Automated Evaluation

Quantifying abstractiveness in generated summaries is essential for evaluating summarization models beyond surface-level metrics like ROUGE. We introduce Reference Abstraction (RA), Summary Abstraction (SA), and Abstraction Ratio (AR) -- a set of principled heuristic metrics that measure how much a summary diverges from extractive copying of the source text. The formulation uses the harmonic mean of document lengths modulated by a cubic non-overlap factor, yielding dimensionally consistent, bounded output with non-linear sensitivity to the extractive-abstractive boundary. Evaluation on 100 XSUM documents across four summarization models (BART-large-cnn, Pegasus-xsum, DistilBart, MT5-small) demonstrates that the metrics successfully discriminate between extractive models (SA ~ 0.12-0.26) and abstractive models (SA ~ 0.96-1.77), and that the Abstraction Ratio identifies summaries requiring manual evaluation for potential hallucination. Code and results are available at https://github.com/katweNLP/AbstractionStudy.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into K-12 and higher education has outpaced the development of reliable methods for evaluating their pedagogical quality. As the research community starts to explore the space of automating evaluation of AI tutors, we introduce FATE (FLC AI Tutor Evaluator), a specialized 8B-parameter language model designed to evaluate AI tutors. Aligned with the four core evaluation tracks from the BEA 2025 Shared Task, our model assesses pedagogical ability across Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Guidance, and Actionability. Because pedagogical evaluation is a specialized task with limited labeled data, we leverage knowledge distillation from a frontier LLM to generate additional supervision, yielding absolute performance gains up to 22.63 percentage points. Finally, we demonstrate FATE's utility as an automated evaluator by benchmarking instructional responses generated by popular commercial models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek. On average, we have found that Gemini 2.5 Flash perfomed best (82.88%), then ChatGPT 5.5 Instant (80.75%), followed by DeepSeek V4 Flash (80.13%) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (74.00%).

We introduce CAFE (Compound-AI Factorial Evaluation), an open-source platform that brings design of experiments to the evaluation of compound AI systems (CAIS). Such systems expose many interchangeable choices - e.g. which retriever, model, or prompt - and practitioners rarely know which of them most affects answer quality. With CAFE, a practitioner registers each swappable component of a pipeline as a factor to build a factorial design over the chosen factors, run the resulting configurations, and score the answers on a shared rubric using a configurable LLM judge together with human raters. From these ratings it attributes answer-quality variance to the components and their interactions with mixed-effects models and reports effect sizes, significance, the best configuration, cost and latency trade-offs, and judge-human reliability. Whereas existing tools mostly either search for a good configuration or score outputs in isolation, CAFE also explains which component drives quality and whether an observed difference is significant. We validate CAFE on a retrieval-augmented question-answering (QA) pipeline over the HotpotQA benchmark dataset, where it recovers planted factor effects and stays calibrated under a permutation null. CAFE is released as a Python package and as a Web application.

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are increasingly constructed through automated extraction pipelines; however, such systems often introduce spurious or incomplete triples, which degrade downstream performance. Existing evaluation practices rely heavily on task-specific metrics or small-scale manual verification, offering limited insight into the structural and semantic fidelity of extracted graphs. We propose a novel, interpretable metric for intrinsic KG quality assessment that measures how closely an automatically extracted graph approximates an "ideal" graph capturing the key noun phrases, predicate relations, and basic linguistic phenomena such as negation expressed in the source text. Our framework integrates two complementary components: (1) an entity-level assessment that evaluates completeness, resolution quality, and connectivity, and (2) a relation-level assessment that judges predicate preservation and multiplicity using lexical similarity, dependency-parse alignment, and light-weight negation handling to ensure semantic faithfulness. We evaluate our metric across multiple state-of-the-art triple extraction systems and datasets, including WebNLG, TinyButMighty, and BenchIE, demonstrating that it reliably identifies omissions, redundancy, and structural deviations that existing metrics overlook. Our work offers a scalable, model-agnostic, and interpretable framework for comparing automated KG construction methods and provides a foundation for standardised evaluation. We further validate the metric through an ablation study isolating noun and verb components, and a downstream evaluation showing that KGCQual scores correlate significantly with link prediction performance on the same extracted KGs. The code repository is available at https://github.com/kracr/kg-quality-metric.

