Generative AI Evaluation

The development of generative artificial intelligence resources enables opportunities of speeding up systems and engineering design work. This contribution introduces a framework of formal operations for assembling context in LLM-based engineering design. This framework involves the assembly of modular context units, including policy prompts, reference units with persistence, and user questions with prompt vectoring. This approach enables the systematic structuring of interactions with generative models. A formal method for evaluating modelling-as-code LLM outputs is also presented, which enables the evaluation of compliance to intent from LLM answers and thereby asses the support from LLMs for systems architecture modelling.

Molecule generation has emerged as a powerful computational tool for de novo drug design, enabling the exploration of chemical space beyond the limits of conventional virtual screening. The field has progressed rapidly, driven by advances in molecular representations, generative architectures, and target-aware modeling strategies. However, existing reviews typically address specific model families or application scenarios in isolation, rather than offering an integrated perspective on how these components collectively form a coherent generation workflow. In this review, we present a comprehensive evaluation of molecule generation models for de novo drug design, covering 82 methods across five deep generative frameworks, including recurrent neural network (RNN)- and Transformer-based models, variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs), flow-based models, and diffusion models. We first summarize widely used benchmarks and molecular representations, and then examine the methodological principles underlying both general and pocket-conditioned generation. A central contribution of this work is a systematic synthesis and comparative analysis of reported performance across commonly used benchmarks and evaluation metrics. We also summarize representative experimentally validated case studies. Looking ahead, we discuss future directions in standardized 3D data, interaction-aware generation, receptor flexibility, and multi-objective molecular design, with the aim of improving the reliability and experimental relevance of molecule generation. All collected benchmark resources, evaluation metrics, and model references are provided in a publicly accessible repository at https://github.com/JacklinGroup/molecule-generation-review.

Generative AI inverts the typical periodization of literary history: the periodizing tag Victorian can now come first and influence what is written. Generative periodization, defined and tested here, describes the use of literary-period designations in generating texts. I test this approach on 100 book-length novels produced under Victorian and Zero-Style conditions using GPT, Qwen, and Llama workflows. The Period Alignment Score (PAS), trained on nineteenth-century literature and benchmarked against human Zero-Style prose, assesses alignment using topic-reduced grammatical features. Victorian prompts produce consistent historical-direction shifts in GPT and Qwen, but not robustly in Llama. Victorian-only recalibration and harder comparison corpora preserve the GPT and Qwen effects. Cross-model transfer also shows a shared direction of grammatical change. The measurable target is the broader nineteenth century rather than the Victorian period per se.

The LLM-as-a-judge (LLMaJ) framework has emerged as a promising solution for cheap, reproducible, reference-free Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation. Prior work seeks to improve LLMaJ by decomposing evaluation tasks into simpler sub-tasks. In this work, we systematically compare LLMaJ methods with and without decomposition on multiple NLG datasets. We find no evidence that LLMaJ with task decomposition leads to performance gains over a fair baseline that does not use decomposition. Instead, we find that previously reported performance gains in decomposition-based LLMaJ stem from using human labels as training data, and not task decomposition itself. Also, we find that, when human labels are available, LLMaJ without using task decomposition can perform comparably to human annotators.

Online health information seeking is shifting from keyword search, where users consider a ranked list of links, to conversational systems that compose a single answer and curate its citations. Source evaluation therefore passes from user to platform, yet what these systems surface is poorly characterized. We audited three free consumer products (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overview) on twenty English mental health questions under two prompt conditions, with a subset of three also translated into six further languages of varying resource tiers. We recorded 15,942 citations across 1,140 responses and 1,713 unique domains, then classified every citation with a nine-category organizational typology applied by a deterministic classifier validated against human coding. Citations were heavily concentrated: the ten most-cited domains accounted for 43.6% of English citations, and government, commercial health, and academic sources were closely matched at roughly 22% each. Platforms differed little in typical citation volume but sharply in consistency and in the source types they favored. Explicitly requesting sources shifted composition only modestly. Non-English queries surfaced fewer citations and were routed to language-appropriate resources at significantly lower rates. We release the typology, classifier, and annotated corpus as reusable instruments for auditing generative health search.

