Language Model Generation Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

30 papers in the last four weeks, up 100% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 209

Jun 28, 2026cs.CL

Understanding Evaluation Illusion in Diffusion Large Language Models

Despite the capability of parallel decoding, diffusion large language models (dLLMs) require many denoising steps to maintain generation quality, motivating recent research on efficient decoding strategies. However, existing studies have reported inconsistent evaluation results even under seemingly identical evaluation settings, risking biased conclusions about dLLM decoding methods. To understand this evaluation concern, we conduct a rigorous evaluation of current decoding methods for dLLMs across diverse evaluation settings. Surprisingly, our analysis reveals that the ranking of decoding methods is highly sensitive to the choice of prompt templates. Single-template evaluation can lead to an illusion that decoding methods improve inference efficiency without performance degradation. Through comprehensive experiments, we find that current parallel decoding methods consistently underperform the single-token decoding baseline, failing to overcome the speed-quality trade-off. We further identify this evaluation inconsistency as the high sensitivity of parallel decoding methods to minor variations in prompt templates. Our experiments show that an effective prompt template can achieve strong evaluation results even with fewer denoising steps, markedly outperforming the marginal gain from increasing denoising steps. Beyond prompt templates, our experiments indicate that overlooked evaluation settings can also notably affect the assessment of decoding methods. Based on these findings, we propose practical guidelines for the reliable evaluation of decoding methods in dLLMs.

Hengxiang Zhang, Jiaxi Ren, Renchunzi Xie +1

Department of Statistics and Data Science, Southern University of Science and Technology · Intelligent Computing Research Center, Great Bay Institute for Advanced Study, Great Bay University

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Diffusion Language Model Decoding

Jun 26, 2026cs.CL

Can LLMs Judge Better Than They Generate? Evaluating Task Asymmetry, Mechanistic Interpretability and Transferability for In-Context QA

LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation. We test this in a controlled in-context QA setting where a context passage is the sole information source and each model judges the answer it generated, removing the parametric-knowledge confound of open-domain comparisons. Across four benchmarks (SQuAD 2.0, DROP, HotpotQA, MuSiQue) and two models, evaluation is not uniformly easier: generation accuracy exceeds self-evaluation on three of four, with multi-hop MuSiQue the exception. Attention analysis reveals why: evaluation attends to context 3--5x less than generation does and barely reads the candidate answer. LoRA fine-tuning confirms the asymmetry is not a training artifact: generation fine-tuning induces over-acceptance and evaluation fine-tuning degrades generation. These findings challenge core assumptions in self-evaluation pipelines.

Sambaran Bandyopadhyay

Adobe Research

In-Context Retrieval LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Answer Verification Language Model Generation Evaluation Language Model Self-Assessment

Jun 25, 2026cs.SE

Speculative Refinement: A Hybrid Autoregressive Diffusion Decoding Strategy and Its Behavior Across Benchmarks

How should we evaluate generation systems that combine autoregressive (AR) and diffusion decoding? We study this question through Speculative Refinement (SpecRef), a training-free hybrid method that warm-starts a masked diffusion language model from an AR draft using entropy-guided selective masking. Evaluating SpecRef across six benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP, GSM8K, BBH, ARC-Challenge, HellaSwag) with three distinct evaluation protocols (execution-based pass@1, exact-match, log-likelihood scoring), we surface several findings relevant beyond our specific system: (1) code benchmarks conflate structural discovery with logical correctness: providing a syntactic scaffold lifts accuracy from near zero to over 20% without changing the model, indicating that much of the baseline failure is structural; (2) a refinement tension phenomenon where multi-stage correction degrades already-correct tokens, exposing benchmark saturation ceilings invisible to single-model evaluation; (3) log-likelihood and generative evaluation produce different model rankings for the same model pair, suggesting they measure different capabilities; (4) standard Python post-processing silently breaks code evaluation for non-AR generators. These observations apply to any multi-stage or non-autoregressive generation pipeline and point toward more diagnostic evaluation practices.