The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed sample sizes and these diverse needs results in either excessive computational cost or compromised reliability - a critical concern for model evaluation. To overcome these limitations, we call for adoption of sequential testing in our field. We provide an adaptive evaluation framework, that provides a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation. Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs such as diminishing returns detection, and minimum detectable effect size. We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard, including, for example, a 80% reduction in computational cost compared to fixed-size evaluation (with a 2.5-point CI width allowance) while maintaining statistical significance.

Automated segmentation of cervical-spine MRI is increasingly used in clinical workflows, yet no fairness audit exists for this anatomy. We show that auditing these segmentation tasks is complicated by a common property of modern segmentation datasets: expert-annotated gold labels are expensive, so abundant machine-generated (silver) labels are added to limit annotation cost. This matters because the reference used to judge a model can itself be biased. In this study, we present the first fairness audit of cervical-spine MRI segmentation across sex, age, and race using the CSpineSeg dataset. We observe that the deployed model is demographically fair, but the choice of reference label, however, is not neutral. Because a dataset's silver labels are generated by a model trained on its gold labels, any new model trained on those same gold labels agrees more with the silver labels than with expert truth: scoring identical predictions against silver rather than gold overestimates performance by ~8 Dice points and turns the fairness verdict for age from non-significant to significant - not by the gap inflation Parikh et al. report (which we term false magnitude) but by collapsing within-group variance (which we term false confidence). Reference-label provenance is thus a first-order confounder in segmentation evaluation: performance and fairness should be reported against expert labels, and any fairness claim stated together with the provenance of its reference.

This paper reports an empirical study evaluating the relevance of several RAG metrics. The experiment is based on a question-answering dataset created by human annotators from business data. The generated responses and retrieved spans of a RAG system are scored using evaluation metrics from four libraries (Ragas, DeepEval, RAGChecker, Opik). These metrics are compared to scores given by two evaluators, as well as to standard metrics such as recall. An analysis of correlations is conducted. Finally, we highlight certain limitations of our methodology, compare it to those used in the literature, and suggest some avenues for future research. This paper is an English translation of a paper originally published in the French-speaking workshop EvalLLM (Brabant, 2026).

This paper presents a black-box evaluation framework to systematically assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate Design Structure Matrices (DSMs) from structured technical documentation. Motivated by the closed-source nature of current Auto-DSM pipelines, the framework introduces a reproducible methodology that benchmarks generated DSMs (GEN-DSMs) against manually validated ground-truth matrices (GT-DSMs). The evaluation integrates both single-run and multi-run perspectives, combining structural metrics (Completeness, Correctness, Coupling Density), classification metrics (Selective Accuracy, Abstention Coverage), and stability measures (Entropy, Fleiss' $κ$). To synthesize these aspects, a Composite Quality Score (Q) is proposed. Controlled experiments are conducted on two datasets: a fictive abstract system and a real-world refrigerator decomposition, covering variations in phrasing, parameter-dataset alignment, and system complexity. Results show that LLMs can produce structurally plausible DSMs and achieve high reproducibility under well-structured inputs, but remain sensitive to ambiguity, inconsistent dependency definitions, and prompt formulation. The findings highlight systematic sources of hallucination and abstention failure, demonstrating both the potential and current limitations of LLM-driven DSM automation. The proposed framework provides a transparent benchmark for auditing Auto-DSM pipelines and establishes foundations for integrating LLM-based decomposition methods into model-based systems engineering (MBSE) workflows.

The veracious semantic alignment in autoformalization is significant for formal mathematical reasoning. However, existing evaluations provide only opaque binary verdicts or scalar scores, offering no interpretable insight into where or why translations fail. This opacity severely limits both human understanding and automated system improvement. To bridge this gap, we introduce FormalRx, a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation framework that transforms autoformalization assessment from black-box judgments into actionable feedback. At its core is SCI Error Taxonomy, a hierarchical classification scheme decomposing autoformalization errors into 28 distinct categories with strict priority ordering. Building on this taxonomy, FormalRx provides four critical diagnostic capabilities: alignment verdicts, error categorization, error localization, and correction. We instantiate the framework with a diagnostic model FormalRx-8B, trained on 56,287 NL-FL pairs with fine-grained diagnostic annotations, and release FormalRx-Test as the first fine-grained diagnostic benchmark. FormalRx-8B achieves F1-scores of 0.88 (verdict) and 0.71 (categorization), along with accuracies of 0.75 (localization) and 0.73 (correction), substantially outperforming both general-purpose LLMs and specialized baselines. By connecting evaluation with actionable insights, FormalRx enables systematic diagnosis and improvement of autoformalization systems.

