human Simultaneous Interpreting

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

Ziyu Zhang, Satoshi Nakamura

School of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · Shenzhen Loop Area Institute, China

Rubric-Based Evaluation Automated Evaluation Speech Translation Evaluation

Sep 9, 2026cs.SD

TimeCues Studio: A Workspace for Music Annotation and Algorithm Prototyping

Multimedia applications require precise music annotation-labeled positions, segments, or loops-placed by hand or algorithmically. Machine-learning algorithms are scalable and effective but need annotated training data, scarce for many tasks. TimeCues Studio is an open-source workspace where algorithm-development teams annotate a music corpus, compare detection algorithms against those annotations, and prototype new ones. Unlike existing tools built for a single track at a time, TimeCues targets teams annotating whole collections, tightly integrated with algorithm development. Annotators place several marker types-each supporting ambiguity-aware labeling-on a grid-locked timeline that visualizes many music features, including separated audio stems. The same timeline drives an algorithm-comparison engine with bundled baselines, a Python sandbox for prototyping new models, and an ambiguity-aware evaluator that honors the structured fields. The same visualization suits solo annotators on music-sync projects. TimeCues is MIT-licensed and deploys via one Docker Compose command.

Sapir Caduri, Yoav Goldberg

Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan, Israel

Human-in-the-Loop Annotation Music Information Retrieval Automated Evaluation

Sep 8, 2026cs.DB

SQLMorph: Query Mutation and Fine-Grained Metrics for Text-to-SQL Evaluation

Text-to-SQL systems translate natural language queries into executable SQL, democratizing access to structured data. Despite recent advances driven by large language models (LLMs), evaluation remains a major bottleneck: public benchmarks fail to capture the complexity of enterprise schema, while building private evaluation sets is costly and nondeterministic, making evaluation results difficult to reproduce. To address this issue, we present SQLMorph, a framework for Text-to-SQL evaluation via query mutation. SQLMorph introduces two techniques to automatically generate and expand evaluation sets: Join Query Expansion (JQE), which systematically increases structural complexity through valid join additions, and Textual Query Augmentation (TQA), which generates controlled natural language perturbations to assess robustness to linguistic variation. JQE and TQA create targeted choke points to challenge specific system components. When applied to state-of-the-art systems, JQE increases query coverage and reveals accuracy degradation as the number of joins grows. Meanwhile, TQA shows that linguistic brittleness induced by heavy abbreviation can reduce accuracy by up to 17%. Beyond evaluation sets, SQLMorph introduces a family of execution-level metrics that address the limitations of current binary measures, such as Execution Accuracy. We define Execution Precision (EXP) and Execution Recall (EXR) to quantify the fraction of correct and recovered results, respectively, and combine them via F1 for unified scoring. Our experiments show that these relaxed metrics enable fine-grained analysis of over- and under-prediction, revealing differences across systems that binary metrics obscure. Together, SQLMorph's query mutation and fine-grained metrics support debugging and better align Text-to-SQL evaluation practices with real-world deployments.

Mohammadhossein Malekpour, Mohamed Riahi, Maxime Lamothe +1

Polytechnique Montréal

Mutation Testing Text-to-SQL Automated Evaluation

Sep 8, 2026cs.CL

Limitations of Automated Simulatability: LLM Simulators Can Bypass Explanations

Simulatability is an evaluation protocol for explanations that quantifies their usefulness by how well they help a user predict a task model's outputs. Since human evaluation is costly, automated simulatability replaces human explainees with LLM simulators, as proposed in ConSim (Poché et al., 2025) for large-scale experiments. We qualitatively replicate and extend ConSim's ranking of explanation methods across the tested datasets, explanation families, and simulator LLMs, and identify two limitations. First, when class names are meaningful, simulators can obtain high simulatability by solving the classification task directly, without relying on the explanations. Second, class anonymization can reward explanations for leaking the hidden label mapping, a limitation we expose with a new classes-as-concepts baseline. These results are consistent with a shortcut hypothesis: in the tested settings, simulator predictions mainly rely on task priors, while explanations produce small changes. We derive recommendations for more robust automated simulatability evaluations.

Antonin Poché, Fanny Jourdan, Nils Feldhus +6

IRT Saint Exupéry · IRIT, Université de Toulouse · University of Groningen +7

LLM Evaluation Automated Evaluation Explainability Evaluation

Sep 8, 2026cs.CL

EviSI: An Evidence-Based Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpreting

Low-latency simultaneous speech-to-speech translation must keep pace with ongoing speech while preserving key information. To meet these demands, systems use segmentation, reformulation and condensation to reorganize and rephrase information. However, metrics developed for text translation, including BLEU and COMET, may not consistently distinguish faithful adaptations from semantic errors. We propose EviSI, a large language model evaluation agent combining Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) with criteria developed with professional interpreters. Shared source evidence guides assessment across four dimensions: Anchor, Event, Logic and Fluency. Verified errors are deduplicated before deterministic scoring. On human-rated English to Chinese and Chinese to English data, EviSI recovers the aggregate English to Chinese human system ranking. Mean within-dataset Kendall correlations for system rankings reach 0.707 and 0.467, respectively, exceeding evaluated BLEU and COMET baselines. A multilingual extension to five directions without human ratings retains the dimensions and scoring rule, showing positive system ranking correlations with COMET throughout.