Aditi Gupta, Neel Mishra, Kushagra Trivedi +1

IIIT Hyderabad, India · Microsoft

Masked Diffusion Models Language Model Generation Evaluation Autoregressive Diffusion Diffusion Language Model Decoding Code Generation Evaluation

Jun 25, 2026cs.AI

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores. Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions, and an LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback together with calibrated overall scores. This decomposition makes evaluation easier to inspect, easier to diagnose, and directly usable for prompt improvement. Across SummEval, Topical-Chat, and QAGS, BINEVAL matches or outperforms strong baselines including UniEval and G-Eval, with especially strong results on factual consistency benchmarks such as QAGS. Beyond competitive correlation with human judgments, BINEVAL better matches human score distributions and avoids the ceiling effects common in prior LLM judges, leading to better discrimination between borderline and clearly flawed outputs. We further show that the same question-level feedback supports iterative prompt optimization, improving evaluator prompts on summarization and generation prompts on IFBench under both self-update and cross-model update settings. Overall, BINEVAL provides a task-agnostic, training-free, and interpretable evaluation framework that combines strong empirical performance with practical diagnostic and optimization value.

Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai +4

Capital One, AI Foundations, McLean, VA 22102, USA.

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Automated Evaluation Explainability Evaluation

Jun 25, 2026cs.AI

The Capability Frontier: Benchmarks Miss 82% of Model Performance

Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run. This systematically understates real-world LLM capabilities, particularly under heterogeneous data distributions: (i) different models get different questions correct according to their specializations, and (ii) given a budget, multiple generations can be sampled and selectively retained. To quantify this gap, we introduce the Capability Frontier: a Pareto frontier over a set of models that characterizes the best achievable performance at each cost level under optimal selection across models and generations (i.e., via an oracle). Our construction corrects for two opposing biases: underestimation from single-model evaluation and overestimation from taking maxima over noisy samples. We study 21 LLMs across 16 widely used benchmarks spanning coding, reasoning, medicine, factuality, instruction following, and agentic tasks, comparing Capability Frontier performance at matched cost to each benchmark's top-performing model. Correcting for single-model evaluation yields a 54% error rate reduction; additionally correcting for single runs yields an 82% improvement, with SOTA accuracy matched at 85% cost reduction. Complementing these empirical results, we use controlled probabilistic simulations to show that higher query topic entropy produces a near-monotonic increase in the performance gap between oracle routing and the best single model. Our findings suggest collective LLM capabilities are substantially underestimated, with implications for evaluation and deployment in data-heterogeneous, multi-domain settings.

Bradley Fowler, Ryan Smith, Daniel Thi Graviet +8

1Martian · 3ThoughtWorks · University of Oxford

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Test-Time Scaling LLM Routing Language Model Ensembles

Jun 24, 2026cs.LG

DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation

Current LLM evaluation relies on two complementary but often disconnected signals: static benchmarks with objective correctness labels and arena-style preference data that better reflect open-ended user interactions. We introduce DualEval, a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space, jointly estimating model ability together with item difficulty and sharpness. We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries. Our evaluation uses 18 frontier LLMs, static benchmark labels, and reward-model scores validated against held-out human preferences for open-ended model responses. Empirically, our framework produces reliable and balanced model rankings, and its learned item-level profiles support downstream applications such as benchmark compression for sample-efficient evaluation and anomaly detection for contamination or outlier analysis. Overall, DualEval unifies static and arena-style evaluation through joint model-item calibration, producing model rankings and item-level diagnostics that support more sample-efficient, interpretable, and auditable evaluation pipelines.

Aaron J. Li, Hao Huang, Youngmin Park +6

University of California, Berkeley · Arena · University of California, Los Angeles

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Item Response Theory

Jun 23, 2026cs.CL

CAVEWOMAN: How Large Language Models Behave Under Linguistic Input and Output Compression

"Talk short. Drop grammar. Save token." This caveman style is widely promoted as a way to cut inference cost, but whether it actually saves anything depends on which channel (the user's prompt or the model's response) is being compressed. We present Cavewoman, a two-channel evaluation protocol that scores every generation on task accuracy, realized per-item cost, and reference-text agreement against the model's unconstrained reference. We evaluate eight models on five datasets at five reduction levels, with both channels measured on the same items. Output compression cuts realized cost on most API models (1.4-2.4x per model, up to 3x in the best case) and on all four open-weight models under public-tier pricing. Input compression has the opposite effect, a strict lose-lose: it raises net cost rather than lowering it (~1.15x on the five-benchmark mean, up to 1.8x on the worst dataset and 2.7x under stronger compression), because models compensate with longer responses even as accuracy collapses. Under the same setting, surface text diverges from the unconstrained reference: on the non-reasoning models, roughly half of all generations are correct yet their surface text no longer entails the model's own unconstrained baseline generation. The divergence survives length-controlled re-scoring, multiple-comparisons correction, and replication under complementary semantic measures. Code and data are available at https://github.com/danielle34/cavewoman.

