Generative AI Evaluation

AI-generated video detection benchmarks such as GenVidBench and AIGVDBench are the de facto leaderboards, yet most evaluation protocols leave uncontrolled confounds that can inflate reported generalization. As an existence proof, a three-feature clip-length classifier reaches a leave-one-generator-out (LOGO) AUC of 0.998 on GenVidBench under unaudited evaluation, while measuring nothing about motion. A 20-paper survey finds none applying all six standard controls that would catch this, so we combine them into an audited protocol and apply it to six representative feature sources (three published detectors and three repurposed signal sources), re-running it cross-dataset on AIGVDBench. The audit both debunks and certifies: the trivial classifier collapses to near chance (0.529), a CLIP baseline is caught carrying dataset identity, and the 2025 forensic detector WaveRep clears the floor at out-of-distribution LOGO AUC 0.996 with chance-level real-vs-real coherence. At a deployable FPR of 0.1%, multiple high-AUC methods fall to single-digit recall and the leaderboard order changes, so we recommend an audited tuple (AUC, above-floor margin, operating-point recall, and calibration) over a single number. As a white-box positive control, we add TemporalSpec (codec motion vectors); via cross-substrate feature fusion (XSFF), a second substrate adds genuine complementarity that survives the audit. We release VidAudit, to our knowledge the largest unified and audited detector collection for this task, providing 14 detectors behind one plugin API, a leaderboard, and Croissant metadata, available at https://github.com/KurbanIntelligenceLab/vidaudit. Together, the protocol and toolkit move evaluation from leaderboard rank toward whether a result measures what it claims.

Modern AI evaluation frameworks treat evaluator disagreement as noise to be resolved. In creative domains, professional disagreement reflects genuine differences in taste, not measurement error. We argue that evaluating creative AI requires preserving two distinct signals: convergence, where professionals align around shared best practices, and divergence, where individual taste legitimately varies. We present the Human Creativity Benchmark (HCB), a benchmark that operationalizes this separation by collecting pairwise preferences, scalar ratings on prompt adherence, usability, and visual appeal, and qualitative rationale from domain professionals. Across 15,000 professional judgments spanning five creative domains and three workflow phases (ideation, mockup, refinement), we find that convergence concentrates on verifiable dimensions like technical correctness and visual hierarchy, while divergence concentrates on taste-driven dimensions like aesthetic direction and conceptual risk. No model excels uniformly across all phases. Collapsing these signals into a single quality metric discards the most actionable information: where models must be correct versus where they should remain steerable.

Reliable generative AI models critically rely on expert human annotations to evaluate output quality, yet these "gold" labels are expensive to collect and limited in quantity. Organizations thus often turn to collecting vast but noisy "silver" labels from crowdsourced workers or vendor annotators as proxies for gold labels. Because gold remains the evaluation target, naively aggregating noisy silver labels may introduce bias, and estimators built on sparsely observed gold labels may have high variance to resolve the model performance gaps that guide practical decisions. Model evaluation has become an ongoing operational practice rather than a one-time exercise, with evaluation rounds repeating across model versions, releases, and content domains. A natural question is whether the previous historical evaluation data can be used to improve each new round of evaluation. We introduce HERO (History Enhanced RObust model evaluation), a novel framework that uses historical data to suppress bias (improve reliability) and reduce variance (improve sensitivity) in model performance evaluation. HERO calibrates silver labelers' performance learned from historical gold annotations, and stabilizes the resulting estimator by anchoring it to covariate information measured with high precision in the historical data. HERO can be broadly applied across multiple common evaluation tasks, and remains valid when only a subset of historical labelers appears in the current round. We establish conditions under which the bias and variance reductions hold, showcase HERO's performance in simulation studies, and demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world model evaluation benchmarking datasets.

