Language Model Generation Evaluation

Reward models are essential for aligning language model outputs with human preferences, yet existing approaches often lack both controllability and interpretability. These models are typically optimized for narrow objectives, limiting their generalizability to broader downstream tasks. Moreover, their scalar outputs are difficult to interpret without contextual reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce R3, a novel reward modeling framework that is rubric-agnostic, generalizable across evaluation dimensions, and provides interpretable, reasoned score assignments. R3 enables more transparent and flexible evaluation of language models, supporting robust alignment with diverse human values and use cases. Our models, data, and code are available as open source at https://github.com/rubricreward/r3.

Automatic prompt generation plays a crucial role in enabling general-purpose multi-agent systems to perform diverse tasks autonomously. Existing methods typically evaluate prompts based on their immediate task performance, overlooking the intrinsic qualities that determine their reliability. This outcome-centric view not only limits interpretability but also fails to account for the inherent stochasticity of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we bring attention to prompt stability-the consistency of model responses across repeated executions-as a key factor for building robust and effective prompt generation systems. To quantify this, we propose semantic stability as a criterion for assessing the response consistency of prompts. Based on the proposed metric, we developed the first stability-aware general-purpose prompt generation system that leverages stability feedback to iteratively enhance both prompt quality and system-level performance. Furthermore, we establish a logical chain between prompt stability and task success by analyzing the structural dependencies within our system, proving stability as a necessary condition for effective system-level execution. Empirical results across general and domain-specific tasks demonstrate that our stability-aware framework improves both accuracy and output consistency. By shifting the focus from one-off results to persistent reliability, our work offers a new perspective on prompt design and contributes practical tools for building more trustworthy general-purpose systems. The UI and source code for our system are publicly available at: https://xucheng63.github.io/MyDataPilot/.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness. Meanwhile, using LLMs themselves as evaluators without external grounding remains unreliable for objective tasks, as they systematically over-accept incorrect answers, fabricate supporting rationales, and degrade sharply on questions that fall outside their training data. We propose Search-AuGmented Evaluation (SAGE), a framework to assess LLM outputs without fixed ground-truth answers. Unlike conventional metrics that compare to static references or depend solely on LLM-as-a-judge knowledge, SAGE acts as an agent that actively retrieves and synthesizes external evidence. It iteratively generates web queries, collects information, summarizes findings, and refines subsequent searches through reflection. By reducing dependence on static reference-driven evaluation protocols, SAGE offers a scalable and adaptive alternative for evaluating the factuality of LLMs. Experimental results on multiple free-form QA benchmarks show that SAGE achieves substantial to perfect agreement with human evaluations.

As language model (LM) outputs get more and more natural, it is becoming more difficult than ever to evaluate their quality. Simultaneously, increasing LMs' "thinking" time through scaling test-time compute has proven an effective technique to solve challenging problems in domains such as math and code. This raises a natural question: can an LM's evaluation capability also be improved by spending more test-time compute? To answer this, we investigate employing reasoning models-LMs that natively generate long chain-of-thought reasoning-as evaluators. Specifically, we examine methods to leverage more test-time compute by (1) using reasoning models, and (2) prompting these models to evaluate not only the response as a whole (i.e., outcome evaluation) but also assess each step in the response separately (i.e., process evaluation). In experiments, we observe that the evaluator's performance improves monotonically when generating more reasoning tokens, similar to the trends observed in LM-based generation. Furthermore, we use these more accurate evaluators to rerank multiple generations, and demonstrate that spending more compute at evaluation time can be as effective as using more compute at generation time in improving an LM's problem-solving capability.

Generative models guided by text prompts are widely evaluated for fidelity and prompt alignment, yet their ability to produce diverse outputs remains underexplored. Existing diversity metrics such as Vendi and RKE, which are based on the von Neumann and Rényi entropies of kernel matrices, were developed for unconditional models and cannot distinguish prompt-induced from model-induced variability. We address this gap by introducing Conditional-Vendi and Conditional-RKE, diversity measures derived from the conditional entropy of positive semidefinite matrices. These scores isolate model-induced diversity in prompt-guided generation, with Conditional-RKE enjoying an $O(1/\sqrt{n})$ convergence rate. For Conditional-Vendi, we introduce a truncated-spectrum approximation that yields scalable and consistent estimates. Experiments on text-to-image, image-captioning, and LLM tasks show that the conditional scores recover ground-truth diversity orderings and can also guide diffusion models toward more diverse samples. The codebase is available at https://github.com/mjalali/conditional-vendi.

This paper introduces OARelatedWork: a dataset for related work generation from open-access sources. It is the first large-scale multi-document summarization dataset for related work generation, containing whole related work sections and full texts of cited papers. Its validation and test splits are constructed so that every source paper is available in full text, enabling controlled evaluation of full-text related work generation. The dataset includes 94 450 papers from multiple domains. With OARelatedWork, we aim to shift the field from generating parts of related work sections from abstracts only to generating entire related work sections from all available content. We (i) benchmark a wide spectrum of models, highlighting that synthesizing massive full-text contexts remains challenge for tested cost-effective Large Language Models (LLMs): under our statement-level judge, GPT-4o-mini's evidence-grounded True rate drops from 92.9% with abstracts to 83.8% with full texts. We (ii) empirically analyze human writing behavior through a human evaluation over 40 papers and 408 factual statements, revealing that authors frequently introduce abstractive claims ungrounded in localized source texts; consequently, tested LLMs actually surpass human baselines in strict, evidence-grounded factuality. Finally, we (iii) conduct a fine-grained meta-evaluation, revealing that standard reference-based metrics are inadequate for evaluating such long-form structured outputs, and introduce a robust statement-level evaluation framework to address this gap.