Generative AI Evaluation

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose SenseJudge, a customizable judgment framework driven by human preferences and SenseBench, a diverse and challenging instruction-following benchmark derived from real-world multi-turn interactions. We applied the automatic judgment framework and benchmark to two tasks: (1) LLMs as personalized judges, and (2) model ranking. We conducted extensive experiments, and the results demonstrate that the SenseJudge framework surpasses other judgment methods and models in the LLMs-as-personalized-judges task and achieves model ranking that aligns with real human sense. Additionally, we conducted analyses on position bias and consistency, alongside ablation studies, which affirmed the robustness of SenseJudge.

The rapid advancement of instruction-guided audio generation has highlighted the critical need for robust alignment evaluation. Current automated evaluation methods heavily rely on holistic scoring from general-purpose large language models, which struggle to decouple complex instructions, lack interpretability, and fail to capture fine-grained attribute mismatches. To address this, we introduce a novel dynamic rubric-based evaluation paradigm that adaptively decomposes complex audio captions into a variable number of independent, verifiable binary rubric items. To rigorously benchmark this capability, we propose the AnyAudio-Judge Bench, a comprehensive, bilingual benchmark comprising 7,920 meticulously curated samples across four diverse audio domains (speech, sound, music, and mixed), featuring deliberately constructed hard negatives. Furthermore, we construct a large-scale corpus of 105K samples with explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales to train our dedicated evaluator, the AnyAudio-Judge model. By employing a training pipeline that combines Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), our model successfully aligns its reasoning paths with the rubric-based scoring mechanism. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AnyAudio-Judge not only significantly enhances zero-shot alignment detection compared to state-of-the-art baselines, but also provides precise and interpretable reward signals that substantially improve instruction alignment in downstream reinforcement learning for audio generation.

Large-scale generative models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across image generation and editing tasks. However, their performance in low-level vision tasks, which require pixel-wise control, remains insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{LL-Bench}, a comprehensive \textbf{Benchmark} for evaluating the capabilities of large-scale generative models on \textbf{L}ow-\textbf{L}evel vision tasks. The benchmark comprises 2,469 real-world degraded images covering 16 low-level degradation tasks, and 28,919 restored images produced by 10 state-of-the-art large-scale generative models and 21 conventional restoration models, which are annotated with 152,020 expert-level pairwise human preferences and 28,334 quality scores. Built upon LL-Bench, we present a systematic diagnosis that reveals the performance boundaries and unique failure modes of large-scale generative models across diverse low-level vision tasks, compared with conventional representative restoration approaches. Moreover, we investigate the effectiveness of current quality evaluation metrics on LL-Bench, which exhibit significant discrepancy with human ratings. To better align restored-image quality assessment with human preferences, we further propose \textbf{LL-Score}, an MLLM-based evaluator that captures both restoration quality and hallucination existence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that LL-score not only outperforms existing image quality assessment metrics, but also serves as a promising reward model for training generative models on low-level vision tasks.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems open new possibilities for experimentation in literary studies via controlled, grounded, large-scale, low-cost simulations of cultural production. Current systems have not yet been shown to produce high-quality, book-length narrative texts that reliably reflect arbitrarily specified cultural constraints or stylistic features. But there exists substantial relevant research on each of the components required for literary-historical simulation. These include the use and validation of AI systems as proxies for differentiable human populations; the narrative and stylistic properties of AI-generated texts; the stability and coherence of multiagent, multiturn AI simulations of human actors; and technical methods through which to alter in predictable ways the knowledge and behavior of generative systems. Together, these areas could provide a starting point for more ambitious AI-based modeling of cultural systems of literary production. We describe the possibilities and challenges of simulation-based experiments in literary studies, summarize the current state of the art in relevant fields, and explain key technical aspects of the work. To provide an example directly relevant to literary scholars, we present the results of experiments on literary text generation, including comparisons to high-status, human-authored novels. Our results include the first demonstration of (limited) in-distribution outputs by AI models in this domain. We conclude with a description of future work on full counterfactual literary-historical simulations using AI.