Open-ended aesthetic critique is a challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs): it has no single correct answer, and most aesthetic evaluation measures models against numeric scores rather than the written critiques people actually give. We ask whether MLLM critiques are close to human ones, scoring eight open-weight MLLMs from $7$B to $397$B, plus GPT-5.5, against multiple ranked human critiques for each of $1{,}227$ \texttt{r/photocritique} posts under eight prompt conditions. Reference-based similarity gives a misleading picture. In absolute terms the stricter lexical and learned metrics align only weakly with human critiques while a coarse embedding cosine reports broad topical overlap, yet requesting shorter critiques raises those scores and withholding the image barely changes them: the similarity reflects length, the post text, and a stable critiquing style more than image-specific observation. An LLM judge sharpens the question rather than settling it: in the primary condition all four judges prefer the frontier models' critiques to the human ones, but on the $7$--$8$B models they diverge wildly, from $9\%$ to $81\%$ preference on identical pairs. Asked instead how similar each pair is in substance, those judges and two human annotators agree, rating every model between $1.81$ and $2.59$ on a $1$--$5$ scale, close to ``mostly different''. Behaviorally, the models diverge in ways the scores do not surface: they cover nearly every aesthetic aspect where humans are selective and repeat themselves across critiques of one photo, even when prompted to write at human length. We argue that reference-based similarity rewards a fluent, comprehensive critique style rather than the selectivity and specificity of human critique.

Dyslexic learners increasingly use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support reading, writing, organisation, and study-related tasks. However, their lived experiences with these tools remain largely underexamined. This paper proposes DysLexLens, a low-resource LLM framework, designed to analyse dyslexic learners experience with AI through online forum discussions. DysLexLens is designed as an end-to-end, evidence-traceable architecture which transforms noisy social media posts into a dictionary-driven corpora, provides knowledge-graph (KG)-based question reasoning, generates verifiable query responses, and enables response evaluation through quantitative and human-grounded assessment. DysLexLens has four key features. First, it employs a dictionary-driven filtering method to construct a more focused Reddit corpus on dyslexia and AI, filtering out noisy and weakly related posts to improve the relevance of data collected from low-resource forum contexts. Second, it integrates LLM-assisted semantic analysis with KG-based query reasoning to uncover meaningful patterns. Third, it has quantitative evaluation metrics (RAGAS and Query Robustness) to measure LLM-generated response performance. Fourth, it provides structured qualitative validation guidelines for assessing response quality, with a specific focus on hallucination and evidence alignment. We demonstrate the effectiveness of DysLexLens using dyslexia-related Reddit forum data and 30 questions. The results show its potential generalisability to other low-resource forum data contexts. DysLexLens, sample data, questions and evaluation results are available at Github to support reproducibility.

As Text-to-Image (T2I) jailbreak techniques evolve rapidly, existing benchmarks and reproduction workflows often struggle to keep pace. More importantly, T2I jailbreak evaluation is not a single prompt-level test, but a pipeline-level problem shaped by multiple stages, including prompt transformation, image generation, safety filtering, and multimodal judging. This makes results across papers difficult to reliably reproduce and fairly compare. To bridge this gap, we propose PixJail, a self-evolving paper-to-pipeline agent framework for reproducible T2I jailbreak evaluation. Given a T2I jailbreak paper and optional reference code, PixJail rapidly constructs a paper-specific attack module and a runnable evaluation pipeline under a unified contract, while faithfully reproducing the original experimental results. PixJail further maintains a memory bank that stores paper digests, attack evolution patterns, reusable templates, failure cases, and versioned artifacts, enabling future reproduction efforts to reuse prior experience. We reproduce eleven representative T2I jailbreak methods, including both code-available and code-unavailable papers. Under their original settings, our framework accurately recovers prior results with minimal error (2.1% average, 0% median). We hope that PixJail can serve as a unified foundation for future T2I jailbreak reproduction and evaluation, significantly reducing manual effort.