Morayo Danielle Adeyemi, Ryan A. Rossi, Franck Dernoncourt

Independent · Adobe Research

LLM Evaluation LLM Compression Language Model Generation Evaluation Efficient Language Model Inference Prompt Compression

Jun 22, 2026cs.CL

Do LLM Attribution Metrics Transfer? Auditing Retrieval-Augmented Generation Evaluation Across Datasets and Constructs

Practice often treats automatic metrics for attribution in LLM retrieval-augmented generation as interchangeable. We audit eight automatic scorers -- lexical, embedding, and BERTScore baselines alongside entailment/grounding-trained models (clean and FEVER NLI, the checker MiniCheck) -- across three evaluation constructs (provenance/topicality, generated-answer attribution, and fact-check entailment), asking whether any scorer transfers: stays within the 95% confidence interval of the best audited scorer on every dataset of a multi-dataset construct. In the construct with the most multi-dataset human-labeled coverage -- generated-answer attribution (AttributionBench's four source datasets, n = 1,610, with independent HAGRID, n = 2,150) -- none of the audited automatic scorers does: the per-dataset metric rankings invert (Kendall tau = -0.64, p = 0.031 on AttributedQA vs. LFQA), and an off-the-shelf NLI scorer that is best on short-claim AttributedQA (AUROC 0.90) collapses to AUROC 0.53 (chance) on long-form LFQA, where BERTScore wins (0.91); the reversal persists under the tested truncation settings. This instability has a concrete decision cost: a naive "best-on-average" rule for choosing an evaluator fails leave-one-dataset-out (mean held-out regret 0.172 AUROC, worse than fixing one scorer), so metric choice should be validated on the target dataset rather than assumed from performance elsewhere. A prompt-based LLM judge avoids the chance-level collapses the automatic scorers suffer (no LFQA collapse) but is not uniformly best, ~100x costlier, and non-deterministic -- relocating, not removing, the validation burden.

Tianyu Ding, Aditya Nannapaneni, Juan Pablo De la Cruz Weinstein

Amazon Web Services

Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Auditing RAG Evaluation Automated Evaluation

Jun 22, 2026cs.AI

GroundEval: A Deterministic Replacement for LLM-as-Judge in Stateful Agent Evaluation

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response 0.85 and higher. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. Our case studies suggest this failure mode is common rather than exceptional, one that final-answer and judge-based evaluation cannot detect by construction.

Jeffrey Flynt

Independent Researcher

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Use Evaluation LLM Grounding Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation+4

Jun 21, 2026cs.AI

PRIME: Evaluating Prompt Resolution Under Incompatible Instructions in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts, although current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation, limiting the insights about how models process conflicting instructions. We introduce a framework \textit{PRIME}(\textit{Prompt Resolution under Incompatible Meta-Instructions Evaluation}) to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions. \textit{PRIME} purposefully produces calibrated conflicts across response length, output format, and reasoning; classifying model responses with a deterministic behavioral taxonomy. We are evaluating five instruction tuned open weight LLMs in two distinct settings, balanced and naturally distributed. The conclusion we reach upon analysis is that conflict type is more significant in affecting behavior than model scale, and various failure modes across different categories of conflict. Our findings emphasize the value of developing conflict awareness and suggest ability of LLM to follow instructions cannot be assessed through isolated constraints alone.

Tehreem Javed, Shumaim Fatimah, Masooma Bakhtiari +2

School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Prompting LLM Reliability

Jun 21, 2026cs.CL

BabelJudge: Measuring LLM-as-a-Judge Reliability Across Languages and Agent Trajectories