Measuring the diversity of creative outputs is central to evaluating post-training mode collapse, comparing decoding strategies, and quantifying creative behavior in both AI and human writing. We propose a new approach to measuring diversity using in-context learning, of which the ``Decan'' metric, $D_{Ca_n} = C \times a_n$, is the working instance we evaluate: a per-byte score read off the per-token log-probabilities of a base model $θ$ in a \emph{single forward pass} per permutation, with no embedding model, no reference corpus, and no human labels. This approach is grounded in information theory, makes use of language model in-context learning to detect a wide range of similarities between any number of inputs, and obviates the need to train a special-purpose model. The same pipeline scores AI samples and human-written response sets, with diversity treated as a property of (responses, prompt, scoring model). On Tevet and Berant's human-grounded McDiv benchmark, $D_{Ca_n}$ reaches OCA 0.846 on the McDiv prompt_gen set where it performs best, behind the strongest neural baseline reported in Tevet and Berant (SentBERT, 0.897). On the OLMo-2-7B post-training pipeline, $D_{Ca_n}$ drops monotonically across the base $\to$ SFT $\to$ DPO $\to$ RLVR stages, detecting the type of diversity loss that creative-writing applications care about.

Recent studies suggest that child-directed speech is not conducive to language learning in BabyLMs. However, current evaluations focus predominantly on comprehension and not production, which is central to usage-based theories of language acquisition which argue how CDS facilitates early language use through constructional ''frames'' (frequent lexical patterns with open slots). We introduce a novel generation-based evaluation inspired by such theories in form of a frame-completion task, and compare Llama models trained with CDS, the BabyLM corpus, and web-crawl data (FineWeb-edu) on comprehension benchmarks and our novel framework. Our results reveal a clear dissociation between models' comprehension and production capabilities: while FineWeb-trained models excel at minimal pairs, CDS-trained models produce grammatical completions substantially earlier in training and concentrate probability mass on appropriate slot-fillers. These findings show that comprehension benchmarks underestimate what CDS affords to BabyLMs.

Audio-driven talking-head generation has advanced rapidly, yet existing evaluation protocols mainly rely on frame-wise metrics that assume strict temporal correspondence between generated and reference videos. This assumption does not match speech-driven facial motion, which naturally includes slight timing shifts, different speaking speeds, and stylistic variations. As a result, conventional metrics may treat harmless timing differences as quality errors, making it harder to fairly compare methods and understand their trade-offs. In this work, we argue that evaluation of dynamic generative models should be formulated as a sequence-alignment problem rather than independent frame comparison. We introduce a unified sequence-level reformulation that integrates Soft Dynamic Time Warping into established evaluation pipelines. By aligning feature trajectories while preserving temporal order, the proposed framework provides robustness to bounded temporal misalignments without altering the underlying perceptual, identity, or synchronization encoders. We show that frame-wise evaluation can be viewed as a special case under rigid alignment, while sequence-level alignment provides improved stability, lower sensitivity to timing differences, and clearer separation between modeling paradigms. Building on this principled formulation, we conduct a large-scale benchmark of 20 methods across seven datasets spanning canonical, in-the-wild, and style-diverse scenarios under standardized protocols. Extensive experiments show that temporally aligned metrics are more robust to timing differences, provide more consistent results across datasets, and better reveal systematic trade-offs between modeling paradigms, such as synchronization versus realism and expressiveness versus stability.

Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers. The exploding volume of AI-generated papers have put a strain to peer review, leading to the usage of AI-generated review, potentially wide yet sneaky. However, relevant ethical concerns about confidentiality, quality, and fairness are raised and no consensus has been reached in the broad research community. We expect the debate to continue for a while, but in the meantime, we ask an alternative, practical question: \textit{can AI review improve paper drafting?} We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review, quantified by a set of metrics we define. To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, \emph{AI-Paper-Review}, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper, available at https://github.com/unarylab/ai-paper-review. This tool selects several AI reviewers from a diverse pool of AI reviewers and clusters and ranks their comments based on commonality and importance of review comments. It also allows to align AI comments with human comments to facilitate metric-based validation. The case study shows that AI review can cover a significant fraction of human-raised issues, but also raises issues missing in human review. This paper is not intended to encourage using AI for peer review at the current stage, but to study that (1) how AI review can improve paper drafting and (2) the potential and limitation of AI-based peer review. The release of the tool and the case study data is intended to instigate future research on this topic. Misuse for peer review would violate the ethics policies from major academic venues.

Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited. Existing RWG evaluations largely inherit summarization-oriented metrics, using lexical or semantic similarity to reference sections as proxies for quality. However, related work writing is fundamentally a citation-level scholarly positioning task: it requires selecting, organizing, and framing prior work to clarify how a target paper relates to, differs from, and contributes beyond existing research.As a result, models may generate coherent and semantically-relevant text while exhibiting academically critical failures, such as inappropriate citation selection or misplaced references, that conventional metrics do not capture.To this end, we introduce \textbf{RWGBench}, a benchmark that evaluates RWG from the perspective of citation decision-making rather than text similarity. RWGBench is constructed from a large-scale collection of 40,108 computer science papers and a retrieval corpus of 1.09 million documents, with a carefully curated test set comprising 100 papers and their corresponding published related work sections.We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that assesses citation selection, contextual appropriateness, organization, and discourse structure.Experiments reveal systematic limitations in current systems that are obscured by standard evaluations, while Oracle studies further disentangle retrieval-level and generation-level bottlenecks. Human evaluation further shows that our citation-centric metrics align substantially better with expert judgment than surface-level text metrics. RWGBench offers a citation-centric testbed for developing and evaluating related work generation systems that are better aligned with scholarly writing practices.

Reliable evaluation of agentic systems requires unbiased estimates with valid uncertainty, but standard practice navigates between costly human annotation and biased LLM-as-judge proxies. Prediction-powered inference (PPI) combines both into debiased estimates with valid confidence intervals, yet its various methods remain scattered across papers under partial implementations. We introduce GLIDE, an open-source Python library that unifies state-of-the-art PPI estimators (PPI++, Stratified PPI, Predict-Then-Debias and its stratified variants, Active Statistical Inference) and samplers (uniform, stratified, active, cost-optimal) under a scipy-style API specialized to mean estimation. GLIDE ships with a reproducible Monte Carlo validation suite, an empirically grounded decision tree for method selection, and an agentic evaluation case study showing substantial annotation savings at equivalent precision. The GLIDE package is available at this URL: https://github.com/EmertonData/glide

Current alignment paradigms for generative artificial intelligence rely predominantly on monolithic benchmarking frameworks that reduce the plurality of human judgment to aggregated statistical baselines, thereby obscuring cultural, demographic, and contextual variability in evaluation. We introduce a state-space constrained emulation framework for AI evaluation that replaces singular assessment functions with a structured manifold of synthetic cognitive profiles representing diverse human perspectives. We show that modern generative architectures can instantiate and maintain these evaluative personas with high consistency, enabling a form of pluralistic, perspective-dependent benchmarking that more closely reflects real-world consensus variability. However, we further analyze the stability of these simulated evaluators under sequential inference and stochastic prompt perturbations, revealing systematic degradation in persona coherence that manifests as state-space drift and semantic inconsistency. These findings suggest that static alignment constraints are insufficient for sustaining robust evaluative behavior over time. Instead, we argue for the necessity of embedding dynamic, viability-driven regulatory mechanisms within generative systems to preserve coherent cognitive emulation. By framing persona-based evaluation as a structured dynamical system over latent representation manifolds, this study provides a foundation for more adaptive, human-aligned, and context-sensitive approaches to AI evaluation.