There has been rapid progress in generative artificial intelligence (AI) models for inorganic crystal design, which can efficiently generate large numbers of candidate compounds after being trained on databases of known crystals. However, it remains unclear whether they genuinely expand the accessible materials search space beyond conventional strategies such as elemental substitution within known structure types. We address this question by developing a workflow to assess whether AI-generated crystals are duplicates of training structures, reproducible by elemental substitution, or unmatched by either criterion. Applying this workflow to representative generative models reveals that 81-92% of chemically valid and metastable generated crystals are either training duplicates or substitution-derived structures. This tendency is particularly strong in high-symmetry crystal systems, even though many possible structural prototypes remain unexplored. Further analysis of the underlying structural fingerprints shows that low-symmetry structures beyond duplication or substitution can be interpreted as interpolation in training-data-rich regions, while high-symmetry duplicates appear to result from memorisation in training-sparse regions. Our findings highlight a limitation in the current generation of models that exhibit a bias towards known structural prototypes in the high symmetry regions, but enable wider exploration of the low-symmetry structural space.

Trust in the application of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) relies on well-governed measurable evidence of performance and safety. In practice, however, evaluation data is often fragmented across systems, inconsistently structured and difficult to compare. We introduce the Generative Responsible AI Data Evaluation Schema (GRAIDES) as a lightweight open-source data model for centralising AI observability across popular vendors. Practical blueprints for code, architecture and statistical evaluation are shared as guidance about how to approach generative system assurance at the organisational level. Illustrative case study results are reported from Westminster City Council's AI catalogue with a focus on measuring human-model alignment including detecting systematic disagreement between evaluators. By framing evaluations as a data modelling problem, GRAIDES provides a practical pathway toward more consistent and reproducible benchmarking, tuning and assurance activities for generative AI systems.

Industrial LLM teams often ship behavior updates by repeatedly DPO-training a base model on sequences of related preference-data campaigns. The dominant failure mode in this regime is not always classical catastrophic forgetting: a pipeline may preserve previously learned behaviors while still failing to accumulate reusable methodological knowledge about how to train the next campaign. We call this failure mode scientific amnesia. This paper turns that practitioner intuition into a measurable industrial problem. We contribute: (i) a diagnostic suite for amnesia, (ii) a Program-based pipeline that chains FSDP-sharded DPO checkpoints across Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct runs, (iii) a 30-campaign HumanEval subdomain benchmark, and (iv) a comparative diagnostic study of five strategy proposers: random memory, rule-based scheduling, retrieval-only memory, warm-start Bayesian optimization, and MSCL, a meta-scientific memory and reasoner candidate. Across a single-seed 5-condition * 3-step real-LM chain, 4 of 5 candidates degrade in step-level peak pass@1, including MSCL; only the deliberately conservative rule-based schedule improves. Follow-up pilots qualify rather than overturn this finding: in a heterogeneous chain, MSCL is the only completed candidate that improves, whereas in a small multi-seed homogeneous sweep, retrieval-only has the best mean Delta and no pairwise candidate gap is statistically distinguishable. The contribution is therefore diagnostic, not a claim that MSCL solves the problem: scientific amnesia is observable in a production-like continual-DPO pipeline, and conclusions about interventions depend sharply on chain regime, evaluator design, and seed coverage.

Automatically generating slide decks from source documents is an important application of large language models (LLMs). Existing benchmarks primarily assess slide completeness and technical depth, while overlooking the target audience as a critical real-world factor. For instance, specialists demand rigorous proofs, whereas decision-makers prioritize actionable conclusions. To bridge this gap, we introduce X+Slides, a benchmark specifically designed for audience-conditioned slide generation. Built on a diverse corpus spanning 113 topics and seven presentation scenes, X+Slides employs a dynamic evaluation framework constructed from 8,133 deduplicated, source-grounded probes. By assigning audience-specific utility weights to the same source-grounded probes, X+Slides reports four complementary metrics: Audience Coverage measures how much audience-essential information is conveyed, Domain-wise Coverage shows which information types are covered, Efficiency measures delivered utility per unit of attention cost, and Correctness verifies whether slide claims are supported by the source. Experiments on DeepPresenter, SlideTailor, and NotebookLM show that current systems can recover a substantial but still incomplete part of audience-essential information: at $τ_A=0.7$, DeepPresenter reaches a best Audience Coverage of 0.714, SlideTailor reaches 0.594, and the NotebookLM ablation reaches 0.853 while showing clear grounding differences. These results indicate that visual quality and broad topic coverage should not be treated as evidence support without source-grounded evaluation.