While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication. We present Prompt-to-Paper, a multi-agent framework that directly addresses this evaluation gap through three integrated innovations. First, a deterministic retrieval-augmented generation pipeline with section-aware relevance scoring and snowball citation expansion grounds every claim in a verifiable corpus of 60--100 papers. Second, an autonomous coding agent executes real computational biology experiments replacing synthetic outputs with genuine numerical results. Third, an eight-dimensional automated quality scorer, benchmarked with approximate reference statistics from published papers and augmented with explicit hallucination penalties, provides standardized, reproducible quality assessments. The quality-driven improvement loop uses a context-rich reviser that routes each iteration to one of three researcher actions and fires a deep research cycle every ten iterations to re-run experiments and re-manuscript from stronger outputs. We validate the system on five bioinformatics case studies; all five cases compiled submission-formatted PDFs with zero out-of-range citations. The improvement loop raises manuscript quality by an average of +17.96 points on a 0--100 scale (maximum +26.04. As partial external checks, a human reviewer scored the five manuscripts at an average of 7.0 out of 10. Complete manuscripts are produced at approximately 0.31 USD per paper.

Modern web applications increasingly expose accessibility barriers through interaction flows rather than static page snapshots. Keyboard traps, focus loss, modal leakage, delayed status updates, dynamic controls, and changing page regions often become observable only after users perform concrete actions. These behaviors are directly related to dynamic WCAG criteria, yet they remain difficult to automate because their assessment depends on runtime interaction evidence and is still commonly performed through manual inspection. We present Flow-A11y, a flow-aware accessibility testing system for interaction-dependent WCAG criteria. Given a target page and a natural-language scenario, Flow-A11y executes the flow in a real browser, records an ordered runtime trace, constructs criterion-specific evidence packets, gates unsupported judgments, and emits auditable findings grounded in resolvable runtime evidence. Evaluated on 19 real public-web scenarios covering 45 dynamic WCAG criteria, Flow-A11y achieves over ten times higher oracle agreement than a generic browser-agent audit, while its evidence-calibration layer improves fail precision from 23.5% to 41.4% and eliminates invalid evidence references. These results show that runtime traces provide actionable evidence for assessing interaction-dependent accessibility behavior. They demonstrate a practical path toward automating dynamic WCAG criteria that page-level scanners cannot assess and that have traditionally required manual evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) are often asked to produce JSON conforming to a fixed schema, powering information extraction, tool calling, agentic planning, and knowledge-graph construction. Measuring how closely an output matches a gold reference is essential yet surprisingly hard: exact match is brittle, text similarity ignores structure, and an LLM judge is expensive, opaque, and non-deterministic. We address this with Object Aligner (OA), an open-source Python library that scores two JSON objects deterministically by recursively aligning their trees (the Hungarian algorithm for unordered collections, sequence alignment for ordered ones) and awarding partial credit at the granularity the schema declares. The Object Aligner is configured entirely through a set of JSON Schema extensions, so adapting it to a new task involves annotating a schema rather than writing code. Complex structured data, however, are rarely flat trees: records may form graphs or hypergraphs keyed by arbitrary identifiers, breaking the assumptions of prior similarity metrics. Our central contribution, referential alignment, closes this gap by inferring a bijection between gold and candidate identifiers and scoring every reference through it, so the score is invariant to relabeling. Since recovering this bijection exactly is graph isomorphism, the Object Aligner approximates it with Weisfeiler-Leman color refinement. An order-sensitive sequence regime targets ranking and planning. Since the same alignment localizes every mismatch, the Object Aligner emits ranked repair suggestions at no extra cost. Used as a reward inside the GEPA prompt optimizer, Object Aligner helps or stays neutral across all datasets.