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant approach to scalable evaluation in NLP pipelines, yet judges themselves carry systematic biases that raw accuracy hides: they favor responses placed in slot A (position bias), they prefer longer responses regardless of quality (verbosity bias), and their reliability degrades sharply in lower-resource languages. We introduce BabelJudge, an open-source benchmark and reliability audit framework that measures all four failure modes -- position bias, verbosity bias, order inconsistency, and cross-lingual degradation -- on any judge model, without requiring human preference labels. The key insight is gold-labelling by degradation: starting from a high-quality reference response and applying a controlled perturbation yields a pairwise item whose gold label is known by construction, eliminating annotation cost. We evaluate Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-4bit across English, Hindi, Arabic, and Swahili and find that our composite bias-penalised reliability score drops from 0.714 in Hindi to 0.550 in Swahili, a gap that raw accuracy (0.835 vs. 0.660) understates. Swahili order consistency collapses to 0.480, meaning judge verdicts are near-random under slot-order swaps -- a failure mode invisible to accuracy alone. We further extend the framework to agentic evaluation via nine trajectory-level perturbations (argument corruption, tool swaps, hallucinated calls, missing steps) and three new metrics: tool accuracy, hallucination detection rate, and trajectory-length bias. BabelJudge is released as a Python package supporting 11 judge backends. Code: https://github.com/Shreyaskc/BabelJudge

Shreyas KC

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Benchmark Auditing LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Reliability+2

Jun 17, 2026cs.CL

RECOM: A Validity Discrimination Tradeoff in Automatic Metrics for Open Ended Reddit Question Answering

Automatic metrics are the default for evaluating LLM-generated text, yet a metric is quietly asked to do two jobs: tell genuine content alignment from surface coincidence (validity), and tell a better system from a worse one (discriminative power). On open-ended, opinion-driven question answering, the two are in tension. We introduce RECOM (Reddit Evaluation for Correspondence of Models), a contamination-free evaluation dataset of 15,000 r/AskReddit questions (September 2025), each paired with its authentic community replies, which postdate every evaluated model's training cutoff. Scoring five open-source LLMs (7--10B) against every reply each metric paired with a random-derangement noise floor we find that no metric does both jobs well. Cosine similarity separates real from random answers (Cohen's

d \approx 2

) but cannot rank the five models (

|d| < 0.1

); BERTScore precision appears to rank the models (raw

|d|

up to 0.63), but once response length is controlled this collapses to

|d| = 0.09

and its validity is weak (

d \approx 0.8

, versus cosine's

\approx 2

). Because every metric scores the same outputs, this validity--discrimination tradeoff is a property of the metrics, not the models, and we argue it stems from representation design. Three independent LLM judges reproduce the validity gap and likewise separate the five models only weakly. We recommend reporting metrics on both axes, with an explicit random-baseline floor. RECOM is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/recom-D4B0

Pushwitha Krishnappa, Amit Das, Vinija Jain +2

University of Alabama Huntsville · University of North Alabama · Stanford University +2

Open-Ended Generation LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Automated Evaluation

Jun 16, 2026cs.AI

How Inference Compute Shapes Frontier LLM Evaluation

AI evaluations are shifting toward harder tasks that benefit from longer trajectories involving tool use and iterative problem solving. As a result, performance is increasingly sensitive to the amount and allocation of compute available at test time ("inference compute"). Yet many evaluations still report performance at a single restrictive budget, meaning that low scores may reflect the evaluation setup rather than the model's underlying capability. To test this, we evaluate up to 12 frontier language models on seven challenging benchmarks spanning software engineering, mathematics, medicine, and cybersecurity. We use a controlled setup combining three simple inference-scaling interventions: larger token budgets, context compaction, and repeated submission attempts, guided either by the model itself or by minimal correctness feedback. We find three main results. First, larger token budgets substantially improve performance on benchmarks across multiple domains, including cybersecurity, FrontierMath, Humanity's Last Exam, and TerminalBench. Second, fixed-budget evaluations can increasingly understate frontier capability as models advance. Newer models reach higher performance at large budgets, where they unlock harder tasks and solve them more reliably. Third, benchmarks differ in which inference-scaling methods help most: repeated submission broadly improves performance, but the value of larger token budgets, external feedback, and parallel attempts varies by benchmark. Overall, our results show that benchmark scores are protocol-dependent. We therefore argue that evaluations should report capability as a function of inference-time compute, specify protocol choices explicitly, and compare model generations over a large shared compute range at matched budgets, especially in safety- or policy-relevant settings.