To assess the ability of current AI systems to correctly solve research-level mathematics problems, we tested several AI systems on a set of ten problems in a broad range of mathematical fields; these problems arose naturally in the research process of the contributors. This document includes the problems, our methodology, and the results of our testing. We provide links to supplementary documents including the human solutions, the AI-generated solutions, and the referee reports and logs for the AI-generated solutions. The ten problems were contributed by the following mathematicians: (1) Dariusz Kalociński and Theodore A. Slaman, (2) Richard Schwartz, (3) Aleksa Milojevic and Benny Sudakov, (4) Larry Guth, (5) Oleg Butkovsky, Jonathan Mattingly, and Lorenzo Zambotti, (6) Joshua Evan Greene and Duncan McCoy, (7) Sucharit Sarkar, (8) Sam Payne and Jidong (Jayden) Wang, (9) Sylvie Corteel and John Lentfer, (10) Srivatsav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli.

Recent vision-language models (VLMs) have shown promising progress in generating webpages from visual inputs, yet existing evaluations mainly focus on short, single-screen, and largely static webpages. We introduce LongWebBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon webpage generation from both structural and functional perspectives. LongWebBench contains 490 real-world long webpages for structural fidelity evaluation and 507 goal-oriented interaction tasks over 129 webpages for functional evaluation. It employs two complementary protocols: a multi-dimensional VLM-based metric for assessing long-range structural coherence, and a DOM-augmented agent-based pipeline for end-to-end functional verification. We further examine the automatic evaluation protocols through human agreement analysis. Experiments with state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary VLMs under single-image and multi-image settings reveal that structural fidelity degrades as webpage length increases, while visually plausible generations often fail to support executable multi-step interactions. These results highlight the need to evaluate long webpage generation beyond visual similarity, with executable interaction as a core criterion. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/zheny2751-dotcom/LongWebBench.

Organizations and researchers show increasing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in place of human participants in A/B tests, in the hope of experimenting faster and at lower cost. We study when a treatment effect estimated on LLM outcomes can recover the effect for the human population of interest. Distributional equivalence between LLM and human outcomes would make any standard estimator valid but is unrealistic. We therefore develop a statistical framework that adapts surrogate endpoint theory to LLMs, showing that calibrating LLM outcomes to human outcomes identifies the average treatment effect under surrogacy and comparability conditions that are jointly weaker than distributional equivalence. We present a falsification test for surrogacy and a bound on the worst-case bias from limited overlap between the LLM and human samples. We further show that the stochasticity inherent to LLMs can weaken surrogacy for identification while also introducing bias and variance during estimation, but that using an average over multiple LLM draws per unit as the surrogate mitigates these issues. Simulations validate the results, and an empirical application to the Upworthy Research Archive dataset shows that raw LLM outputs recover only 39% of the human treatment effect while nonparametric calibration closes the gap. A central takeaway is that A/B testing on LLM responses is correct only by assumption, whereas A/B testing on humans is correct by design, and that the required assumptions are hardest to justify precisely where LLMs promise the greatest benefit. We discuss the choice of LLM, prompting, and temperature as design variables, the compounded challenge posed by long-term outcomes, and how to size human pilot studies for validation.