Two-sided service marketplaces are moving from deterministic request-form intake to AI-native probabilistic matching, enabled by large language models (LLMs) that infer intent, preferences, and latent constraints from natural language. Relying on inferred intent rather than fixed-form fields forces these platforms to regenerate the provider-side preference taxonomy underwriting matching, search, and pricing: attributes interpretable to service providers while remaining a useful signal for marketplace decisions. We present an autoresearch loop that generates this taxonomy, one occupation at a time, and has been deployed in production at a major U.S. consumer services marketplace since April 2026, spanning 132 occupations. Instead of one global hierarchy, the loop treats each occupation as an independent generation problem and runs iterative propose-evaluate-keep refinement cycles. Each candidate tag set is scored by a recalibrated six-rubric LLM-as-judge framework, and a 7-critic panel of distinct personas contributes weighted penalties to an adjusted score, with no hard vetoes. A separate parity-mapping stage maps legacy request-form Q&A pairs back to the generated taxonomy, yielding both a coverage signal and an interface for human quality assurance; it does so by first inferring the provider attribute each legacy question was meant to measure, rather than translating questions to tags literally.

Document-to-slide generation is challenging because slides are dense editable artifacts that require both faithful content selection and precise spatial layout. Recent slide agents adopt iterative reflection, but typically follow a monolithic "one version, one feedback" loop: a slide or deck is rewritten, rendered afterward, and critiqued only at the turn boundary. This delayed feedback makes local failures such as overflow, overlap, clipping, and off-canvas placement difficult to attribute and repair. We propose ReDeck, a step-level render-grounded refinement framework that decomposes slide revision into atomic edit actions and returns renderer-derived observations after each step, turning refinement into "one edit, one observation." To balance local repair with global quality, ReDeck uses multi-granular feedback: step-level render feedback for spatial errors, a turn-level adaptive critic for semantic and design guidance, and a submission-level gate for hard layout validation. We further introduce DeckQuiz, a benchmark that decouples content fidelity, spatial correctness, and design quality. Across GPT-5.4, Claude-4.6, and Gemini-3.1, ReDeck consistently outperforms existing slide-generation agents, and ablations confirm that feedback timing and granularity are critical for reliable slide refinement.

Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.

Large language models can generate interactive web interfaces, but reliable generative UI requires maintaining an executable artifact as user requests evolve. We introduce EvoGenUI-Bench, a benchmark for multi-turn interface maintenance comprising 150 five-turn tasks and 750 turns across three scenarios: information presentation, executable interaction, and tool-grounded external state. We execute generated artifacts in a browser and evaluate them using screenshots, source and DOM evidence, actor traces, and runtime logs. Beyond turn-level and episode-level success, we measure cross-turn retention with Adjacent Pass Retention. Across eight models, even the strongest achieves 74.9% Turn Pass while completing only 37.3% of five-turn episodes; APR further falls to 52.4% on tool-grounded tasks. Diagnostic analysis shows that presentation failures center on information architecture, interaction failures on derived-state propagation and affordance binding, and tool-grounded failures additionally involve external-state grounding and requirement decomposition. These results reframe generative UI evaluation from judging isolated outputs to testing whether interface behavior, derived state, external state, and assistant claims remain synchronized as the artifact evolves.

Intelligence is constituted by \textit{process} (iterative activity through which output emerges), not in the output itself. Generative AI (GenAI) is trained on \textit{traces} (textual and visual residues of human cognitive processes), reproducing samples from a distribution of those traces. Its outputs resemble reasoning, problem-solving, and creativity, yet the activity that produces such outputs in humans remains largely absent. Current GenAI is, therefore, weakly equivalent to the cognition it imitates, matching outputs while process stays absent or opaque. The cognitive sciences have long distinguished between weak and strong equivalence. Here, we define \textit{strong} equivalence across seven process features, assessable against human and machine cognition. Our process-based account addresses a symmetric risk: GenAI tools that outsource a person's generative processes may leave critical capacities unbuilt. We specify design principles for GenAI that instantiate more process and preserve rather than erode human judgment and creativity, and outline process audits that make strong equivalence testable.