Conditional generative models have recently achieved remarkable success in various applications. However, a suitable metric for evaluating the reliability of these models, which takes into account their inherent uncertainty, is still lacking. Existing metrics, which typically assess a single output, may fail to capture the variability or potential risks in generation. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation metric called reliability score based on conformal prediction, which measures the worst-case performance within the prediction set at a pre-specified confidence level. However, computing this score is challenging due to the high-dimensional nature of the output space and the nonconvexity of both the metric function and the prediction set. To efficiently compute this score, we introduce Conformal ReLiability (CReL), a framework that can (i) construct the prediction set with desired coverage; and (ii) accurately optimize the reliability score within the constructed prediction set. We provide theoretical results on coverage and demonstrate empirically that our method produces more informative prediction sets than existing approaches. Experiments on synthetic data and the image-to-text and text-to-image tasks further demonstrate the interpretability of our new metric, and the validity and effectiveness of our computational framework. Source code can be found at https://ggc29.github.io/CReL/.

Generative machine learning has become an essential tool in theoretical and experimental physics, especially in the context of fast surrogates and density estimators. In this work, we first introduce the underlying framework of modern generative networks and then discuss challenges in quantifying their accuracy, precision, and statistical power.

As AI tools become increasingly integrated into educational contexts, questions arise about both their stability over time and their responsiveness to prompt engineering techniques. This longitudinal study focused on different AI tools' ability to use the Task Analysis Guide (TAG; Stein & Smith, 1998) to classify the cognitive demand of mathematics tasks. In particular, it examined whether this classification ability changed with (1) model version updates over time and (2) few-shot prompting using exemplar tasks. We tested a general-purpose AI tool (Gemini) and an education-specific AI tool (Coteach). The specific tools were selected because of their relatively high performance on relevant published benchmarks and prior task-specific tests. Models were tested at baseline, retested with model version updates, and then tested again using few-shot prompting (two exemplar tasks for each cognitive demand category). Results revealed that newer model versions alone produced mixed effects: Gemini's accuracy remained stable at 58%, while Coteach's accuracy decreased from 75% to 50%. However, few-shot prompting improved both models' performance: Gemini increased to 67% and Coteach recovered to 75% accuracy. These findings demonstrate that prompt engineering techniques can have larger and more reliable effects than passive model improvements, and that version updates may not always improve performance on specialized educational tasks. The study has important implications for how educators and researchers should approach AI tool selection, evaluation, and implementation in educational contexts.

Front-end web code has become a core product surface for every frontier LLM release, yet evaluating these interactive applications at development speed remains costly because human-judged leaderboards like Arena do not scale. Existing automated proxies typically lean on reference implementations, test suites, or rigid checklists, and tend to miss the reasoned synthesis a human reviewer performs over a live session. We articulate a new evaluation regime that is simultaneously reference-free, autonomously driven, and holistically reasoned, and instantiate it through two artifacts. \textbf{\dataname} is an 11-domain, 54-leaf, 1,000-query WebDev benchmark spanning both static-presentation and interactive-application tasks, balanced across three difficulty tiers and three target-language groups, with briefs rewritten to resist recall from circulated prompts. \textbf{\framename}, grounded in Flavell's metacognitive monitoring, separates evidence accumulation from judgment across three stages: Static Perception forms a first impression from passive observation; Agent-Driven Interaction explores the application autonomously while capturing continuous screen video, audio, and per-step screenshots; Dynamic Scoring issues holistic functionality and aesthetics verdicts with structured failure attribution only after the evidence chain is complete. On \dataname, \framename aligns closely with expert human ratings while surfacing substantial headroom across 13 frontier LLMs on interactive web generation. \noindenthttps://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cookie-3CE/