We introduce TuneJury, an open, instance-level pairwise reward model for text-to-music that predicts a music preference score from a text prompt and an audio clip. The released checkpoint is trained on publicly available human-preference labels covering arena-style (A vs. B) votes, metric-alignment preference pairs, crowdsourced pairwise comparisons, and expert aesthetic ratings. The predicted score margin between two clips is well calibrated on our held-out test split, supporting data filtering via a simple score threshold. TuneJury generalizes to both held-out test pairs and out-of-distribution benchmarks, remaining competitive with prior baselines on the latter. For generators released after training, we introduce anchor calibration, a post-hoc, per-system Bradley-Terry calibration that recovers agreement at substantially better data efficiency than from-scratch retraining. The same frozen reward drives consistent reward-axis gains across three downstream applications: inference-time best-of-N selection, DITTO-style latent optimization, and expert-iteration post-training. TuneJury is available at https://github.com/yonghyunk1m/TuneJury.

Using an open problem from the EC 2025 paper "Stable Menus of Public Goods" as a testbed, we conduct experiments to understand the effectiveness of different AI-for-EconCS research workflows. Specifically, we study three questions: Does providing human intuition in the prompt help? Does automated multi-turn interaction help? And, does an LLM outperform a first-year PhD student? Regarding the first two questions, we provide evidence for the following workflow suggestions: (1) prompting with human intuition can encourage the LLM to have better "taste", (2) multi-turn workflows help when the pipeline encourages "ambitious" steps. Regarding the third question, using an unpublished manuscript written by the paper's senior authors prior to collaborating with the first-year PhD student, we compare the effectiveness of the LLM with that of the first-year PhD student, and find that the LLM is slightly less effective.

A central pedagogical value evaluated in AI tutor benchmarks is scaffolding: guiding students through graduated steps toward a solution. Alignment and evaluation methods for embedding scaffolding behaviour into chatbots, however, rest on an implicit assumption: that students will take up the scaffolding and engage in the conversation. To examine whether this assumption holds, we introduce an evaluation pipeline around two metrics - Chatbot Scaffolding and Student Uptake - and apply them across nine datasets of 9,490 chats, spanning AI tutor benchmarks and real-world deployments of educational chatbots. Our analysis reveals that while benchmarks assume a high-scaffolding, high-student-uptake environment, students in real-world settings exhibit lower levels of uptake overall - frequently bypassing the chatbot's pedagogical framing to drive the interaction toward their own learning goals at little interpersonal cost. We argue that bypassing scaffolding is not necessarily detrimental; rather, it frequently highlights a mismatch between a chatbot's pedagogical framing and the student's learning goals. To meaningfully evaluate the effectiveness of a chatbot's assistance, future benchmarks must move beyond the assumption that students will simply take up the scaffolding, and instead evaluate how these chatbots navigate diverse learning contexts and student-driven interaction patterns.

The global use of artificial intelligence has increased interest in assessing the ability to generate culturally localized content, including stories. Cultural localization in stories often occurs through either templated localization -- the use of cultural markers (e.g., names, locations) in a generic narrative -- or holistic localization -- the variation of plots, values, and themes, in addition to cultural markers. We propose a method to measure the degree to which content was generated through templated localization. Specifically, we identify the lexical tokens that distinguish stories across nationalities and measure the similarity of the narratives that remain after removing them. In stories generated by five models on 125 topics for 193 nationalities, our method is able to detect that only a small subset (9-17%) of the vocabulary accounts for the variation across nationalities and that the narratives that remain after removing them contain repeated multi-word sequences, suggesting the presence of a shared culturally-agnostic narrative template. Finally, we characterize the cultural markers for their stereotypicality and offensiveness, finding that markers from 19 countries, mostly located in the Global South, are on average offensive.