Ben Yan, Zongyao Li, Xiaoyu Chen +6

1Huawei Translation Service Center, Beijing, China · School of Informatics, Xiamen University, China

LLM-as-a-Judge Simultaneous Speech Translation Automated Evaluation Speech Translation Evaluation

Sep 7, 2026cs.AI

What Does an LLM-Agent Leaderboard Rank Actually Compare?

An LLM-agent leaderboard invites a familiar inference: an agent ranked above another is the better agent. Public evaluation logs may not support that conclusion when systems differ in task mixture, label source, release detail, or cost rule. We study what leaderboard scores estimate and when they justify pairwise superiority conclusions. Our estimand-aware pairwise procedure states the comparison target and measurement source, checks common support, and evaluates the supported difference using a stated uncertainty rule and practical margin. Controlled checks evaluate the decision labels under known finite-sample conditions and show why uncertainty must be included when judging sensitivity to target reweighting. Across SWE-bench, AgentRewardBench, and tau2-bench, close rank differences are often unresolved; proxy labels and utility rules can also change which system is selected. DataAgentBench and Open Agent show what remains estimable from coarser public records. A leaderboard score summarizes a released evaluation, whereas a fine-grained superiority claim additionally depends on the estimand and uncertainty rule used to interpret the difference.

Wei-Jung Huang

Independent Researcher United States

LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Automated Evaluation

Sep 7, 2026cs.CR

An Empirical Measurement of Jailbreaking Evaluators

Expert evaluation of jailbreak responses is costly and difficult to scale, so the community increasingly relies on automated evaluators to determine whether an attack succeeds. However, jailbreak studies typically validate their chosen evaluator independently, repeatedly spending resources on similar evaluation efforts while making results across papers difficult to compare. Different evaluators also encode different definitions of jailbreak success, meaning that reported attack strength and apparent progress can depend substantially on which evaluator is used. We systematically compare six evaluators that recur in recent jailbreak attack and defense research: HarmBench, JailbreakBench, JailbreakRadar, StrongReject, JADES, and JailMeter. To our knowledge, no prior study has evaluated all six on the same human-labeled data under a controlled setup. We evaluate them on JailbreakQR and JailMeter-Eva, using human judgments as the reference, and measure agreement with humans, error types, and consistency across attack families. For evaluators that require a general-purpose LLM judge, we use a shared backbone to control for model-specific variation. We found that JADES exhibits the best overall performance, while HarmBench and StrongReject also demonstrate good performance.

Yujie Mu

Independent Researcher

Automated Evaluation Jailbreak Detection Benchmark Auditing

Sep 6, 2026cs.CL

Used, Mentioned, or Condemned? A Controlled Contrast-Set Diagnostic for the Use-Mention Distinction in Code-Mixed Hinglish Misogyny Detection

Lexicon-driven misogyny detectors cannot, by construction, distinguish a slur used against a woman from the same slur mentioned in counter-speech ("don't call her that") -- yet exactly this distinction governs whether moderation protects or silences the people discussing abuse. We study this problem in code-mixed Hinglish and make three contributions. First, we diagnose two evaluation artifacts on a publicly available redacted corpus: category-encoding anonymization placeholders leak the label (a no-learning rule scores 1.000), and even after they are neutralized misogynistic and benign comments occupy lexically disjoint registers, so bag-of-words reaches macro-F1 approximately 1.00 under random cross-validation but collapses under template-disjoint evaluation. Second, we release Hinglish-MGY-Diag, a deterministic generator and a 416-item / 163-minimal-pair contrast-set diagnostic across five linguistically motivated categories in which slur presence and gendered register are decorrelated from the label by construction. Third, we introduce a strict pair-consistency metric that credits a model only when both members of a minimal pair are correctly labelled. Five from-scratch classical baselines evaluated under construction-disjoint five-fold cross-validation reveal that the strongest model reaches 0.93 accuracy on the cleanest use-mention subset but only 0.82 consistency -- it still mislabels roughly one counter-speech pair in five. A frontier LLM used as an author-model ceiling attains 1.000 on all metrics, doubling as independent label validation and confirming the benchmark is a capability gradient rather than an adversarial wall. We release all code, data, the generator, and an arms-length LLM harness for reproducing every number.

