Generative AI Evaluation

Diverse human groups produce diverse ideas, the raw material of innovation. Generative AI challenges this engine twice over: everyday AI assistance may homogenize what diverse people create, and AI-simulated diversity may replace the people altogether. We tested both challenges in a preregistered creative metaphor experiment with native (L1) and non-native (L2) English writers, who wrote without AI, with AI-generated ideas (AI ideation), or with AI refining their own ideas (AI refinement). L2 writers contributed more collective diversity than L1 writers, with native-language ideation showing the most diverse pools. AI ideation compressed collective diversity for everyone and left the L2 advantage undetectable, whereas AI refinement preserved both. We then simulated the entire writer pool using personas built from participants' real backgrounds, three model families, native-language prompting, and elevated sampling temperatures. Every simulated pool fell below every human pool, and pushing models further induced diversity only through degenerate text. However, at the individual level, AI ideation raised writers' ratings, pitting private incentives against the collective good, except when L2 writers used their native language, which benefited both. Human diversity remains a valuable creative resource that current AI cannot simulate or sustain; the design of human-AI collaborative workflows determines whether it survives.

Span-guided rewriting aims to preserve meaning by localizing edits to annotated harmful spans, but the same constraint can leave harmful intent insufficiently mitigated. We present a controlled exploratory comparison of span-guided and unguided detoxification on a mixed-source English evaluation set comprising manually curated inputs and HateXplain test items. We conduct a dense blinded human evaluation under a fixed single-generator setting. Human preferences reveal a trade-off rather than a uniformly superior rewriting strategy. Span-guided outputs are favored when localized editing preserves the original stance and avoids unnecessary modification, whereas unguided outputs are favored when broader rewriting achieves more complete mitigation. This contrast varies substantially across the study-defined strata: the two strategies are competitive in the strong stratum, while unguided rewriting is clearly preferred in the mild stratum. Rationale annotations trace this difference to complementary failure risks: residual harm after localized editing and over-modification after broader rewriting. We treat automatic evaluation as a diagnostic rather than a substitute for human judgment. Toxicity-similarity scalarizations, a multi-generator analysis, and two general-purpose LLM judges reproduce parts of the aggregate tendency but do not yield an analogous stratified contrast. These setting-specific findings do not establish a severity-based routing rule. Instead, they motivate evaluation protocols that assess mitigation sufficiency and meaning preservation separately and report both residual harm and over-modification alongside aggregate scores.

AI-generated counterspeech offers a scalable and effective strategy to mitigate online toxicity by promoting more constructive dialogue. Yet, existing approaches adopt a generic, one-size-fits-all paradigm, overlooking the conversational context and characteristics of the targeted users. Here, we propose and evaluate multiple strategies for generating contextualized counterspeech that is adapted to the moderation setting and personalized to the moderated user. In detail, we explore a range of configurations that integrate different forms of contextual information and fine-tuning techniques. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation combining quantitative indicators with a pre-registered, mixed-design crowdsourcing experiment. To ensure robustness, we implement algorithmic measures of counterspeech quality based on ROUGE, BLEU, and BERTScore, observing overall consistent results across metrics. Furthermore, we analyze which characteristics of both the generated counterspeech and the moderated toxic message most strongly influence perceived persuasiveness, yielding insights into how contextualized interventions can be made more effective. Our findings show that personalization can be effective, but not uniformly so. Lightweight strategies combining conversational context and user history improve perceived adequacy and persuasiveness, whereas several other contextualization strategies degrade human-perceived counterspeech quality. Taken together, these results provide actionable directions for developing more personalized, effective, and responsible counterspeech systems, ultimately advancing human-AI collaboration in online content moderation.

With the advancement of AI technologies, Generative AI (GenAI) and human written text have become nearly indistinguishable. Additionally, the global standardization of AI chatbots made academic malpractice more frequent. Furthermore, existing research indicates GenAI poems are the most difficult to distinguish even without any modification thus, GenAI poems are naturally deemed human-like by modern detectors. However, the objectivity of such dissertations needs to be verified against modern detection tools but the subjectivity of poetry and the black-box nature of the modern LLMs (Large Language Models) architectures made verification of such work quite complicated. Hence, the main objective of the research is to deduce the attributes of English poetry that contribute classification and misclassification of both human and AI poems and provide corroborating or contradicting evidence to the poetry distinguishability claim. For such characterizations, we propose a Zero-shot detection pipeline with a dataset consisting of both human and AI poems to verify the distinguishability of human and AI creation and extract the aforementioned crucial attributes for accurate classification. Extraction of such attributes provides benefits in two ways: firstly, it reduces the margin of training needed as only the poems based on misclassifying attributes need to be trained and fine tuned and finally provides a critical insight to the GenAI detection dilemma to strengthen the modern detection pipelines.

Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require. Objectives: To support researchers intending to conduct SLRs using GenAI or those conducting empirical studies evaluating how well GenAI supports SLR tasks. Methods: First, we conducted a rapid review to identify studies that propose guidelines for evaluating and using GenAI and LLMs to support SLRs. Second, we drew on thought experiments, relevant guidance from the literature, and our own experience conducting SLRs and evaluating tools to develop recommendations for how to use and assess GenAI in the context of SLRs. Results: We discuss the problems researchers face when evaluating GenAI for SLRs. We identify and explain process issues to consider when planning, conducting, and reporting both SLRs using GenAI and evaluations of GenAI tools. Finally, we summarize our results as a set of process recommendations, which we name GUEST (GenAI Use and Evaluation in SLR Tasks). Conclusion: We argue that GenAI requires human oversight and is not currently capable of unsupervised systematic studies. However, it offers the prospect of cost-effective assistance for some repetitive tasks and for additional validation of some complex tasks. Our GUEST recommendations should help software engineering researchers both to conduct and report trustworthy SLRs using GenAI and to provide rigorous independent evaluation studies.

Compressed short-text generators can fail in two different places: the codec may discard information before generation starts, or the latent generator may produce weak codes. Without separating these failure modes, researchers can spend compute improving the wrong component. We study this problem in a controlled 64-to-16 TinyStories case study built from a hierarchical VQ-VAE-2 codec and a masked discrete diffusion generator (MDLM). We use a staged validation protocol that separates codec reconstruction fidelity, latent generation quality, and auxiliary latent diagnostics under one shared external GPT-2 scorer, while reporting complementary semantic metrics for the geometry study. In the tested configuration, codec reconstruction alone raises median external perplexity from 15.17 to 27.36 (+80.4%) and p95 from 25.10 to 98.91 (+294.1%), showing that the dominant quality loss appears before latent generation begins. Under the same scorer, code-space MDLM remains materially stronger than token-space diffusion, reducing mean, median, and p95 by 32.9%, 30.9%, and 36.6%, respectively. Geometry-aware regularization improves local latent proxies but does not improve decoded-text metrics in the available runs. The contribution is methodological rather than algorithmic: the paper presents a reusable staged diagnosis for one concrete pipeline and shows that, in this setting, codec fidelity rather than latent denoising sets the practical quality ceiling.

Generative-AI evaluations can become historical before publication, yet calendar age does not affect every conclusion equally. This paper has two linked purposes. First, it audits a maximum-variation purposive corpus of 40 empirical records appearing between 18 July 2025 and 17 July 2026. The audit coded publication route, execution timing, model identity, age of the newest named generation or immutable snapshot, same-family supersession and refresh behaviour. At appearance, the newest named model was a median 281 days old (middle 50%: 75-478; range: 11-939). Median age was 395 days for 25 journal articles, 56 days for 14 preprints and 49 days for one laboratory report. Thirty-five records included a superseded family, seven supplied a precise dated identifier, three clearly refreshed model evidence, and one added a late sensitivity test. All 40 included an OpenAI system, a feature of this corpus rather than a prevalence estimate. The paper distinguishes model age from claim currency and proposes six reporting practices. Second, it treats its own two-day production process as a reflexive case of frontier-model-assisted research creation. GPT-5.6 Sol Pro in ChatGPT supported candidate discovery, source reconciliation, calculations, drafting and critique; the author checked sources, made all substantive decisions and accepts responsibility. This is a proof-of-practice, not a controlled estimate of productivity or quality. By applying its own Model Facts and model-currency statement, the paper shows how rapid AI-assisted research can be made inspectable without treating model output as independent validation. The title uses half-lives metaphorically; no universal decay rate is estimated.