Jessica McFadyen, Ole Jorgensen, Harry Coppock +2

AI Security Institute, London, UK · University of Oxford, Oxford, UK · Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Inference Inference-Time Scaling

Jun 16, 2026cs.CL

Prompt Perturbation for Reliable LLM Evaluation over Comparison Graphs

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is important for understanding their capabilities, comparing competing systems, and supporting the deployment of reliable models in practice. For open-ended tasks, pairwise evaluation has become a popular paradigm, in which two responses to the same prompt are compared and the resulting judgments are aggregated into an overall ranking. A central challenge of this paradigm is intransitivity: the induced comparison outcomes may fail to support any coherent global ranking. For example, one may observe cyclic preferences such as

A \succ B \succ C \succ A

, or inconsistencies involving ties such as

A \equiv B\equiv C\neq A

. Such contradictions make the resulting leaderboard unstable and challenging to interpret. In this paper, we propose a prompt perturbation framework for improving the consistency of pairwise LLM evaluation. Our approach generates perturbed variants of each prompt, uses the resulting comparison graphs to identify and filter out structurally inconsistent comparison patterns, and then applies standard ranking methods to the filtered comparisons. A key feature of the proposed framework is that graph-level structural consistency is incorporated explicitly into the evaluation pipeline before ranking aggregation. This provides a simple and principled way to reduce cyclic inconsistencies and improve the reliability of LLM rankings.

Dong Huang, Jianbo Sun, Pengkun Yang

Department of Statistics and Data Science, Tsinghua University

LLM Evaluation Pairwise Comparison Language Model Generation Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking LLM Reliability

Jun 16, 2026cs.CL

The Benchmark Illusion: Pruned LLMs Can Pass Multiple Choice but Fail to Answer

Compressing large language models reduces memory use and inference cost, but it can also create failures that standard benchmarks miss. A pruned model may still perform well on multiple-choice evaluations, yet fail to answer the same question in open generation. We ask what pruning changes: does it erase the correct answer, or does it make the answer harder to produce as the top output? We study this question with multilingual question answering, tracking the same questions before and after pruning. We find a benchmark illusion. Under high-sparsity pruning, especially Wanda, models often fail in greedy open generation while still selecting the correct answer under multiple-choice scoring. In these recognition-only errors, the answer is usually not gone, but demoted: it often reappears with beam search, sampling, or one in-context example. Overall, multiple-choice benchmarks can overstate the usability of compressed LLMs, creating an evaluation blind spot. Compressed models should be tested on what they can produce, not only on what they can recognize.

Rui Wen, Lu Sun, Jiayang Liu +3

Institute of Science Tokyo · Tohoku University · Nanyang Technological University +2

Open-Ended Generation LLM Evaluation LLM Pruning LLM Compression Language Model Generation Evaluation Question Answering

Jun 16, 2026cs.CL

NarrativeWorldBench: A Frontier-Saturated Benchmark and a Latent World Model for Long-Horizon Co-Creative Audio Drama

Long-form serialized audio drama, with arcs that run for 200 to 800 episodes, is a major creative medium and a setting where frontier large language models (LLMs) fail. We benchmark 21 models, spanning classical, fine-tuned, open-frontier, closed-frontier, and reasoning tiers, on a uniform set of structural narrative metrics. All closed-frontier systems saturate at a plot-beat F1 in the band [0.78, 0.81] and collapse by about -0.20 F1 at horizon h=200. We introduce NarrativeWorldBench, an open benchmark of nine narrative-structure metrics evaluated across horizons h in {10, 20, 50, 100, 200}, with cross-lingual evaluation across four Indic languages (Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi). We introduce N-VSSM, a Narrative Variational State-Space Model that maintains a structured 256-dimensional latent world state over more than 200 episodes via a Mamba-2 backbone with an event-conditioned posterior and an 8B decoder. N-VSSM holds plot-beat F1 >= 0.84 across all horizons at 4x lower compute than the closed-frontier band. A learned Cultural Transfer Function lifts cross-language fidelity by +0.20 to +0.23 Likert points. In a within-subjects writer study (n = 12 professional authors, 240 trials), N-VSSM is preferred over Claude Opus 4.5 on long-arc consistency 71% of the time and rated +1.3 Likert points higher on controllability.