Generative models of limit orderbook (LOB) data have advanced rapidly, but their evaluation often focuses on stylised facts and selected market statistics. These measures provide useful diagnostics but may not capture the joint temporal and cross-level structure of order-book trajectories. We introduce LOB-ID, an embedding-based framework that adapts the Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) and Monge Inception Distance (MIND) to LOB data. To obtain domain-specific embeddings, we train the DeepLOB architecture on four months of Level-2 order-book data for five equities. We show that LOB-ID is stable across time, instruments, and embedding checkpoints, and rises monotonically under controlled distortions. We then construct a moment-matching attack against FID and a deep-book perturbation that evades statistic-based evaluation. MIND remains substantially more sensitive to both distortions. Finally, we score five generative LOB models, spanning stochastic baselines and deep learning approaches, and find that LOB-ID ranks them in line with the joint temporal and cross-level structure each captures by construction.

Analytic dashboards combine coordinated views and interactions for data exploration and decision-making. Recent models can generate them from data and natural-language goals, but evaluating their usefulness remains difficult. Dashboard generation is open-ended, and neither static appearance nor successful execution alone captures analytical support and interaction quality. We introduce DashArena, to our knowledge the first benchmark for open-ended, task-grounded generation of interactive analytic dashboards. Its key innovation is to require each system to generate both a dashboard and a replayable interaction trajectory. A browser executor replays the trajectory and turns the system's intended analytical workflow into reproducible visual and execution evidence. A VLM judge compares candidates using this evidence, and Bradley--Terry aggregation produces the leaderboard. We further distill the judge into the open-weight DashJudge-8B. Human evaluations show that DashJudge-8B effectively reproduces human judgments and ablations show that interaction evidence improves judge agreement. Experiments with frontier models reveal persistent rendering, analytical, and interaction failures. Together, these results show that realistic dashboard generation remains challenging and that interaction-aware evaluation captures failures missed by static or execution-only checks.

Recent advances in visual generative models have enabled high-quality image and video generation, but evaluating these models often demands sampling hundreds or thousands of images or videos, which is computationally expensive. Existing evaluation methods also rely on rigid pipelines that overlook specific user needs and provide numerical results without clear explanations. Mimicking how humans quickly form impressions of a model's capabilities from only a few samples, we propose the Evaluation Agent framework, which employs human-like strategies for efficient, dynamic, multi-round evaluations, offering detailed, user-tailored analyses. Given a natural-language evaluation request, the agent decomposes it into sub-aspects, generates targeted prompts, samples images or videos from the evaluated model, invokes suitable evaluation tools, and iteratively updates its plan from the observed evidence, covering both predefined benchmark dimensions and open-ended user concerns. The framework is thus efficient, promptable, explainable, and scalable across models and tools. Experiments show that Evaluation Agent reduces evaluation time to 10% of traditional methods while delivering comparable results. We further introduce Open Evaluation Agent (Open-EA) by constructing EA-CoT-10K, a corpus of history-conditioned step-level instruction-tuning records derived from multi-round evaluation rollouts, and training EA-3B from Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct as a local planning backbone that preserves the structured reasoning, tool invocation, and summary protocol of the API-based agent while reducing dependence on proprietary backbones. Experiments validate the API-based agent on established T2I/T2V benchmarks and open-ended queries, and evaluate Open-EA on four in-domain and three out-of-domain T2V generator families, showing partial cross-family transfer of the learned policy.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to follow long lists of constraints in complex instructions, and synthesizing instructions from a reference document (i.e., back-translation) is a widely used method to measure/enhance LLMs' ability to follow complex instructions. However, this method introduces a critical loophole: the constraint synthesis model copies text from the reference as a very specific constraint and the evaluated LLM trivially satisfies the constraint by copying its text in the response. To address these issues, we propose UNSPECIFIC, a novel framework that synthesizes constraints common to two similar reference articles to reduce copy-pasting, selectively hardens only trivially satisfied constraints to balance difficulty and naturalness, and evaluates satisfaction on both the generated article and its summary to penalize superficial instruction following. Consequently, we built the UNSPECIFIC benchmark on news, story, and blog domains to analyze the copy-pasting behavior of LLMs. Our results show that our synthesized constraints are not only more challenging (e.g., the satisfaction rate of GPT-5 Mini drops from 90% to 78%) and natural (LLM win-rate gap improves by 30%) from a human perspective but also mitigate the copy-pasting. We also find that a large portion of constraints are satisfied superficially (i.e., not satisfied in the core narrative of the article). The code and datasets are released at https://github.com/JeetDSharma/UNSPECIFIC.