Turn-taking naturalness is central to full-duplex spoken dialogue systems, yet its automatic evaluation remains limited. Existing evaluations often rely on human judgments or behavior-specific timing metrics, making it difficult to compare heterogeneous timing failures within a unified framework. We propose TurnNat, a likelihood-based framework for automatic turn-taking naturalness evaluation in two-channel spoken dialogue. A causal turn-taking prediction model trained on natural conversations estimates future two-speaker voice-activity states, and the negative log-likelihood (NLL) of the observed future activity measures timing atypicality. TurnNat pools frame-level NLLs over turn-taking boundary units (TBUs) extracted from utterance onsets and offsets, and aggregates mean and tail TBU scores into a dialogue-level naturalness score. We further construct a controlled perturbation benchmark of paired natural and perturbed dialogue clips, validated by human naturalness judgments. Experiments on this benchmark show that TurnNat successfully identifies unnatural turn-taking perturbations across heterogeneous timing failures.

Creating and editing slides is a rich, multimodal activity that is ubiquitous in professional and educational settings, making it an ideal testbed for real-world computer-use agents. Microsoft PowerPoint is among the most widely adopted and feature-rich environments for presentation creation. We introduce PPT-Eval, a benchmark of 120 PowerPoint tasks across 12 files that cover both content creation and presentation editing scenarios, organized by difficulty. A central challenge in this domain is evaluation: tasks are complex, multimodal, and often admit many valid solutions. Moreover, today's agents frequently make only partial progress, which binary success metrics fail to capture. To address this, we design a robust evaluation framework to help create task-specific rubrics for PowerPoint tasks, taking inspiration from and building on past works for rubric-based evaluation. These rubrics award partial credit for intermediate steps, penalize unnecessary changes and poor aesthetics, and provide natural language feedback. This nuanced approach proves highly effective, achieving a Kendall's τ-b correlation of 0.77 with human judgments. We find that existing frontier agents still struggle with solving PowerPoint tasks, with strong models like Claude-4.5-Opus achieving only a 45% success rate and an average partial score of 57%. The benchmark is located at: https://microsoft.github.io/ppteval.

Automatic evaluation of image and video captioning is essential for benchmarking multimodal systems, although standard evaluation metrics show limited alignment with human judgments. Recent approaches using large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, have improved alignment with human judgments but still suffer from a mismatch between large-vocabulary language modeling and evaluation over a small label set. To address this, we propose Rigel, an automatic evaluation metric for image and video captioning, based on self-distilled score adaptation. The metric employs an evaluation-specific scoring head distilled from a frozen LLM, which captures judgment signals in a task-aligned space without relying on large-vocabulary token sets. We then refine the LLM backbone with human judgment data. To train Rigel, we constructed the Vid-Lepus dataset, which contains 3,338 video clips, 33,380 reference captions, and 5,637 candidate captions. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that Rigel outperforms state-of-the-art metrics, achieving over 10-point improvements on ActivityNet-Fact in the reference-free setting.

As agentic AI systems tackle more complex mathematical tasks, they increasingly rely on information retrieval (IR) to search problem databases, theorem libraries, and educational resources. However, choosing the right retriever remains difficult, as it is infeasible to directly isolate its effect on downstream performance. On the other hand, existing retrieval-specific benchmarks often fail to capture fine-grained mathematical relevance, penalizing relevant documents. We address this gap by introducing SABER-Math, the first fully automated benchmark for evaluating mathematical IR without expert annotation. Starting from 283K high-school-level math problems with solutions, SABER-Math builds challenging reranking tasks in three steps: (i) first, LLMs extract concise solution summaries and mathematical topics for each problem; (ii) then, per-query relevant documents are discovered using ontology topic-based and lexical solutions-summary-based similarities, and (iii) finally, a Swiss-style LLM preference tournament produces fine-grained relevance ratings for the documents. We evaluate lexical retrievers, specialized mathematical retrieval systems, and recent embedding models. We find that while modern embedding models substantially outperform classical and math-specific baselines, even the strongest systems struggle in symbol-heavy domains like Algebra and Calculus. Importantly, we show that general-purpose IR benchmarks such as MTEB do not reliably predict mathematical performance, especially for recent embedding models, highlighting the need for math-specific retrieval benchmarks.