Logan Mann, Abdur Rahman, Mohammad Saifullah +2

University of California, Santa Barbara · Pocket FM

LLM World Models Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Latent World Models Text Generation+1

Jun 13, 2026cs.AI

Who Drifted: the System or the Judge? Anytime-Valid Attribution in LLM Evaluation Pipelines

Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down. But the judge is itself a model behind an API, and a silent version bump or scoring-prompt update changes how it scores -- so every drift alarm is ambiguous between a worse product and a changed judge. We resolve the ambiguity with a fixed, human-labeled anchor set that the current judge re-scores at a steady interleave, a second betting e-process on the judge-versus-human gap, and a guard-window rule returning a verdict in {none, system, judge}. We prove anytime-validity, one-way identification (only the judge can move the anchors), an attribution race whose design law is that the anchors must out-run the main process they guard, and process orthogonality. On two real judge changes, a silent version bump is detected as judge drift in 60/60 runs with zero judge-to-system misattribution, and a contaminating strict-prompt change is correctly attributed on 110 of 120 runs at guard width 300 -- while the industry-default rolling z-test false-alarms on 75% of drift-free streams. Every experiment replicates on a second domain (TL;DR summarization) with nothing re-tuned, and where the domains differ the differences are the ones the race predicts: the strict-prompt change shifts scores harder there, so the anchors fire faster and attribution becomes perfect (240/240). The monitor runs at approximately 0.64 of the cost of strong-judging every item, or 0.21 in a cheaper-but-deafer regime.

Yitao Li

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Anytime-Valid Inference Change-Point Detection Drifting Models

Jun 13, 2026cs.LG

Beyond Accuracy: Measuring Bias Acknowledgment in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Responsible AI Evaluation

Reasoning models are increasingly used in settings where the final answer is not the only object of review: educational tools may show students intermediate steps, decision-support systems may require human oversight, and audit workflows may inspect traces for misleading or biased input. In such settings, two responses can receive the same final-answer score while differing in whether the trace explicitly flags injected biasing content. Accuracy-only evaluation collapses these cases. We study this gap as a measurement blind spot for responsible evaluation and introduce a minimal trace-level diagnostic with two axes: \emph{susceptibility} (whether the bias breaks a previously correct answer) and \emph{acknowledgment} (whether the trace contains a rubric-defined surface reference to the injected content). Across thousands of biased GSM8K trials, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet~4 have similar susceptibility rates (

1.3\%

vs.

1.2\%

) but substantially different acknowledgment rates (

13.0\%

vs.

75.0\%

) under the same rubric.

Xian Sun, Wei Gao, Yingshuo Wang +9

Duke University · Northeastern University · University of California, Berkeley +5

Language Model Generation Evaluation CoT Evaluation Language Model Bias Evaluation Reasoning Trace Analysis

Jun 12, 2026cs.AI

Metric Match: A Subset Selection Approach to Evaluating LLM Judge Reliability

LLM judges are used to reduce the need for costly human labor in evaluating open-ended text generation. However, the reliability of these judges depends critically on their alignment with human raters -- a property that itself depends on costly human annotations. In this work, we develop a method (Metric Match) for estimating correlation-based reliability metrics of LLM judges from limited annotations. Metric Match selects a subset of samples for human annotation such that the subset matches the population reliability metric with respect to acquired synthetic labels. We empirically show that Metric Match achieves a win-rate of 0.838 against random subset selection across four different correlation metrics and 15 datasets, with an 18.7% decrease in average estimation error and reduces annotation needs by 32.5%. We provide a cost model and highlight a medical case study where our method saves $1,041.67 compared to random selection for expert annotation. Further, we shift our task from reliability estimation to reliability classification of whether a given judge is above a deployment threshold, outperforming random selection with Metric Match. All project code is publicly available, and we additionally provide an installable package for ease of use.

Alyssa Unell, Natalie Dullerud, Naomi Boneh +4

Department of Computer Science Stanford University · Department of Medicine Stanford University

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Human-in-the-Loop Annotation LLM Reliability

Jun 11, 2026cs.CL

GENIE: A Fine-Grained Measure for Novelty

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.

Ramya Namuduri, Manya Wadhwa, Anshun Asher Zheng +2

The University of Texas at Austin · New York University

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Computational Creativity Generative AI Evaluation

Jun 8, 2026cs.AI

Correct Looks Better: Pairwise Comparisons Reveal Accuracy Rankings

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.