As generative AI increasingly becomes a common source of daily decision-making, including financial choices, it is critical to understand how people evaluate AI-generated financial advice. We conducted a preregistered vignette experiment (N = 285) in which substantive financial content---including facts, numerical values, recommendation direction, and core reasoning---was held constant while communication style varied across AI Financial Assistant (AI), Certified Financial Planner (Expert), and Online Community Forum (OC) advice. Displayed source attribution was independently manipulated through correctly labeled, unlabeled, and mislabeled conditions, allowing us to separate attribution effects from source-specific communication cues. Expert advice was rated more favorably than AI advice on 9 of 10 outcomes (|d|=0.20--0.47), and this advantage remained visible without source labels, where Expert advice outperformed AI advice on 8 of 10 outcomes (up to d=0.60). Correct labels added limited differentiation, whereas mislabeling increased ratings of AI advice for situational fit and overall quality (d=0.42 for each) and attenuated the Expert advantage in situational fit (d=-0.36). Descriptive analyses further showed that AI advice was most responsive to displayed attribution and, conversely, that advice-style differences were most visible under an AI label. These findings show that financial-advice evaluations are shaped jointly by displayed attribution and message-level communication cues. We position disclosure not as a neutral transparency mechanism, but as an interpretive frame whose accuracy and interaction with message cues can shape trust and reliance.

The reliability of AI generative models is typically measured by output correctness, yet in practice it depends on the effort required to verify those outputs. We argue that current evaluation metrics overlook a critical failure mode: Verification-Cost Errors (VCEs), defined as incorrect input-output pairs that a declared fraction of the verifier population fails to identify within the verification budget available in a given deployment context. Unlike standard notions of "hallucination", VCEs are defined operationally, by the failure of correct identification within budget rather than by any property of the output itself. Plausibility and authoritative presentation are hypothesised contributors to that failure, not defining conditions. To capture this asymmetry, we introduce the notion of verification cost relative to a deployment budget as an operational dimension that current evaluation does not routinely capture. The quantity is presented as a conceptual instrument rather than a finalized metric. Evidence from code generation and multi-modal document understanding shows that high benchmark accuracy can mask significant verification effort in practice. We therefore take the position that correctness alone is insufficient as a measure of reliability. AI evaluation should explicitly account for verification cost, reflecting whether errors can be detected under realistic resource constraints.

Generative models are often evaluated through singular artifacts, whereas human creativity typically emerges through iterative generation, appraisal, and refinement. This pilot study examines whether iterative search improves LLM creativity by adapting FunSearch to recipe generation for the 2024 Pillsbury Bake-Off and evaluating outputs against human benchmarks using TTCT-based LLM evaluation. Across two experiments, we test iteration count, generator temperature, and in-loop selection-scorer model size. Results show that iterative generation-selection can produce recipes with creativity scores comparable to human benchmarks, but additional iterations alone do not improve creativity. The in-loop evaluator matters most: a smaller selection scorer yields significantly higher scores across most TTCT dimensions, while temperature has limited effects except for originality. These findings suggest that evaluator design is a first-order design variable in subjective creative search.

Recent audio generation systems have progressed from single-modality synthesis to generating complex acoustic scenes containing speech, music, and sound effects. Therefore, evaluating these models requires assessing multiple interacting capabilities, including semantic fidelity, speaker consistency, and temporal control, yet existing benchmarks focus on isolated domains or coarse-grained descriptions. To address this gap, we introduce the Multi-control Mixed Audio Generation (MMAG) benchmark. MMAG contains approximately 4,000 manually verified audio clips with rich annotations covering speech content, speaker identity, music attributes, sound events, and temporal relationships, together with dedicated subsets for voice cloning and timestamp-conditioned generation. We further propose a systematic evaluation protocol that measures acoustic fidelity, speech quality, semantic alignment, and temporal accuracy. Benchmarking representative agentic orchestrators, unified audio-visual generation models, and native mixed-audio generators reveals substantial performance trade-offs across these capabilities, with no existing model performing consistently well. Our results highlight the remaining challenges of controllable mixed audio generation and establish MMAG as a comprehensive benchmark for future research.