Benchmarks for LLM-assisted theorem proving in Lean are often treated as intrinsically reliable because every solved instance comes with a machine-checked proof. However, the kernel only checks that a proof establishes a \emph{formal} statement; it does not verify that the statement faithfully encodes the intended informal problem, nor that evaluation harnesses are robust to trivial or adversarial solutions. We audit five widely used Lean theorem-proving benchmarks and their forks, using corpus-scale static checkers to surface 4,833 findings, including 398 mechanically certified issues such as counterexamples, vacuous theorems, and unsound axioms. We also document semantic defects such as missing hypotheses, problem simplification, incomplete or incorrect translations, and Lean-specific specification hazards. Beyond dataset construction, we survey evaluation-time failure modes and show, on corrected subsets, that defects can both inflate and deflate reported prover scores. We propose a fault taxonomy, a suite of automated checkers and recall-oriented semantic audit prompts, and release standards to guide the creation of formal math datasets and to make evaluation more reproducible and trustworthy. Our checkers, audit prompts, and corrected dataset snapshots are available at https://github.com/Shashi456/atp-checkers.

Doctor agents are moving beyond single-turn answer generation toward evolving clinical decision systems. Within an outpatient episode, they acquire evidence, use examination and consultation resources, and decide when to finalize a diagnosis and management plan. Across episodes, their behavior may change through memory, retrieval, reflection, or other update mechanisms. Current evaluations only partially cover this setting. Fixed-input medical QA benchmarks score final answers from complete inputs, whereas many interactive benchmarks still focus on individual encounters or fixed runs, providing limited support for evaluating how episode-level decisions interact with cross-episode experience. We introduce MedEvoEval, an executable longitudinal evaluation framework based on action-gated simulated outpatient episodes. Each source case is converted into role-specific patient, examination, and manager views; evidence is revealed only through valid actions; and each episode records a structured trace that links observations, actions, final outputs, manager scores, and optional experience write-back. We release a runnable E&D artifact with 700 processed episodes, provenance notes, schemas, an episode runner, scoring scripts, configurations, example logs, analysis code, and trajectory- and step-level derivatives. Experiments show that episode traces expose process costs hidden by final-answer scoring, show how MDT-style consultation reallocates resources, and support longitudinal analyses of memory maturation, held-out transfer, update-stage response, and backward retention. Together, these results show that MedEvoEval provides a concrete basis for evaluating whether doctor agents improve through experience, transfer useful behavior, and retain earlier capabilities over time.

Sign Languages (SLs) are the primary means of communication for millions of deaf individuals, yet existing evaluation metrics for generated SL remain simplistic and poorly aligned with human judgements. We introduce BackTranslation2.0, a linguistically grounded evaluation metric for text-to-sign translation that moves beyond naïve backtranslation. Our approach adopts an agentic framework in which a deterministic pipeline orchestrates a suite of specialised tools to assess four scoring dimensions - grammatical correctness, phonological accuracy, motion fluency, and generation fidelity - aligned with human rater assessments. Tool outputs are not treated independently: a set of large language model (LLM)-based cross-referential comparison modules evaluates consistency across tools and checks outputs against linguistic expectations, enabling structured reasoning over grammatical, phonological, and motion-level evidence. Final dimension scores are computed through deterministic weighted formulas over validated tool outputs. To validate BackTranslation2.0, we introduce and evaluate on a British Sign Language (BSL) dataset rated in a human rater study across the same quality dimensions, following a protocol developed in collaboration between linguists and deaf experts, benchmarking against six baseline metrics. Our method demonstrates strong correlation with human judgements across all dimensions, providing a more comprehensive, interpretable, and linguistically principled evaluation framework for sign language production systems.