Prior work on AI brand visibility measures the firm: does a model recommend a company, and does that track its reputation. This study asks the question one level down, in categories where the buyer picks a person. It issued 2,400 grounded API calls in one two-hour window on 24 July 2026: 120 buyer-intent prompts, four models (GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.6 Flash, Perplexity Sonar Pro, Grok 4.5), five iterations each, four European markets and five query languages. Every response was coded for whether it named an individual professional, by a rule cascade that never consults a roster and that drops detections resolving to a same-named American city (precision 96.9%, recall 61.7%, so every rate below is a lower bound). All inference corrects for clustering within prompt: intraclass correlation 0.258, effective n 407 against a nominal 2,400. Models named an individual in 25.8% of responses. Category dominates: real estate 35.4% and car dealerships 32.9% against insurance 9.1% (chi-square 159.3, p = 5.8e-8 after correction). Models differ four-fold, from Grok 38.0% to Gemini 9.3%. Citation type predicts naming and citation volume does not: naming responses cite the individual's own site 2.6 points more often (95% CI +1.4 to +3.9) and category portals 4.3 points more often, and cite firm-owned pages at the same rate (44.1% against 45.5%). On nine matched translation pairs, English prompts named an individual in 36.7% of responses against 15.6% for the same question in the local language (OR 3.14, clustered p = 0.074, so the direction is clear and the design cannot close it). A 939-person roster built from public LinkedIn search matched 128 of 27,293 name-shaped mentions (0.47%), 26 of the 939 people were ever named, and the roster-derived rates of 0.0% to 25.4% measure that overlap. Roster-based measurement of individual AI visibility sees a small and unrepresentative slice of what models do.

Enterprise AI programmes stall at a rate that is widely quoted and poorly explained. This paper measures the mechanism. Six document-heavy workflows of the kind performed daily in regulated financial services were run across four model families and three tool configurations, three times each, producing 5,093 scored output elements across 72 configurations. Each configuration was assessed twice: against a demonstration bar, being a single correct run on a single case, and against a production bar requiring sustained accuracy, reproducibility across repeats, verifiable attribution, and a confidence signal that carries information. 57 of 72 configurations cleared the demonstration bar and 32 cleared the production bar, a survival rate of 56.1%. The paper then computes the review burden each configuration imposes, estimated out of sample rather than with hindsight. A tool that states no confidence requires review of 100% of its output, because it offers a reviewer no basis for triage. Requiring the tool to cite its sources and state a confidence reduces that to 49% while holding the residual error tolerance in 17 of 20 configurations. Adding a self-verification pass costs 2.3 times the latency of the plain configuration, reaches 44%, and is the only configuration that fails to hold the error tolerance. The practical implication is that the value of an AI workflow is set less by how often it is right than by how much of it a human must still check, and that the second property is measurable and rarely measured.

Generative UI tools promise to democratize UI design by turning natural language descriptions into complete interfaces. Alongside the interface, these tools generate user-facing design rationales that explain their layout, accessibility, and design choices. However, it remains unclear whether these stated rationales are actually reflected in the interfaces they produce. We call this disconnect ``Design Theater'': plausible and confident design rationales that have little relationship to the actual implementation. To study this phenomenon, we introduce a benchmark and three metrics for measuring Design Theater. The benchmark includes 24 UI generation tasks spanning structural, styling, and functional design requirements. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 120 interfaces created by five generative UI tools. On average, over 25% of user-facing design rationales are not implemented in the generated interface, and the implementation failure increases to 34% for functional requirements. Tools recognize roughly half of the UX principles embedded in prompts (mean = 0.54), with four of five tools implementing 6% or fewer functional principles. We also measure interface similarity across tools and find convergence in visual appearance and layout organization, with greater variation in color choices. Overall, we contribute: 1) the concept of Design Theater; 2) a benchmark with metrics for assessing whether the stated reasoning of generative UI tools is reflected in their implementations; 3) and findings from a systematic evaluation of these tools. We discuss what these findings mean for the design and evaluation of generative UI tools.

Creating sprint backlogs requires considerable effort, as items such as epics, user stories, and tasks can be missed or inconsistently specified. We propose a multimodal approach to support backlog generation from visual app mockups, an artifact available at early project stages. We evaluate three prompting strategies on GPT-4o: a zero-shot baseline, Compositional Chain-of-Thought (CCoT) for vision-language reasoning, and a persona-driven prompt. We study seven app development projects across two countries and interview developers about the results. Overall, we observed that the baseline prompt favours recall over precision, whereas CCoT is more balanced, achieving average F1 scores of 52-66% for epics and user stories. Tasks were more challenging to generate accurately. Precision gains were most consistent when adding architectural context, particularly for backend tasks (precision gains up to 35%). Interviews with developers revealed that up to 26% of false positives were still considered useful, reflecting the creative and open-ended nature of backlog creation. To capture this, we propose a new measure called Revised Recall, which complements ground-truth evaluation with developer assessments. Our findings suggest that hybrid prompting with architectural context can assist backlog generation from early mockups, though results vary by item type and developer oversight remains necessary.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for automating unit test generation, recent studies suggest that the quality of generated tests can be negatively impacted when models are prompted with buggy code. This paper presents a new metric to quantitatively measure the "misguidance effect," a phenomenon where buggy code steers LLMs toward generating tests that validate its erroneous behavior rather than expose it. Our analysis reveals that prompting LLMs with buggy code has a severe, twofold impact: it significantly increases "misguided tests" that assert incorrect behavior while simultaneously suppressing the generation of effective, bug-finding tests. We further corroborate this effect from a model-internal perspective, showing that buggy code skews LLMs' preference toward tests that assert the same erroneous behavior. To counter this, we introduce and validate a specification-based unit test generation paradigm that replaces the code under test in the prompt with an LLM-generated specification docstring. Our results show that this paradigm effectively reduces misguided tests while substantially increasing effective tests, improves multi-round, feedback-driven test generation pipelines, and remains applicable to both buggy and bug-free code. Overall, these results suggest that specification-based prompting is a promising strategy for mitigating misguidance from buggy code in LLM-generated unit tests.