We present a schema-based framework for extracting complex, structured information from unstructured text documents using generative AI, followed by automated semantic evaluation of the extracted information against a gold standard. The schema, serving as an information model encoding domain knowledge, provides a unified, systematic, and consistent framework for extraction of hierarchical, nested information, with attributes of variable cardinality, and subsequent evaluation of the results. Information extraction from a document is performed in a single call to the model, in zero-shot mode. In the evaluation step, we introduce a path-based semantic matching algorithm to align the nested, variable-cardinality attributes in the extracted results with those in the gold standard. We use generative AI for semantic comparison of the extracted and gold standard values of an attribute, and introduce a rubric to classify the result of the comparison, according to domain-specific considerations, as an exact, semantic, useful, or non-match. We were able to extract 12 out of 14 attributes with an F1 score of $>$90% from documents published by the health technology assessment organisation NICE, using the generative AI model Claude Opus 3. The time needed to extract the attributes from a document was $\sim$30 times lower than the time taken by a human domain expert. We further demonstrate generalisability of this framework across different generative AI models and transferability across different HTA organisations and languages.

Generative AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes professional contexts, where their outputs shape what users believe, how they reason, and what they treat as settled. This raises a central question for responsible AI: under what conditions is reliance on generative AI outputs epistemically warranted rather than behaviourally induced? Existing frameworks largely ask whether AI outputs are accurate, fair, explainable, safe, or trusted by users. These questions remain necessary, and each can contribute to warranted reliance. However, they do not directly specify warranted reliance as a distinct evaluative target: the conditions under which users are justified in treating AI outputs as inputs into their own reasoning. We argue that this requires an account of epistemic trustworthiness: what makes a system epistemically worthy of reliance. Drawing on philosophical accounts of trustworthiness as competence and audience-orientation, we develop a constitutive normative framework comprising three jointly necessary and non-fungible conditions. First, epistemic humility requires systems to represent and communicate the limits of their competence. Second, epistemic access requires systems to enable users to inspect, question, and contest outputs in context. Third, resistance to epistemic injustice requires systems to recognise users as legitimate epistemic agents and avoid marginalising their knowledge and experience. Through real-world case analyses in legal reasoning, medical reasoning, and hiring, we show how failures of epistemic humility, epistemic access, and resistance to epistemic injustice can produce consequential harms that standard measures of accuracy, fairness, and usability do not address on their own. We conclude by outlining design and evaluation implications for GenAI systems organised around epistemically warranted reliance rather than output correctness alone.

Papers 1-2 of the Kathleen series showed that a byte-level, attention-free architecture built from a wavetable encoder and multi-scale reverberant state can match strong baselines on classification at ~450-700K parameters, without pretraining. We ask whether the same ingredients can generate. (1) Scaling: on byte-level language modeling (WikiText-103, raw UTF-8, no tokenizer), the reverberant model beats a parameter-matched transformer at every dataset scale measured (2-512 MB), e.g. 1.84 vs 2.04 bits/byte at 512 MB with ~0.5M parameters; the transformer needs more than 512 MB to match what the attention-free model learns from 32 MB. (2) Measurement: we introduce FORM DISTANCE, a non-parametric, gaming-resistant instrument for "reads like text": nine statistical axes of human text define a reference cloud, and five constructed fakes are all rejected. (3) Generation: decoding policy dominates architecture -- widening the sampler halves the same model's distance (3.17 to 1.52), and a retrieval-augmented decoding scheme takes the frozen model further (1.52 to 1.14) with no training step involved; the ablation attributes the gain to the sparse phrase dose itself, not the selection gate. The gain has a sharp boundary condition: the phrases must come from the model's own training corpus -- a 40x larger foreign library helps not at all, an effect the attention twin shares, consistent with in-context integration being a capability of scale. We also report four architectural additions that did not help, and a computed lexicon reaching 94% of a learned table's top-1 accuracy at one fifth of the parameters. Everything runs offline; all experiments are reproducible on a free Kaggle T4.