Large Language Model (LLM) based AI educational content generation systems are increasingly being developed, yet no standardised benchmark exists to systematically evaluate them. This study introduces LessonBench-V1, a benchmark dataset comprising 647 human-written lessons paired with LLM-based reverse-engineered lesson plans across 240 STEM topics spanning mathematics, physics, chemistry, and computer science. The lessons are drawn from 97 trusted open sources, including LibreTexts, Brilliant.org and GeeksForGeeks. Each lesson plan is human-reviewed and produced through a pedagogically grounded methodology that synthesises Bloom's Taxonomy, Gagné's Events, Merrill's First Principles, and the 5E Instructional Model. The lesson plans capture 3,620 learning objectives with pedagogical metadata, enabling systematic, reproducible evaluation of lesson-generation AI agents and supporting further research. The study further proposes a three-dimensional evaluation pipeline for use with the dataset.

Humor plays a central role in human social relationships, and recent advances in computational humor create new opportunities for integrating humor into human-robot interaction (HRI). While large language models (LLMs) can generate diverse forms of humor, it remains unclear how humor style, joke content, and language preference shape perceptions of robot-delivered humor in group settings. In this exploratory study, we employed a mixed factorial design in which participants evaluated AI-generated jokes delivered by a robot in a university classroom. We examined the effects of humor type (Affiliative, Self-Enhancing, Aggressive, Self-Defeating) and joke content (person-related vs. political) on perceived funniness and appropriateness, as well as preferred language. Results show that humor type significantly influences funniness, with Aggressive and Affiliative humor rated higher, while joke content primarily affects appropriateness, with person-related jokes preferred over political ones. Language preference was shaped by both joke content and participants' self-reported fluency and humor practices.

Large Language Models have consistently demonstrated a lack of creativity and diversity across tasks. Prior work has focused on addressing whether models are capable of generating creative outputs. Here, we aim to consider novelty and investigate what makes model-generated content novel or not novel in a task-specific manner. We propose a fine-grained evaluation metric GENIE to measure the novelty of responses along task-specific features with respect to a population of responses. We show that unlike GENIE, holistic metrics struggle to capture the high-dimensionality of novelty and do not provide insight on which properties they target. Finally, we use GENIE to measure the effectiveness of mitigation methods that address creativity to better understand where these methods can improve novelty.

Evaluating generative spatial audio for First-Order Ambisonics (FOA) remains challenging due to a limited understanding of how metrics respond to changes in spatial parameters such as azimuth and elevation. We propose a framework to analyze metric sensitivity along continuous spatial trajectories, drawing on principles of sensitivity analysis in parametric sound synthesis. Using controlled FOA scenes with increasing scene complexity, we define three desiderata for metric behavior: Responsiveness, Smoothness, and Symmetry. We assess standard distribution-based and sample-based metrics, including Fréchet Audio Distance (FAD), intensity vectors, and acoustic maps. Our findings show that FAD using localization-specific embeddings and acoustic maps yield high Responsiveness and robust Smoothness and Symmetry across conditions, while intensity vectors degrade with increasing scene complexity. This is the first step towards investigating the sensitivity of metrics for generative spatial audio.

AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage. Although such systems promise to reduce reviewer burden and accelerate publication, their robustness to strategic manipulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation: superficial rephrasing of the manuscript abstract. Without changing the underlying scientific content and communication, and even without knowledge of the reviewing model, adversarially rewritten abstracts substantially improve AI review outcomes. We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers. Our strongest attack achieves an attack-success-rate of about 38%, increasing acceptance ratings by +1.31 for Gemini 3 Flash reviewers and by +0.88 for GPT 5.4 Mini reviewers on a 10-point scale. When the original AI review suggests 'reject', the success rate rises to more than 50%. This effect extends beyond overall score inflation, increasing review confidence and scores on core scientific criteria such as soundness, significance and perceived contribution. The attack is practical, requiring only about 5 minutes and $1 for a 10-page AI conference submission, and is hard to distinguish from ordinary scientific editing. Inflated AI reviews could bias downstream human decision-making, shifting editorial recommendations from rejection towards acceptance. These findings reveal a general vulnerability in AI-assisted scientific evaluation: when AI-generated review influence editorial decisions, authors may be incentivized to optimize manuscripts for AI judgment rather than scientific merit. Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review without systematic robustness testing, transparent safeguards and careful human oversight.