Spatial intelligence is essential for agents to move from static semantic understanding toward interacting with the physical world. Many spatial tasks are grounded in continuous visual scenes, where locations, regions, and paths are more naturally expressed by pointing, marking, or drawing than by reporting precise coordinates or discrete textual symbols. Yet existing spatial reasoning benchmarks usually require coordinates, options, or text, creating an answer-interface mismatch for image-generation models. This makes it difficult to evaluate image-generation models under the same task semantics as text-output VLMs, despite their ability to externalize spatial judgments directly in pixel space. We propose ProVisE (Protocolized Visual Evaluation), a benchmark-agnostic framework that elicits protocol-constrained visual answers from image-generation models and parses them into structured predictions compatible with original metrics. ProVisE also includes an Agentic builder that constructs and validates task-specific protocols for new benchmarks. We further introduce SpatialGen-Bench, a curated diagnostic benchmark of 470 samples across 14 spatial subtasks, four capability levels, and diverse answer forms. We evaluate representative text-output VLMs and image-generation models in a unified setting and validate Agentic protocol construction on six external spatial benchmarks. Results show that image-generation models are competitive when spatial answers can be externalized directly in pixel space, while text-output VLMs retain a clear advantage in compositional spatial reasoning. These findings reveal complementary strengths of pixel-space expression and text-based reasoning and establish a metric-compatible testbed for studying spatial cognition in image-generation models.

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it investigates whether newer generative models are getting better at pastiching contemporary artworks. Second, it explores the consistency of the multidimensional nature of stylistic evaluation across different LLMs. Building on previous work, we analyze stylistic similarity between AI generated pastiches and the original artworks of twelve contemporary artists. We used five complementary computer vision models to capture texture, color, semantics, composition, and perceptual features through cosine distance in high-dimensional embedding spaces. The distances obtained show that the newer image generation model that we used has produced pastiches with improved semantic alignment and greater diversity than the model used in previous work. However, it was slightly less performant on shallow features such as color, texture, and perceptual adherence. Our findings confirm that artistic style is inherently multidimensional, and measuring it does not depend on any spatial architecture. These quantitative findings are contextualized through feedback from human evaluators, which are the artists themselves.

AI-generated covers often fail through local musical errors that a global quality score cannot locate: the vocal contour may remain recognizable while the accompaniment uses the wrong harmonic function, or the output may stay in key while the arrangement remains incomplete. We present a five-dimensional diagnostic framework covering melodic pitch, harmonic progression, key consistency, style consistency, and arrangement/production quality. The benchmark contains 30 covers generated from 5 source songs by 6 systems, with expert severity ratings and 9 symbolic or acoustic features. Harmonic progression and arrangement had the highest severe-error rates (53% and 47%), whereas key consistency was better preserved. Six covers combined acceptable key consistency with severe harmonic errors. Large-leap ratio had a nominal association with melodic ratings (Spearman rho = -0.429, uncorrected p = 0.018), but no feature correlation survived the nine-test multiplicity reference. An interpretable percentile-rule pilot likewise failed to outperform a fixed majority baseline reliably across 16 dimension-level comparisons. The results separate useful diagnostic evidence from dependable automatic scoring: low-level and symbolic summaries can expose particular symptoms, but they do not replace context-aware musical judgment.