Mina Remeli, Moritz Hardt

Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen, Germany, Tübingen AI Center

Pairwise Comparison LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking Automated Evaluation+1

Jun 7, 2026cs.SD

Can LLMs understand LilyPond? A benchmark for symbolic music generation and understanding

Symbolic music evaluation for large language models remains fragmented across representations, datasets, and metrics. We introduce LilyBench, a LilyPond-based benchmark that jointly evaluates symbolic music generation and music understanding on the same family of open-weight LLMs. The benchmark includes a 200-prompt generation suite and ten understanding tasks adapted from ABC-Eval, covering syntax, metadata prediction, structural sequencing, and music recognition. Generation quality is evaluated using compile rate, MusPy descriptor distributions via Jensen-Shannon similarity, and LilyBERT-based Fréchet Music Distance (FMD). Experiments on four open-weight models show that executable LilyPond generation is achievable in zero-shot settings, while structural understanding tasks remain challenging despite strong performance on composer and genre recognition. Our experiments also reveal systematic disagreements between descriptor-based and embedding-based metrics, suggesting that symbolic music evaluation benefits from metric triangulation rather than single-score ranking. We release the benchmark, prompt bank, and evaluation code to support future research in symbolic music generation and understanding at https://github.com/CSCPadova/lilybench

Matteo Spanio, Mohammad Torabi, Andrea Poltronieri +1

Centro di Sonologia Computazionale, University of Padova, Padova, Italy · Music Technology Group, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Music Generation Evaluation LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Symbolic Music Generation

Jun 7, 2026cs.CL

Hacking Generative Perplexity: Why Unconditional Text Evaluation Needs Distributional Metrics

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.

Antonio Franca, Alexander Tong

AITHYRA Institute, Vienna, Austria.

Non-Autoregressive Text Generation LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Diffusion Language Models Generative AI Evaluation

Jun 5, 2026cs.CL

SLMJury: Can Small Language Models Judge as Well as Large Ones?

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability. We introduce SLMJury, a framework for evaluating small language models (SLMs) as judges across two paradigms: closed-ended binary correctness and open-ended quality scoring. We benchmark 16 SLM judges (0.6B-14B parameters) from four model families across ten benchmarks: eight closed-ended tasks spanning mathematical, scientific, and general reasoning (N=64,824 judgments per configuration), plus SummEval and MT-Bench for summarization and conversational scoring. We formalize judging as a budget-conditioned function and study five dimensions. Four findings emerge. (1) The overthinking effect is domain-dependent: for most judges quick 10-token verdicts match or beat extended reasoning on mathematical judging (by 2-7% where they help), while reasoning wins on general tasks by up to 23%. (2) Domain generalization separates model families, with math-to-general accuracy gaps ranging from under 10% to nearly 40%. (3) Closed-ended and open-ended judging draw on different capabilities: the best binary judge (Phi-4) drops to rank 9 on MT-Bench, while reasoning-trained models invert this ordering. (4) Under the Reflect-Critique-Refine (RCR) debate protocol, multi-agent debate degrades accuracy across all tested configurations, whereas the top judges resist six adversarial personas with <=0.55% variance. Reliable automated evaluation does not require large proprietary models, yet no single SLM dominates. The leaderboard is available at https://anishh15.github.io/SLMJury/, and our framework code and pip package are publicly available at https://github.com/anishh15/SLMJury and https://pypi.org/project/slmjury/.

Anish Laddha, Nitesh Pradhan, Gaurav Srivastava

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, LNMIIT, Jaipur, India · Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Small Language Models Automated Evaluation Language Model Robustness

Jun 5, 2026cs.LG

Cutting LLM Evaluation Costs with SySRs: A Bandit Algorithm that Provably Exploits Model Similarity

Large Language Models are typically benchmarked by evaluating every model on every test query. For practitioners seeking the best model to deploy, this is often wasteful: if a model clearly performs worse than others, there is no need to precisely estimate its performance. Best-arm identification algorithms can be naturally applied to drastically reduce costs by adaptively allocating evaluation budget. Further, language models often respond similarly to the same prompt-a property previous work has tried to leverage with mixed success. We propose Synchronized Successive Rejects (SySRs), augmenting the classical Successive Rejects algorithm with paired comparisons. Unlike prior attempts to leverage model similarity in best-model identification, our approach is hyperparameter-free and enjoys performance guarantees that improve with the degree of similarity between evaluated models. Empirically, our method outperforms all baselines in terms of average error rate across 15 standard benchmarks, and in terms of worst-case budget for reliably identifying the best model.