Ashanvi Yadav, Shubham Bhardwaj

Manipal University Jaipur Rajasthan, India · BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus Telangana, India

Hate Speech Detection Content Moderation Automated Evaluation

Sep 4, 2026cs.AI

Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods

Automated reference-based evaluation methods play a critical role in assessing natural language generation systems. Existing meta-evaluation primarily measures agreement with human judgments or benchmark labels, providing limited insight into evaluator behavior under controlled conditions. We introduce behavioral correctness assumptions, a complementary framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods. We define a taxonomy of correctness-preserving and correctness-altering assumptions and operationalize them through controlled response transformations that specify expected scoring behaviors. We evaluate diverse lexical, character-level, semantic, LLM-based, and hybrid evaluators and analyze their assumption-level behavior, stability, sensitivity, repeat-run variability, configuration sensitivity, and reproducibility. Our experiments reveal distinct behavioral trade-offs across evaluation paradigms: no evaluator satisfies all proposed correctness assumptions, and evaluators with similar aggregate performance can exhibit substantially different behavioral profiles. These findings demonstrate that behavioral correctness assumptions provide diagnostic information obscured by conventional aggregate meta-evaluation.

Maria Mahbub, Ashley Rice, Michael R. Munroe +2

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA · DHS Science and Technology Directorate, Washington, DC 20528, USA

Automated Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation

Sep 4, 2026cs.AI

TruthInsightBench: An Evidence-Grounded Benchmark for Automated Evaluation of Open-Ended Scientific Discovery Agents

Autonomous coding agents are increasingly proposed as AI-scientist systems that conduct analyses and write research reports, but executing a prescribed analysis is not the same as making a discovery. Existing benchmarks are configured for reproduction: tasks, data, and rubrics are built around a hidden target study, and recovery of its result is rewarded. We present TruthInsightBench, a benchmark configured for discovery. Its 40 blind tasks, drawn from 40 peer-reviewed studies across 10 scientific domains, expose only a neutral scientific objective and frozen data; source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths are withheld, leaving the agent to determine what claim the data support. A fixed LLM-based judge scores the evidentiary maturity of an agent's own claims along six dimensions, operationalized as 29 artifact-grounded items, with automated, deterministic aggregation and no per-instance human grading, so evaluation can be repeated automatically as agents evolve. On one frozen base model, four coding agents form a narrow plateau (58.4-60.3 of 100) with no statistically reliable pairwise separation: they execute and document analyses competently, with comparatively strong evidence auditability and novelty, but largely lack the discriminating acts that establish a trustworthy claim (controls, robustness, falsifiability, and cross-dataset generalization). The bottleneck is scientific judgment rather than coding, and genuine discovery remains out of reach. TruthInsightBench makes this gap a measurable target; data and scoring code are at https://github.com/TruthInsight-stack/TruthInsightBench.

Zhibo Yang, Chen Zhang, Yuewei Zhang +1

TruthInsight-AI

AI Agents for Scientific Discovery AI Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Scientific Discovery Automated Evaluation

Sep 3, 2026cs.CL

Decoupled Analysis-Judging: An Automated Creativity Evaluator Using LLMs in Complex Multi-step Creativity Tasks

Automated evaluation of creativity tasks remains challenging for LLM-as-a-Judge, as LLM is susceptible to biases such as verbosity bias and leniency bias. Such limitations are particularly evident in Contextually-Grounded and Procedurally-Structured Tasks (CGPST), a complex multi-step creativity task where inter-step dependencies, highly subjectivity, and wide scoring ranges lead to more unstable and biased judgments. Existing approaches either rely on task-specific training or directly apply LLM-as-a-Judge, both of which struggle to ensure reliable evaluation under such complexity. To bridge these gaps, we propose CreaEval, an automated creativity evaluator for CGPST that decouples typical LLM-as-a-Judge into analysis and judging. Correspondingly, CreaEval involves two critical phases: Memory-augmented Analysis, a SoT-LLM converts multi-step responses into structured evaluation evidence, incorporating cross-step memory; and Evidence-based Judging, a Judge-LLM uses the extracted evidence for judging without accessing raw responses. Comprehensive experiments show that CreaEval achieves an average performance improvement of 22.74% over the second-best baselines across CGPST and two classic simple creativity tasks, demonstrating its generalizability. The code is available at https://github.com/Jaong/CreaEval.

Xiangyu Wang, Jin Wu, Xiaoyu Li +2

Department of Educational Psychology, East China Normal University · 2Shanghai Institute of Artificial Intelligence for Education, East China Normal University · School of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University +2

Creativity Assessment LLM-as-a-Judge Computational Creativity Automated Evaluation