AI tools to support real world decision making must be able to build simulation models that inform their recommendations and render them interpretable. Tools that can automate aspects of modeling practice must complement human expertise, not replace it. The BEAMS Initiative aims to guide the development of AI tools for modeling and simulation toward forms that are responsible and ethical by establishing benchmarks for human centered modeling and simulation practices. The initiative uses open digital and organizational infrastructure to collaboratively evaluate AI tools for modeling and simulation. The open source sd ai project hosted by the initiative establishes transparency and enables contributions to be shared broadly. A steering group focuses on prioritizing potential benchmarks, while a technical group focuses on implementing the benchmarks in the form of automated tests. Tests for several distinct categories of evaluation have been implemented and applied to AI tools that support qualitative model building, quantitative model building, and model discussion. These include tests for causal translation, model iteration, causal reasoning, conformance, model behavior explanation, suggested model building steps, and suggested model fixes. When engines from the sd ai project are coupled with different LLMs, their performance on these evaluations reveals variability across different AI tools. The evaluations implemented by the initiative demonstrate that AI enabled modeling tools perform better at discussion and basic qualitative tasks than with causal reasoning and quantitative error fixing. No single LLM dominates across engine types, highlighting the importance of specific tasks and tradeoffs between speed and accuracy. Ongoing efforts of the initiative aim to incorporate benchmarks that address concerns about bias by considering alternative perspectives and human centered use cases.

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has become a core benchmark for evaluating AI in the criminal legal domain, but it only sees criminal cases that have already passed prosecutorial review and been formally indicted. As a result, LJP leaves a substantial blind spot in assessing criminal liability, overlooking cases involving insufficient evidence, no criminal liability, or guilt exempted from punishment. To fill this gap, we propose \textbf{Prosecution Decision Prediction (PDP)}, the first Legal AI task built around prosecutorial review, which classifies each case into prosecution or one of three non-prosecution decisions and reflects legal AI's capabilities in evidence evaluation, legal subsumption, and value-based discretion. We further construct \textbf{PDP-Bench}, a benchmark of 4{,}630 real Chinese prosecutorial decisions spanning 190 charges. Extensive experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs perform substantially worse on PDP than on LJP and that mainstream enhancement routes fail to close the gap. Moreover, controlled RLVR interventions show that simple outcome rewards fail to produce generalizable PDP discrimination.

Evaluating AI tutor responses requires more than factual correctness: tutors must identify mistakes, locate errors, provide guidance, and offer actionable next steps. We present GRADE, a systematic study of open-source models for pedagogical ability assessment in student-tutor dialogues. Building on the BEA 2025 TutorMind setting, we evaluate 120 configurations across five language models, zero-shot inference, LoRA fine-tuning, synthetic augmentation, CoT+Reasoning, and single-task versus multitask formulations. Gemma3-12B performs best for single-task evaluation, while Gemma3-27B in 8-bit precision is more reliable for multitask prediction. We find that augmentation helps models that struggle with the original data, verification adds limited gains despite higher cost, and CoT+Reasoning is more useful for synthetic data generation than direct classification. We further show that LoRA fine-tuning on structured classification objectives interferes with instruction-following behavior under thinking mode, redirecting generation away from the required evaluation format. Carbon analysis shows that model choice and reasoning mode substantially affect emissions. Overall, GRADE shows that carefully selected open-source LoRA pipelines can match or surpass proprietary and ensemble-based systems on key pedagogical dimensions, with code and data available at https://github.com/pvbgeek/GRADE.

With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important. However, human-likeness is a form of tacit knowledge that humans perceive intuitively, yet the underlying criteria resist explicit formulation. Human judgments vary widely, with strong agreement on some cases and legitimate disagreement on others. Meanwhile, the criteria behind human judgments remain implicit, leaving no clear basis for constructing cases. Further, what counts as human-likeness is not static, but evolving with model capability and human expectations. Despite progress in evaluation methods such as expert-authored benchmarks, Reward Models, and self-evolving benchmarks, none addresses all three challenges simultaneously. Therefore, we propose GrowLoop, a self-evolving conversation evaluation system that continuously adapts as models advance and scenarios shift. Starting from minimal human seed annotations, LLM agents iteratively extract and refine evaluation rubrics through Heuristic Learning. Human-AI agreement is required where annotators converge, while only plausibility is expected where they diverge. Moreover, the Rubric-Case co-evolution mechanism enables continuous evolution. When the evaluation target shifts, new human seeds expand the system's coverage accordingly. When applied to human-likeness evaluation in open-ended conversation, the AI judge guided by these rubrics not only substantially outperforms existing methods in alignment with human judgments, but also uncovers issues that annotators overlook. The resulting benchmark effectively discriminates models across capability tiers and reveals where they fall short, while generalizing to new scenarios and adapting as models advance. Our work shifts the benchmarking paradigm from manual updates or difficulty scaling to comprehensive, continuous self-evolution.