Conditional generators provide a natural tool for controllable generation, including settings where the desired condition is a new composition of observed attributes or experimental factors. In many applications, especially in scientific domains, such models are attractive to explore conditions for which real samples are rare, expensive, or not yet observed. However, this creates a circularity for evaluation: standard conditional quality metrics require a reference target distribution, but in the extrapolative regime that distribution is unavailable by definition. We address this problem with a post-hoc, per-sample trust score for assessing conditional samples using only the training distribution. The score combines two estimable quantities: global realism, measuring compatibility with the real data manifold, and attribute-wise faithfulness, measuring whether a sample is closer to the requested attributes than to plausible alternatives. We show that the score can recover meaningful comparisons across extrapolated generations, under a mild coverage condition on the observed attributes. These comparisons enable effective filtering, ranking, and abstention of generations and can be used directly on off-the-shelf pretrained models. In biological imaging, selected samples preserve real morphological structure better and improve downstream predictive performance, while similar gains are observed on controlled vision benchmarks. Finally, we show how the score can be applied during generation, enabling abstention before full decoding. Code is available at https://github.com/berkerdemirel/faithful-cond-gen.

As AI assistants serve millions of users daily, evaluating user experience (UX) beyond general model capability has become increasingly important. We present \textbf{UXBench}, the first user-centric benchmark grounded in real user feedback signals for evaluating preference alignment and dialogue generation. The benchmark consists of three interconnected tasks, UX Judge, UX Eval, and UX Recovery, with 7,400 test instances extracted from over 70K interaction logs of a mainstream Chinese AI assistant. The dataset closely reflects real user distributions, covering 8 scenarios, 83 domains, and diverse failure patterns that pose severe challenges. Extensive experiments on 26 frontier language models provide novel insights into how well models perceive user experience and how improvements in model capability contribute to better dialogue engagement. Through analyses of model behavior and performance gaps, we document six important findings, demonstrating that user feedback prediction is a learnable capability and revealing different aspects that influence user experience. UXBench establishes a new evaluation landscape and calls for greater attention to tailored UX optimization, contributing toward a user-centric scaling law for the development of successful AI assistants. The full project is released at https://github.com/mengze-hong/UXBench.

Pairwise comparisons combined with aggregation methods like Elo have become central to evaluating generative models, yet concerns remain that they reward superficial stylistic cues or display judge biases. In a more positive turn, we show that model rankings from pairwise comparisons strongly agree with ground-truth-based accuracy rankings when such ground truth is available for comparison. By converting five well-known benchmarks into free-form generative evaluations, we find that Elo rankings achieve a Spearman correlation above 0.9 with accuracy rankings and substantially outperform direct evaluation when the judge is weak. Furthermore, style and judge bias have only minor effects on model rankings, despite most judgments occurring on pairs where both candidate answers are correct (or incorrect). On such pairs, we find that repetition after the final answer (echo) is a causal driver of judge preference.

Reference-free faithfulness metrics verify each atomic claim a model makes against ground truth, and are increasingly used to evaluate grounded generation. We show they share a blind spot: they measure only precision -- are the stated claims supported? -- and therefore reward abstention, since a model can score near-perfect faithfulness by saying almost nothing. We make this measurable using Formula 1 telemetry, a domain where strategic ground truth is derived deterministically and, crucially, completely: for each decision we know the full set of facts that mattered. This completeness -- absent in open-domain faithfulness benchmarks -- lets us measure recall (coverage of the relevant facts) exactly, alongside precision. On a multilingual (EN/ES/PT) benchmark of 7,253 decision instances spanning 157 races, the most precise frontier model covers under half of the relevant facts and ranks last by F1, so requiring coverage reorders the systems; the same effect reappears in a second complete-oracle domain (NOAA weather forecasts). Fine-tuning small models (1B-7B) on the complete oracle closes the precision-recall gap entirely (F1 ~0.98), beating every zero-shot frontier system regardless of scale. We pair faithfulness with coverage into a single score, validate the metric (controlled perturbation; agreement across a model-free regex extractor and a cross-family LLM extractor, system-level Spearman 1.0), and give a verifier-guided generation method that improves precision and recall without references. We release the benchmark, structured annotations, metric, baselines, and an interactive demo.