We introduce PerceptionRubrics, a rubric-based evaluation framework that addresses the gap between saturated benchmark scores and real-world brittleness. Shifting evaluation from holistic semantic matching to rigorous atomic auditing, PerceptionRubrics pairs 1,038 information-dense images with over 10,000 instance-specific rubrics. These criteria are derived from golden captions constructed via a novel Circular Peer-Review consensus pipeline and then distilled into a dual-stream system of Must-Right (essential facts) and Easy-Wrong (fine-grained details) rubrics. Crucially, PerceptionRubrics implements a Gated Scoring mechanism: unlike linear averages, failure on mandatory visual facts triggers sharp binary penalties. Extensive evaluation yields critical insights: (1) The Reliability Gap: models often verify fragmented elements correctly yet fail strict conjunctive constraints, exposing brittleness in dense domains; (2) Open-Closed Stratification: contrary to reasoning trends, we reveal a persistent 8% perception deficit between open-source and proprietary frontiers; and (3) Human-Aligned Rigor: our gated metrics substantially out-align conventional benchmarks, validating that strict perceptual fidelity is the prerequisite for reliable generation.

Headline type-correctness (TC%) of LLM autoformalization has climbed from $\sim$53% to $\sim$76% in two years, yet this scalar conceals which errors each method resolves. We propose a signal-coverage matrix that crosses the Lean elaborator (pass/fail) with a semantic-equivalence judgment (equivalent/not), sorting every output into one of four cells: true success (TS), type-only (TO), semantic-only (SO), or both fail (BF). On ProofNet# and MiniF2F-test with DeepSeek V4-Pro across Vanilla, Lean-Retry, Sample-Filter, and Stratified Autoformalization (SAF): (1) the +34 to +36 TS gain across the three elab-feedback methods is $\sim$64% type-stratum recovery, with SO flat on net (87.5% of original semantic errors rescued, 8 newly created). (2) The TO-to-TS rate is 23/61 for each method (Wilson 95% CI [26.6%, 50.3%]), and this stratum-level recovery rate predicts $Δ$TS on held-out methods to within 2/186 and renders $Δ$TC linear in the Vanilla elab-fail rate across six (model, dataset) cells ($R^2=0.96$). (3) The two judges disagree by 26 to 37 pp on elab-feedback outputs (vs. 7 pp on Vanilla), with 30 to 56% of symbolic-judge false negatives traceable to elaborator-forced rewrites. The persistent residual reduces to two gold-formalization errors. TC% gains should be credited by which cell moved, not by the scalar alone.

Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores. Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions, and an LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback together with calibrated overall scores. This decomposition makes evaluation easier to inspect, easier to diagnose, and directly usable for prompt improvement. Across SummEval, Topical-Chat, and QAGS, BINEVAL matches or outperforms strong baselines including UniEval and G-Eval, with especially strong results on factual consistency benchmarks such as QAGS. Beyond competitive correlation with human judgments, BINEVAL better matches human score distributions and avoids the ceiling effects common in prior LLM judges, leading to better discrimination between borderline and clearly flawed outputs. We further show that the same question-level feedback supports iterative prompt optimization, improving evaluator prompts on summarization and generation prompts on IFBench under both self-update and cross-model update settings. Overall, BINEVAL provides a task-agnostic, training-free, and interpretable evaluation framework that combines strong empirical performance with practical diagnostic and optimization value.

Security misconfigurations in Terraform Infrastructure-as-Code are a growing risk in cloud deployments, and large language models are increasingly used as automated repair agents. Existing evaluations often treat a repair as successful when the targeted static-analysis finding disappears, without checking planning validity, behavioral change, or security intent. This paper presents TerraProbe, a five-layer oracle framework for evaluating LLM-assisted Terraform security repair. We apply TerraProbe to 288 first-pass repairs generated by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet across 68 real-world TerraDS modules and 28 controlled injected-defect modules. The results show that targeted Checkov removal overstates repair success. Although targeted removal reaches 83.3 percent for the primary model, full-scanner cleanliness drops to 10.4 percent, Terraform planning succeeds for 39.6 percent, and plan comparison is reachable for 38.5 percent. Human adjudication further shows that 71.4 percent of plan-compared real-world repairs are deceptive fixes that pass automated checks while leaving the underlying vulnerability in place. This pattern is statistically indistinguishable across the three models, with deceptive-fix rates from 57.1 percent to 71.4 percent and pairwise Fisher exact p-values above 0.10. The paper introduces a four-dimensional taxonomy of deceptive fixes, validated with Cohen kappa of 0.78 and Krippendorff alpha of 0.76. IAM permission analysis confirms that wildcard Resource grants persist in all nine CKV2 AWS 11 deceptive-fix cases. TerraProbe contributes an evaluation methodology, a replication package, and the Multi-Layer Oracle Evaluation framework for distinguishing intent-aligned security repairs from scanner-passing false successes.