Background: Evaluating automated Software Requirements Specification (SRS) generation is challenging because few datasets provide fine-grained traceability between source requirements, intermediate elicitation artifacts, and generated specifications. Aims: We aim to study whether legacy SRS documents can be transformed into traceable synthetic pre-SRS artifacts that support fine-grained evaluation of LLM-based SRS generation. Method: We conduct an empirical study using ReqGenX, a controlled pipeline that decomposes SRS sections into source-grounded atomic statements, routes atoms to standards-inspired artifact types through multi-LLM plurality voting, and generates artifacts using constrained prompts with iterative judge-guided refinement. We evaluate ReqGenX on seven PURE SRS documents using grounding, quality, information retention, and downstream reconstruction analyses. Results: ReqGenX produces faithful and usable atoms, with median AlignScore values typically between 0.96 and 0.99 and Prometheus scores ranging from 4.34 to 4.85. Generated artifacts remain strongly grounded in their source atoms, with AlignScore values typically between 0.80--0.94 and judge pass rates near 100%; stricter Prometheus evaluation yields pass rates from 54.8% to 97.1%. In a downstream SRS reconstruction case study, artifact-backed atoms remain recoverable from generated SRSs, with SBERT means between 0.69 and 0.75 and AlignScore medians between 0.76 and 0.84. Conclusions: Traceable synthetic pre-SRS artifacts can support more fine-grained evaluation of LLM-based SRS generation, while exposing tradeoffs among faithfulness, information retention, and artifact completeness.

Generative molecular models can support early drug discovery by proposing new candidate compounds de novo. In practice, useful candidates must balance target-relevant activity, synthetic accessibility, physicochemical properties, and other multiparameter design constraints. However, metrics commonly used to evaluate molecular generators only weakly reflect whether the generated compounds are medicinally plausible and suitable for downstream computation. This can produce false positives in model evaluation, incorrect assumptions, and inefficient use of computational resources. We introduce HEDGEHOG, a unified six-stage filtration benchmark that is inspired by industrial hit identification workflows: (i) preprocessing; (ii) physicochemical descriptor screening; (iii) structural alerts and graph-sanity checks; (iv) synthesis feasibility; (v) docking and binding affinity estimation; and (vi) three-dimensional pose and interaction checks. We evaluate 23 molecular generators across three model classes under a standardized protocol. Across 230,000 generated molecules, only 0.65% of initial molecules survive all stages. Our results expose a central limitation of current molecular generators: molecules that appear acceptable under isolated criteria rarely satisfy medicinal chemistry, synthesis, docking, and 3D pose filters simultaneously.

A generated rhythm-game chart need not reproduce one official note sequence: many note choices can fit the same song and difficulty. Reference-note agreement therefore measures reconstruction, not the full design problem. We introduce ChartGenEval, a six-question evaluation framework with an automatic, corruption-tested core. It leaves note choice open while anchoring timing to the song: the matched official chart supplies only its authored timing map, never target notes. We test each core output with dose-controlled failures rather than assume that a familiar statistic measures chart quality. Across 80 held-out song groups, seven output axes satisfy prespecified sensitivity and invariance criteria in nine nonredundant tests. Complementary stress tests on the 40-song development panel expose two broader lessons. A chart-wide phase estimate recovers injected shifts of 15, 30, and 60 ms while chart-only outputs remain essentially unchanged. Common-pattern rewriting lowers mean language-model perplexity by 37%, and loop collapse raises mean self-similarity by 62%. ChartGenEval therefore reports separate, role-specific signals instead of one proxy or total score. This profile provides automatic feedback for comparing and iterating generators; selected outputs are candidate optimization targets or constraints after task-specific stress testing.

Long-form article generation remains difficult for large language models because it combines long context, long instructions, and long outputs. Existing multi-agent pipelines such as STORM improve information coverage by simulating role-specialized agents, but their capabilities are often entangled in prompts and fixed procedures, making them hard to inspect, reuse, or iteratively improve. This paper presents GEIS (Generation-Evaluation-Improvement loop of agent Skills), a loop of named and declarative skills for Wikipedia-style long-form article generation. Implemented and evaluated in Tasi Harness, GEIS composes skills for article writing, browser-based evidence and image collection, diagram rendering, PDF-aware pairwise evaluation, and rule-level skill improvement. Its core writing skill follows Request, Plan, Draft, Audit, Refine, and Deliver; the pairwise evaluation skill produces structured quality reports; and the improvement skill maps recurrent findings into permanent patches to the writing skill in our 20-topic experiment. We evaluate GEIS on 20 Wikipedia Featured Article topics. Under the same generation backend, GEIS improves over the Tasi Harness default writer by 8.0 points on a 100-point PDF quality rubric and outperforms STORM on the two comparable writing dimensions, structural quality and content quality. In the 20-topic improvement experiment, the patched writing skill raises the average score from 82.90 to 86.95, with 17 out of 20 topics improved and the gain mainly coming from content quality. These results show that long-form generation can be reframed from a fixed workflow into an inspectable, modular, and evaluation-guided improvement loop.