Existing reference-free methods for evaluating music perceptual quality alleviate the need for paired noisy-clean data, but they still rely on a background set, which is used to compute aggregated statistics of clean audio samples. In this work, we propose a novel approach that eliminates this requirement, achieving background-set-free and reference-free quality estimation using only a pre-trained Flow Matching backbone. We demonstrate that unconditional Flow Matching inversion via simple Euler integration is sufficient to detect various artificial distortions and accurately rank music generation models against human perceptual judgments. We introduce InvFlowFD, which performs flow inversion and compares a group of inverted samples to the prior distribution. We evaluate our method against prior work, quantitatively and with a thorough human study. Results suggest that InvFlowFD is highly correlated with human perception of sound distortions, as well as generative models' quality, while being more flexible and less restrictive than existing metrics.

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.

Sonic seasoning research has shown that listeners attribute systematic gustatory and emotional meaning to sound, and text-to-music generative artificial intelligence has recently been used to render gustatory prompts as musical stimuli. Whether the taste-sound correspondences acquired by such models hold beyond the cultural context in which they were validated remains untested. We extended a single-country study to a three-country online experiment conducted in Argentina, Italy, and Japan (N = 361). Participants first indicated their preference between base and fine-tuned MusicGen excerpts generated from four taste prompts (sweet, sour, bitter, salty), and then rated fine-tuned excerpts on twelve taste, emotion, and thermal descriptors. Preference for the fine-tuned model was confirmed in Argentina and Italy but not in Japan, and the salty prompt yielded the weakest correspondence in all three cohorts. Ratings differed substantially between countries, yet the main effect of country was no longer detectable once ratings had been standardized within participant, whereas the interactions characterizing the mapping of prompts onto descriptors remained essentially unchanged. Much of the apparent cross-cultural divergence is therefore attributable to differences in scale use; a structural component nevertheless persists. In addition an exploratory factor analysis indicated that the twelve descriptors were organized along different latent dimensions in each cohort. These results indicate that cross-cultural variation in AI-mediated sonic seasoning operates at two levels: the overall level at which taste is attributed to a given stimulus, and the relational structure of those attributions. Evaluations of generative music systems across populations should accordingly distinguish response-style bias from genuine perceptual reorganization.

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

Large language models can now generate fluent and complete stories, yet many outputs still feel formulaic and unnatural because of cliches, over-explanation, linear causal progression, and stereotyped endings, an immediately recognizable AI flavor. Existing detection and evaluation methods often stop at source labels or holistic scores, while revision methods typically target predefined issues through localized edits, limiting their ability to support multiple plausible revision strategies or guide story-wide changes in information release, causal organization, and ending treatment. We introduce CraftAlign, a framework that aligns AI stories with the craft of human storytelling by both assessing Human/AI writing patterns and providing revision guidance. CraftAlign comprises two learned modules and an inference-time guidance pipeline. A feature estimator built on Qwen3.5-9B predicts 304 explicit writing features spanning style and narrative. A class-conditional energy model scores the resulting feature configuration against Human and AI writing patterns, conditioning on the original writing prompt when available. At inference time, CraftAlign applies schema-valid structured perturbations, selects changes that move the feature configuration toward the Human writing pattern, and converts them into natural-language guidance for a separate editor to rewrite the full story. Experiments show that CraftAlign accurately distinguishes Human and AI writing patterns and that its guidance outperforms revision baselines across editors and in a human study.

Natural-language descriptions have become a flexible interface for controlling generated speech. Existing evaluations largely assess whether an output matches a prompt, but prompt matching alone does not reveal whether characteristics outside the intended change remain stable. We examine this distinction through a controlled paired audit of three speech-generation systems: CosyVoice3, VoxCPM2, and Fish-Speech-S2. The evaluation contains 5,940 outputs spanning six reference speakers, ten texts, three random seeds, and eleven conditions. Using acoustic, prosodic, content, and speaker measurements, we find that responses in the expected target direction are frequently accompanied by changes outside descriptor-specific signal-level target sets. This pattern remains among outputs whose target response exceeds baseline seed variation, and the accompanying changes differ substantially across systems. We further introduce VoDER-Cal, a training-free candidate selector that retains sufficiently strong target responses while favoring smaller off-target deviations. A three-candidate pool raises the joint success rate from 4.8% under single-sample direct generation to approximately 14% for all candidate-selection policies. Within the matched three-candidate budget, VoDER-Cal reduces held-out off-target deviation from 0.344 under target-only selection to 0.276 and improves listener-rated preservation. Preservation-sensitive evaluation therefore complements prompt-adherence evaluation, while candidate reranking offers a practical inference-time improvement. Code, configuration files, and analysis scripts are available at https://github.com/intelland/VoDER