Diffusion and continuous flow-based language models have emerged as the leading non-autoregressive alternatives to language modeling. Progress in both paradigms is overwhelmingly tracked by generative perplexity (gen-PPL): the per-token negative log-likelihood of samples under a frozen autoregressive (AR) scorer such as gpt2-large, typically paired with an empirical-entropy guardrail to rule out low-entropy collapse. We argue that this metric is unsound. By construction, gen-PPL measures only predictability under the scoring AR, not grammaticality or semantic coherence -- and the set of predictable but still low-quality sequences is combinatorially large. To make this concrete, we construct a suite of zero-parameter, deliberately naive samplers that achieve state-of-the-art gen-PPL on LM1B and OpenWebText at non-degenerate entropy, surpassing recently published diffusion and continuous-flow models while producing text that is incoherent by construction. We recommend evaluation suites that directly quantify the distributional divergence between generated and reference text, and use such a suite to re-benchmark recent non-autoregressive models, recovering a more faithful picture of the current state of the art.

Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text. However, the reliability and reproducibility of these evaluations depend on transparent and well-documented protocols -- details that are frequently missing in current practice. In this work, we conduct a large-scale analysis of human evaluation protocols for evaluating long-form generation tasks in *CL conference publications from 2023--2025, including a full manual review of 284 papers and LLM-assisted analysis for another 1.8k+ papers. We define a set of 20 reportable criteria related to reproducibility of human evaluation studies, and apply these criteria to systematically examine reporting norms and practices within the community. We find widespread under-reporting of important aspects of human evaluation study design, leading to ambiguity about what was measured and how, who contributed judgments, and how judgments should be interpreted. Based on these findings, we outline actionable recommendations to support more transparent and reproducible reporting in future research. Our analysis code and annotated dataset can be found at: https://github.com/larchlab/Illusions-of-the-Gold-Standard

Although it is generally agreed that AI-generated text poses a broad societal risk, there is no common understanding in the AI-generated text detection literature on what constitutes harmful use. Rather, existing datasets and approaches often define their own criteria and make their own assumptions, sometimes implicitly, and often only loosely related to real-world needs and applications. To address this gap, we here systematically define various notions of AI-generated text and their characteristics. To study these, we collect AITDNA - a new benchmark of human-machine co-constructed texts that is annotated with detailed genesis information, such as the entire edit and AI-interaction history. We benchmark various machine-generated text detectors and find that they often only perform well for specific notions but not as broad detectors. We release code and data publicly.

Interpretable linguistic features offer a promising approach for explaining why a given text appears machine-generated, particularly for non-expert users. However, existing findings on which features reliably indicate LLM-generated text remain fragmented across feature sets, models, and text domains. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical study assessing the robustness of linguistic signals for characterizing AI-generated text. Our analysis covers 284 interpretable linguistic features across outputs from 27 LLMs and ten text domains under cross-model and cross-domain generalization settings. We show that classifiers based solely on linguistic features can reliably distinguish AI-generated from human-written text. However, many previously proposed indicators prove strongly context-dependent, with the exception of measures of lexical richness, which remain robust signals across model families and text domains. These results demonstrate which linguistic signals generalize across contexts and provide a foundation for more reliable, interpretable analyses of AI-generated language.