In 2019, OpenAI released two million GPT-2 outputs-ungrammatical, half broken-to aid the detection of machine-generated text. The alignment that produced their more fluent successors is usually regarded as an engineering achievement; we read it instead as the newest expression of optimization culture: the conviction, older than the technology, that measurable improvement along predefined axes exhausts the question of value. Tracing that conviction through the stack-pretraining, decoding, preference tuning, benchmarking, interface-and back through its genealogy in the audit society, we arrive at the limit: an optimization procedure can measure how improbable a piece of generated text is; it cannot tell whether that unlikelihood is error or invention. A procedure that cannot make that distinction has nonetheless, within half a decade, assumed the authority to set the protocols of legitimate language. Held for centuries by academies and schoolrooms, grammars and examiners, this authority has been given over to loss functions, reward models, benchmarks, and system prompts: an apparatus that executes the office of judgment with no capacity for judging.

Industrial sound design requires audio generation systems that not only produce realistic audio, but also preserve the perceptual identity of a reference, support controllable variation, and remain efficient for practical workflows. Existing evaluations are usually tied to text-to-audio (TTA), unconditional, or task-specific settings, limiting assessment for reference-guided sound effects (SFX) variation. To address this gap, we present a production-oriented evaluation framework for structured comparison of heterogeneous audio generation and editing methods. Our framework identifies nine production requirements and explicitly accounts for differences in model capabilities, enabling comparison under a common production objective. A two-stage protocol is introduced: (1) a reference-guided audio-to-audio (ATA) variation task, in which all methods are evaluated under the same ESC-50 SFX adaptation setup, and (2) capability-specific analyses of native operations such as SFX morphing, temporal and energy alignment, inpainting, and targeted editing. This framework combines objective metrics (including FAD, ImageBind-based reference alignment, and diversity across generated variants), together with a human study of perceptual identity preservation and transient diagnosis. Our study reveals complementary strengths and trade-offs across baselines for different production needs. Among the full-generation baselines evaluated under a shared ATA setting, AudioX provides the strongest overall trade-off between reference alignment and diversity while still supporting SFX morphing. Other baselines remain most suitable for specific editing operations. Our framework establishes a structured evaluation and decision protocol for reference-guided SFX variation and provides a practical basis for designing future unified industrial audio generation pipelines. Audio demos are on the accompanying web page.

As audio-visual generative models evolve into world simulators, cross-modal synchronization stands as a critical proxy for assessing the consistency of world dynamics and causality in generated content. However, existing evaluation metrics presume structural correctness, reducing synchronization to mere temporal alignment. Consequently, they fail on generative outputs, especially when exhibiting structural hallucinations and asymmetric cross-modal relations, which currently \textbf{mandate expert human annotation to assess synchronization.} This dependency introduces a critical paradox: \emph{human evaluators rely on relative, reference-dependent comparisons, whereas automated metrics require reference-free, absolute scalars.} We resolve this paradox by proposing a framework that distills relative human perception into a continuous, globally consistent metric. First, we introduce SynthSync, a dataset of generative failures ranked via pairwise human annotations. Second, we adapt the Omni-LLM equipped with a continuous latent projection to translate relative human rankings into continuous absolute values. Third, we propose Real-Valued Group Relative Policy Optimization ($\mathbb{R}$-GRPO) to internalize the global causal structure of synchronization via listwise score distributions. Empirically, our metric achieves state-of-the-art human preference alignment. We leverage this estimator to establish a standardized benchmark, advancing AV-Gen assessment from low-level signal correlation to visually grounded causality.