Auto-formalization is critical for scalable formal verification, but existing progress largely focuses on isolated statements, while theory-scale auto-formalization, which coherently translates hundreds of interdependent definitions, lemmas, and theorems, remains open due to challenges in consistency, faithfulness, scalability, and correctness. In this paper, we introduce LCS-Bench, a stand-alone, theory-scale benchmark based on Logics for Computer Science. LCS-Bench is built through a novel semi-automated agentic pipeline that leverages concept graphs, formal signature planning, issue tracking, sorry-filling with counter-example search, complemented by faithfulness review from human experts. The resulting artifact covers 327 textbook items, over 4,076 Lean declarations, and more than 85K lines of Lean code. The dataset supports broad evaluation through a data engine that automatically derives five tracks of evaluation benchmarks, measuring different aspects of auto-formalization and theorem-proving capabilities. We also introduce a novel evaluation protocol featuring definitional equivalence checkers, enabling more fine-grained and faithful assessment. Through extensive evaluation on 14 models, we demonstrate that (1) LCS-Bench is of high quality, consistent, and faithful; (2) the benchmark is challenging, with state-of-the-art models achieving only 20.1% on auto-formalization tasks; and (3) our analysis reveals key findings regarding theory-scale auto-formalization and suggests promising directions for future work.

Researchers increasingly use text classification--supervised models or large language models--to measure constructs from natural language, providing metrics such as recall and precision as evidence of their validity. Yet, though these metrics are point estimates subject to sampling variation, measures of uncertainty are inconsistently reported alongside them. Further, when they are reported, they are often estimated with methods that are not appropriate when relevant labelled datasets are small or performance is high. To increase and improve confidence interval reporting in the field, this paper evaluates confidence interval methods for performance metrics under conditions typical of social science text classification: small to moderate sample sizes, infrequent constructs, and texts nested within individuals. Across simulations, default methods such as the Wald interval and the basic percentile bootstrap are the least accurate, with coverage sometimes far below the nominal 95% level. Accuracy is improved with the use of Agresti-Coull, Wilson, Clopper-Pearson, and a novel pseudo-count regularized bootstrap (which is particularly relevant to the calculation of F1). When texts are nested within individuals, we demonstrate that adjustment for both effective N and the appropriate degrees of freedom is necessary for producing accurate analytic intervals. Among bootstrap intervals, the hierarchical bootstrap is more accurate than the cluster bootstrap when individuals produce a moderate number of texts but overly conservative when individuals produce only a few. By providing guidance to the field on appropriate interval estimation, we aim to improve the transparency of machine learning applications, and to encourage greater attention to the validation sample size at the design stage.

Large language models are turning from isolated predictors into agentic systems: they call tools, retrieve evidence, obey environment constraints, use verifiers, and complete tasks through search and multi-turn interaction. We adopts an analytical viewpoint based on "compression is intelligence": under a fixed task distribution, interface, and compute budget, a stronger agentic system lets a target object be reconstructed with fewer bits. We operationalize the measure with arithmetic coding, seed coding, and a fallback, and evaluate it in five settings: reversed text, chess moves, protein sequences, retrieval-augmented question answering, and semantic story compression; in all of them agentic components reduce codelength. These small, controlled experiments cover component types typical of real agentic systems, show that codelength can analyze how components, observers, and budgets change residual uncertainty, and offer guidance for evaluating real agent systems.

Visual assessment of residual plots is a common approach for diagnosing linear models, but it relies on manual evaluation, which does not scale well and can lead to inconsistent decisions across analysts. The lineup protocol, which embeds the observed plot among null plots, can reduce subjectivity but requires even more human effort. In today's data-driven world, such tasks are well suited for automation. We present a new R package that uses a computer vision model to automate the evaluation of residual plots. An accompanying Shiny application is provided for ease of use. Given a sample of residuals, the model predicts a visual signal strength (VSS) and offers supporting information to help analysts assess model fit.