Generative UI (GenUI) lets large language models synthesize a complete, renderable interface directly from a natural-language instruction, but evaluating the quality of what they generate remains an open problem. Human evaluation is costly and rater-variant, while LLM-as-a-judge is scalable but reflects only a single implicit viewpoint, unable to capture how different populations of real users actually perceive the same interface. We propose the Evidence-Grounded, Social-Weighted Persona Panel (ESPP), a three-stage GenUI evaluation method in which a panel of psychologically diverse, evidence-grounded personas independently rates a screenshot, exchanges opinions under a trait-derived, semantically-gated bounded-confidence mechanism, and is aggregated via Delphi-inspired social weighting into a single judgment. ESPP tracks human judgment substantially more closely than a naive single-pass judge, raising Pearson $r$ from $0.716$ to $0.922$, and a prompt-ensemble control recovers only about a third of this gap, isolating genuine persona and evidence grounding as the dominant source of improvement. Beyond this fidelity gain, retaining each panelist's individual rating further reveals that user subgroups agree on overall model rankings yet diverge sharply on specific rating dimensions, a structural disagreement a single homogeneous judge would systematically erase. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/ESPP.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used by Muslims for religious guidance, Qur'anic interpretation, Hadith explanation, jurisprudential rulings, and Islamic education. Despite its growing adoption, there is limited empirical evidence on whether current AI systems provide authentic, verifiable, and trustworthy Islamic knowledge suitable for high-trust religious contexts. This study evaluates six leading generative AI systems using fifty realistic open-ended Islamic questions covering Qur'anic interpretation, Hadith, Fiqh, ethics, pastoral advice, and Madhhab-sensitive topics. Responses were collected under real-world conditions from participants in Australia and the United Kingdom and analysed using a mixed-method framework examining domain accuracy, citation verification, hallucinations, jurisprudential consistency, uncertainty handling, source provenance, and geographical variation. The study addresses four research questions: (1) How accurate and authentic are AI-generated responses across major Islamic knowledge domains? (2) To what extent do AI systems produce hallucinations, incomplete citations, or unverifiable religious references? (3) How consistently do models handle jurisprudential disagreement, Madhhab diversity, and uncertainty? (4) Are current AI systems sufficiently reliable for religious guidance, Islamic education, and scholarly research? Overall, current generative AI systems are valuable as assistive tools for introductory Islamic learning but should not be treated as authoritative sources for religious rulings or Islamic research without verification against authenticated primary sources and qualified scholarly expertise. This study provides one of the first comprehensive empirical evaluations of AI reliability within Islamic knowledge, offering practical guidance for researchers, educators, AI developers, and the wider Muslim community.

As search increasingly shifts toward LLM-driven answer engines, advertising is becoming embedded within the generated response itself and should therefore be evaluated for both user utility and commercial value. The key challenge is click-through intent: behavioural logs are unavailable, human annotation resists calibration, and frontier LLM judges conflate intent with linguistic fluency. These gaps compound, as principled pricing presupposes a continuous intent signal, while generating such a signal presupposes supervision that is currently unavailable. We construct the missing supervision through a psychologically grounded agent simulation framework, and distil it into a parameter-efficient evaluator that predicts click-through intent, together with the three companion dimensions of ad quality, as smooth, differentiable estimates. Validated through sign-certain behavioural perturbations, the evaluator surpasses frontier zero-shot judges on relevance sensitivity (79% versus 60-67%), tracks graded content degradation, generalises without error to 103 fictional products, and agrees with human preference in 86% of pairwise judgements across five annotators, with agreement rising in the evaluator's confidence. Upon its estimates we build the pricing layer directly, deriving the unique payment rule under which truthful bidding is optimal, demonstrating it on a best-of-k allocation, and extending the mechanism to non-monotone allocations. The same differentiable signal stands ready as a training objective for ad generation.