Major cloud data platforms now expose large language model capabilities as native SQL functions, enabling analysts to perform classification, filtering, sentiment analysis, extraction, similarity search, and aggregation within ordinary SQL queries. Yet existing text-to-SQL benchmarks evaluate only conventional SQL and provide no signal on whether models can generate such AI-native SQL. We introduce Spider 2.0-AIFunc, a benchmark of 465 verified instances across 125 real-world databases covering six types of AI functions on the Snowflake platform. Starting from an existing enterprise text-to-SQL benchmark, we construct Spider 2.0-AIFunc through an agent-based pipeline that rewrites source tasks into AI-native form, simultaneously transforming target queries and refining natural language instructions to make the intended AI-native solution explicit and reduce ambiguity. All instances pass a multi-round repeated execution protocol across temporally separated windows to confirm result stability before release. Evaluating ten state-of-the-art language models, we find that the strongest proprietary models reach 67-70% execution accuracy while the best open-source model achieves 58.1%, a gap driven primarily by errors in predicate specification, schema grounding, and AI function parameterization. Agent frameworks designed for traditional text-to-SQL challenges, such as schema retrieval and relevant table selection, do not transfer effectively to AI-native SQL: a minimal agent setup consistently matches or outperforms more elaborate alternatives, suggesting that the strategies these frameworks employ are less critical in this setting. Data are available at https://github.com/Leolty/Spider2-AIFunc .

Evaluating generative AI models is a routine, but resource-intensive, process that is conducted over and over again during the course of model development. In this work, we propose Collaborative Evaluation (CollabEval), a simple, effective, and principled method for exploiting dependencies between historical runs of different models on the same tasks to improve statistical efficiency. Specifically, our approach treats model evaluation as a matrix completion problem over an $M \times N$ matrix of evaluation scores, where $M$ is the total number of models and $N$ is the total number of evaluation prompts. We assume that a subset of these $M$ models are targeted for evaluation. For these target models only a small fraction, $p$, of prompts has been annotated with evaluation scores. Leveraging recent results in prediction-powered inference, we build a low-rank approximation of the score matrix, and use the reconstructed values as control variates in a manner that guarantees unbiased estimates of the true evaluation metric mean, in addition to statistically valid confidence intervals. Empirically, across a wide range of datasets, models, and sparsity levels $p$, we find that CollabEval substantially reduces the mean confidence interval size, and the mean squared error of the point estimate, compared to baseline methods at the same annotation budget.

Preserving and revitalising traditional textiles such as Ulos, a cultural heritage of the Batak ethnic group in North Sumatra, Indonesia, requires balancing fidelity to tradition with innovative approaches that meet contemporary design demands. Traditional Ulos weaving faces two key limitations: a narrow range of motifs and a time-intensive design process. This study presents a generative AI framework that fine-tunes two pretrained latent diffusion models: Protogen v3.4 and Stable Diffusion v1.4, on a curated, annotated dataset of high-resolution Ulos motifs to generate culturally consistent yet novel designs. Model performance is evaluated quantitatively using Frechet Inception Distance (FID), Inception Score (IS), and qualitatively through assessments by traditional weavers and members of the public. Protogen v3.4 consistently outperforms Stable Diffusion v1.4, achieving substantially lower FID (~10.5x) and higher IS (2.0x), indicating superior visual fidelity, diversity, and closer alignment with the real Ulos motif distribution. We further examine the effects of strength and guidance scale on generation quality across both models. Lower strength values consistently yield higher fidelity (lower FID), while higher strength values increase generative diversity at the cost of realism, revealing a clear fidelity-diversity tradeoff for both models. Across all tested configurations, a guidance scale of 5-9 provides the most effective balance between fidelity and diversity, stabilising FID, KID, and IS, and is recommended as the operating range for high-quality, diverse Ulos motif generation. These findings demonstrate that carefully fine-tuned generative AI can support the creative renewal of intangible cultural heritage while preserving its stylistic and symbolic integrity.

This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12. The dataset comprises 1,639 explanations from 170 curated ScienceQA questions, covering science, language arts, and social sciences. For each question, the dataset includes an explanation written by a human teacher alongside 11 explanations generated by LLM-simulated teacher profiles associated with distinct pedagogical risks. We propose a comprehensive risk rubric aligned with established educational standards that covers five complementary dimensions: factual precision, depth and completeness, focus and relevance, student-level appropriateness, and ideological bias. A key contribution is the addition of 785 explanations with structured explainability annotations, including risk localization and risk description. The annotations are produced through a semi-automatic process with expert teacher validation. Finally, we present validation experiments comparing state-of-the-art proprietary models with a lightweight local Llama 3.1 8B model in both the pedagogical risk detection and the explainability assessment. These experiments evaluate whether supervised fine-tuning on AIriskEval-edu-db2 enables a locally deployable model to approach or outperform stronger frontier models while preserving privacy in educational auditing and assessment tasks.