This paper examines how estimates of AI use in scientific writing can be biased when evaluation methods ignore contextual differences across countries and fields. Using large-scale data on journal publications from Dimensions, we construct AI-likeness benchmarks based on differences between human-written and LLM-rephrased abstracts. We show that a pooled benchmark may confound pre-existing stylistic variation with AI-generated text, producing substantial distortions across country-field groups even in pre-LLM publications. In contrast, country-field-specific benchmarks attenuate such distortions and provide a more credible baseline for comparison. Applying these methods to publications in 2025 reveals that the pooled benchmark systematically overestimates AI use in certain countries and fields while underestimating it in others. These findings highlight the importance of context-aware measurement for accurate and equitable evaluation of AI use in science.

We propose a framework for evaluating structured generative search summaries that are placed atop organic web search results. A structured summary, generated by a large language model, typically consists of an overview, several sections with section titles, and a list of source documents that are cited within the summary. We then describe our plans for implementing and evaluating the framework.

Audio-visual generation is rapidly advancing from short clips to minute-long content, while existing evaluation protocols remain largely confined to short-form settings. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on 5--10 second text-conditioned generation and rarely support unified evaluation across text, image, and video conditioning modalities. Moreover, they provide limited insight into how identity consistency, narrative coherence, and audio-visual alignment degrade over extended temporal horizons. To bridge this gap, we introduce LongAV-Compass, a systematic benchmark for minute-long audio-visual generation. LongAV-Compass contains 284 curated test cases spanning text-to-audio-video (T2AV), image-to-audio-video (I2AV), and video-to-audio-video (V2AV), organized by application scenario and generation complexity. The benchmark combines taxonomy-guided benchmark construction with a unified evaluation framework that integrates MLLM-assisted assessment with complementary perceptual and multimodal metrics, including DINO-v2, ArcFace, CLIP, and ImageBind. The framework evaluates more than 20 fine-grained dimensions covering within-segment quality, cross-segment consistency, global narrative coherence, semantic alignment, and audio-visual synchronization. Through experiments on 11 representative models together with human-alignment validation, LongAV-Compass provides a diagnostic testbed for analyzing the limitations of current systems in sustaining coherent, semantically aligned, and temporally consistent minute-scale audio-visual generation across diverse input modalities.

Evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems is challenging because many targets of evaluation are broad, contested concepts, such as "reasoning," "fairness," or "creativity." When these concepts are left underspecified, it becomes unclear what should be measured or how evaluation results should be interpreted. This problem reflects a missing step: systematization, that is, moving from a broad background concept to an explicit, structured account of the concept in measurable terms. To help address the fact that systematization is cognitively demanding and resource-intensive, we investigate whether AI assistance can support this process. To enable AI-assisted systematization and assess its quality, we introduce a structured representation of a systematized concept, a concept spec, and a validation worksheet. We then develop two AI-assisted systematizers: a direct, zero-shot approach and a multi-agent approach that more closely mirrors manual systematization approaches from existing literature. We use these systematizers to produce concept specs for two concepts -- hate-based rhetoric and digital empathy -- and evaluate resulting concept specs on content validity and information recoverability.