Practice often treats automatic metrics for attribution in LLM retrieval-augmented generation as interchangeable. We audit eight automatic scorers -- lexical, embedding, and BERTScore baselines alongside entailment/grounding-trained models (clean and FEVER NLI, the checker MiniCheck) -- across three evaluation constructs (provenance/topicality, generated-answer attribution, and fact-check entailment), asking whether any scorer transfers: stays within the 95% confidence interval of the best audited scorer on every dataset of a multi-dataset construct. In the construct with the most multi-dataset human-labeled coverage -- generated-answer attribution (AttributionBench's four source datasets, n = 1,610, with independent HAGRID, n = 2,150) -- none of the audited automatic scorers does: the per-dataset metric rankings invert (Kendall tau = -0.64, p = 0.031 on AttributedQA vs. LFQA), and an off-the-shelf NLI scorer that is best on short-claim AttributedQA (AUROC 0.90) collapses to AUROC 0.53 (chance) on long-form LFQA, where BERTScore wins (0.91); the reversal persists under the tested truncation settings. This instability has a concrete decision cost: a naive "best-on-average" rule for choosing an evaluator fails leave-one-dataset-out (mean held-out regret 0.172 AUROC, worse than fixing one scorer), so metric choice should be validated on the target dataset rather than assumed from performance elsewhere. A prompt-based LLM judge avoids the chance-level collapses the automatic scorers suffer (no LFQA collapse) but is not uniformly best, ~100x costlier, and non-deterministic -- relocating, not removing, the validation burden.

As agentic LLM systems move from prototypes to deployment across increasingly diverse domains, evaluating them has become both more important and more difficult. The challenge is not only that individual metrics may be unreliable, but that evaluation goals are often left implicit. Without a clear account of what a system is expected to do, how it can fail, and which failures matter, metric choices become difficult to justify, interpret, or validate. We present Litmus, a zero-label system that designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines by eliciting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation. Instead of assuming that the evaluation target is already known, Litmus first identifies what must be measured and why, then converts those answers into constraints for constructing a justified, per-stage metric portfolio. We evaluate Litmus on three real, code-defined AI pipelines - financial account grouping, scientific QA, and inherent risk assessment - against AutoMetrics and three DynamicRubric baselines. Litmus achieves the broadest or tied-broadest concern coverage, spans more pipeline stages, produces a near-zero-redundancy portfolio, and ranks first in validity against per-row quality labels on all three pipelines - decisively on scientific QA (Spearman $ρ=0.72$ vs. less than $0.47$ for every baseline), and within overlapping confidence intervals in relation to two components of the audit framework despite using no labels during metric design. Our results support a shift from automatic metric implementation to automatic metric specification: before asking which metric to compute, evaluation systems should ask what must be measured and why.

Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) is a critical skill, yet its current assessment typically relies on manual rating systems which are time-consuming and difficult to scale. Automated feedback could significantly enhance surgical training by providing immediate, standardized metrics. This study aims to define, clinically evaluate the relevance, and establish the technical readiness of a set of approaches for LCN assessment. Methods: We developed a detailed taxonomy of 14 key aspects of camera navigation, categorized into Framing & Composition, Visibility & Clarity, Orientation & Stability, Motion & Dynamics, and Safety & Awareness. For each aspect, we assessed the technological readiness of automated measurement based on the current state of the art (SoTA) in computer vision (CV). To establish clinical relevance, we designed a survey for practicing laparoscopic surgeons to rate the importance of each aspect on a 5-point Likert scale and to select the five most critical skills. Results: 23 surgeons participated in the survey. Foundational aspects like Field of View, Focus and Centering were rated as most important by surgeons. We present a "Clinical Importance vs. CV Technological Readiness" matrix, identifying high-priority targets for development--aspects that are both clinically crucial and technologically ready to measure. Conclusion: This work establishes a foundational framework for quantifying LCN skills. By aligning surgeon priorities with CV capabilities, we provide a clear roadmap for automatic skill assessment. This foundation enables the development of AI-driven assistance tools that can accelerate the learning curve for surgical assistants and potentially improve surgical safety and efficiency.