In the age of AI, what will be good knowledge? This article, which is accepted and forthcoming in a special issue of Modern Fiction Studies on "Cultural AI" in 2027, applies digital humanities methods to map epistemic virtues (like "true," "accurate," "creative") used in a corpus of 553 journal articles on AI published in 2024. "Creativity" comes in for special attention as an example. Exploring this discourse of value, the article considers how a framework might be developed for evaluating the knowledge-worth of AI -- one less locked into values formed around pre-AI "knowledge work" agents or structures, and more open to the future values of "generativity." The essay is supported by an online digital kit for exploring data models of the corpus of articles on AI it studies.

Visual narratives are central to storyboards, comics, children's media, and film previsualization, where viewers understand stories from images alone. Recent generators such as StoryDiffusion produce coherent sequences, but visual coherence does not guarantee that source-story transition meaning remains recoverable. Existing benchmarks assess visual quality, content faithfulness, and scene coherence, but miss a critical failure mode: storyboards where scenes appear visually coherent while the semantic link between scenes disappears. We introduce KathaTrace, a generator-agnostic protocol for diagnosing semantic trajectory collapse, defined as the loss of transition meaning needed to understand how one scene follows another. KathaTrace evaluates transitions under three evidence conditions: text-only, image-only, and text-plus-image, and filters ambiguous items. We contribute KathaBench-25K, with 5,000 narratives from classical collections including Aesop, Panchatantra, and Kathasaritasagara, 20,000 transitions, and 28,712 recoverability questions. We define Semantic Trajectory Gap, or STG, as text-only minus image-only recoverability, measuring transition meaning lost during visualization. Human validation yields Fleiss' kappa = 0.845. Experiments across state-of-the-art generators show substantial STG of 23.5 +/- 1.3. Semantic Compass, an actionability probe, uses KathaTrace signals for post-generation repair and improves storyboard selection.

Generating structured artifacts with Large Language Models - e.g.\ database queries, threat framework mappings, entity schemas - is relatively straightforward; however, making them reliable enough for production deployments presents challenges. We present TAG, a lightweight framework based on a core principle: \textit{LLMs generate, we validate}. This reframing shifts responsibility from generation quality to validation rigor. The framework rests on three key attributes: First, \textbf{test driven generation}: when tests fail, the LLM receives indicative error messages that expose why the output failed, enabling the LLM to understand its mistakes and refine subsequent attempts. Second, \textbf{deterministic and LLM-based tests}: deterministic tests catch heuristics that can be programmatically verified (schema, syntax, cross-reference), while LLM-based tests evaluate nuanced semantic and delicate features that resist programmatic inspection (intent alignment, logical consistency, domain correctness). Third, \textbf{expert-distilled judges}: LLM-based tests are calibrated to distill and replicate human expert decision distribution, transforming manual human quality gates into scalable, reusable evaluation proxies that reflect professional-grade validation standards. We demonstrate the framework on three artifact types in the security domain - KQL query generation, MITRE ATT&CK mapping, and entity mapping - deployed in production at Microsoft Sentinel. We believe this framework can be applied beyond security to other artifact generation tasks, providing a path to reliable, high-quality outputs without sacrificing the efficiency gains of LLM generation.

Creativity research has debated whether creativity is domain-specific (e.g., visual, writing, science), and if it is psychometrically separable from general intelligence. Both questions now apply to LLMs, but a unified benchmark of AI creativity remains elusive. We introduce AGC-Bench, an artificial general creativity benchmark built from a systematic review of the AI creativity literature (3,101 papers screened, 497 benchmarks identified), paired with an agentic harness that converts idiosyncratic codebases into HELM-standardized benchmarks. The first release covers 78 datasets spanning brainstorming, problem solving, STEM, narrative, figurative language, and humor. To address bias in LLM-as-judge, we apply Judge Response Theory -- a psychometric calibration of judge leniency/severity; we then fine-tune Qwen3-30B on the bias-corrected ratings of three frontier LLMs to produce AGC-Judge, an open-weight model that robustly scores new creativity benchmarks it was not trained on. Results reveal frontier models at the top of the AGC-Bench leaderboard, with open models close behind. LLMs show different creative strengths, ranking higher on some domains (e.g., writing) than others (e.g., scientific ideation). Extensive experiments yield three main findings. First, applying factor analysis across 83 LLMs, we recover a single creativity factor 'c', analogous to the 'g' factor of general intelligence, that explains 81.5% of variance, related to but separable from general knowledge/reasoning. Second, we show that prompting models to "be creative" boosts their performance far more than enabling reasoning, evidence that the benchmark tracks creativity over general ability. Third, on a human-matched subset, we find the top human still leads the top LLM on creativity. We release AGC-Bench with a public leaderboard, AGC-Judge, and human data as open infrastructure for measuring AI creativity at scale.