A brand whose customers use both ChatGPT and Claude for product recommendations faces a strategic choice: a single optimization playbook, or one per provider? Across 215 commercially-framed prompts in four measurement batches, the two providers disagree on which brands they recommend roughly two-thirds of the time (cross-provider recommendation Jaccard 0.35, below the 0.50-0.61 same-prompt rerun baseline). The picks diverge. But when neither provider recommends a brand, we classify the failure into one of three modes -- discoverability (the brand never reaches the model), compellingness (it reaches the model but isn't mentioned), or positioning (it's mentioned but not recommended) -- and on 7,763 such joint failures, both providers diagnose the same failure mode 95.1% of the time (clustered 95% CI [94.3%, 95.7%]). Agreement rises monotonically with falling brand prominence, from 81% [78.2%, 84.0%] on category leaders to 99.6% [99.3%, 99.9%] on long-tail regional brands. The two providers reach their picks by measurably different generative routes -- Anthropic recommends from priors 43-52% of the time, OpenAI 8-29% -- but they converge on the failure diagnosis where it matters most for the long tail. Work that addresses the diagnosed failure mode lifts visibility on both providers; positioning - and content-level work for category leaders is more provider-specific.

Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation has changed dramatically since 1990, and will continue to evolve in the future. In 1990, when NLG had close ties to linguistics, there was very little formal experimental evaluation in the modern sense. In 2026, when NLG is closely linked to machine learning, experimental evaluation is expected and indeed fundamental to research. Many evaluation techniques were developed over this period, including most recently LLM-as-Judge. I expect NLG evaluation will continue to evolve in the future. In particular, impact, qualitative, and safety evaluation will become more important as large numbers of people routinely use NLG technology.

The rapid evolution of generative video foundation models has propelled the field toward professional-grade cinematic synthesis. To achieve such demanding quality, the community transitions towards Reinforcement Learning (RL) and agentic workflows. However, reliable evaluation has emerged as a critical bottleneck. Existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate ''whether it is right'' (basic prompt-following) while fundamentally neglecting ''whether it is good'' (cinematic quality, acting, and aesthetics). Furthermore, current automated metrics lack the domain-specific rigor required to provide trustworthy signals, creating a severe credibility gap between human aesthetic perception and machine scoring. To bridge this gap, we introduce EvalVerse, a comprehensive, pipeline-aware, and expert-calibrated evaluation framework. We treat video generation assessment not merely as an engineering task, but as a core scientific problem: the systematic digitization of subjective cinematic expertise. First, we organize domain knowledge into an evaluation taxonomy aligned with the professional filmmaking workflow (pre-production, production, and post-production). Second, we distill human expert judgments into a curated dataset with large-scale human annotations. Third, we inject this knowledge into Vision-Language Models (VLMs) through an expert-calibrated fine-tuning strategy, enabling the VLM to perform explicit Chain-of-Thought reasoning. Compared to previous works, EvalVerse not only retains compatibility with foundational ''rightness'' metrics, but also significantly expands the criteria to ''goodness'' and broaden the task coverage to complex multi-shot sequencing and audio-visual integration. Consequently, by providing granular diagnostic signals, EvalVerse transcends a static leaderboard and establishes a fundamental infrastructure for future work, such as reward models and evaluator agent.

Evaluating speech generation still relies heavily on human judgments, such as Mean Opinion Score (MOS), which are expensive, subjective, and difficult to reproduce at scale. While a few recent studies have begun to explore AudioLLM-based judge models, existing efforts typically target only a narrow set of scenarios (e.g., utterance-level quality or single-turn dialogue) and provide limited coverage of diverse speech generation tasks and evaluation dimensions. In this work, we propose UniSRM, a unified speech reward model that can support multi-dimensional, interpretable reward signals with reliable reasoning. To support training and evaluation, we introduce UniSRM-Data and UniSRM-Bench, covering speech evaluation tasks from utterance-level quality to context-level coherence. Based on this dataset, we present the unified speech reward model, UniSRM, with a two-stage pipeline that enables reasoning-based fine-grained assessment. Furthermore, we introduce Reasoning-Consistent Rewards to improve the reliability of the reasoning process. Experiments show that UniSRM delivers more reliable and human-aligned judgments across a broad range of speech evaluation tasks, offering a practical foundation for scalable and unified evaluation of speech quality.