Zifan Lyu, Chahine Nejma, Tobias Wegel +2

1ETH Zurich · 2Centrale Sup´elec · 3ENS de Cachan +1

Model Selection Multi-Armed Bandits LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Best-Arm Identification

Jun 5, 2026cs.CL

Explain Like I'm 5 or Whatever I Choose: Evaluating the Interactive Potential of Language Model Responses

Evaluations of large language models (LLMs) in scientific information seeking tasks have become increasingly use-centric, such as conducting live or multi-turn evaluations with real users. These evaluations still assume a single, static chat interface, but as models are integrated into new interfaces, evaluations must shift to incorporate interface-specific criteria. We propose a new evaluation framework based on a formative study with

16

participants that tests models' ability to generate multiple responses to one query that differ along an interpretable axis of language (language complexity), inspired by direct manipulation interfaces from human-centered design literature. We evaluate GPT-5.1, GPT-5 mini, Claude Sonnet 4.5 + Thinking, and DeepSeek-V3.1 by generating 5 responses at different levels of language complexity for

98

scientific queries. While models vary complexity across responses, most changes remain inconsistent, with the best performing model (Claude Sonnet 4.5) only shifting reliable complexity measures in the correct direction

46\%

of the time. Our findings hold with increased sample size and alternative complexity levels.

Indu Panigrahi, Tal August

Siebel School of Computing and Data Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Controllable Text Generation

Jun 4, 2026cs.CL

UnpredictaBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Distributional Randomness in LLMs

We introduce UnpredictaBench, an evaluation that tests the ability of large language models (LLMs) to capture true underlying distributions. As LLMs are increasingly used as substitutes for other entities (e.g., for humans in economic simulations), the tendency of many models to collapse towards a single plausible answer means a failure to capture the unpredictability of real systems. Recent work on improving output diversity is insufficient for this setting: simulation requires samples that are calibrated to a target distribution, not merely varied outputs. UnpredictaBench isolates a simplified but fundamental version of this problem: sampling outcomes from individual target distributions, including canonical statistical distributions, distributions induced by stochastic programs, and natural-language scenarios that describe random processes. We introduce 448 such problems together with KS@N, a general-purpose evaluation metric that quantifies how well a model outputs approximate black-box target distributions via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test. This is the rate at which we fail to reject model samples of size N against ground-truth samples, with larger N indicating greater difficulty. Tested across open and proprietary models, we find a large spread in distributional capabilities. For instance, when models generate samples of size 100 (KS@100, our standard metric), scores range from near 0 to over 20%. No model is able to achieve over 40% at KS@100, showing significant headroom in distributional sampling as a capability. Although adding reasoning can somewhat increase scores, we find no immediate solution for this issue. UnpredictaBench shows that even simple distributional simulation remains challenging, making it a necessary first step toward using LLMs as stand-ins for complex systems. Project website and resources are available at https://unpredictabenchmark.github.io/.

Amirhossein Abaskohi, Amirhossein Dabiriaghdam, Liang Luo +4

University of British Columbia · 2Independent Researcher

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Synthetic Benchmark Generation

Jun 4, 2026cs.SE

Asuka-Bench: Benchmarking Code Agents on Underspecified User Intent and Multi-Round Refinement

Existing code-generation benchmarks score a single mapping from a complete prompt to a one-shot output. However, real web development is different. Users seldom write a full spec at the start; many requirements only become clear once they look at an intermediate result and react to it. We present Asuka-Bench, a benchmark that pairs underspecified user intent with multi-round refinement, grounded in browser-rendered behavior. Each task is resolved through a closed loop: a Code Agent generates a web project, a UI Agent executes test cases on the deployed site, and a User LLM turns evaluation outcomes into natural-language feedback for the next round. The benchmark comprises 50 web tasks with 784 evaluation criteria and 2402 expected outcomes. We benchmark 8 LLMs across 2 agent frameworks. The results separate models clearly: weighted Task Pass Rate varies by 38 percentage points and models also differ substantially in their ability to repair from feedback. Asuka-Bench is also far from saturated: even the strongest model completes only 52% of projects after three rounds.

Xin Wang, Liangtai Sun, Yaoming Zhu +8

University of Science and Technology of China · 2Independent researchers

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks Language Model Generation Evaluation AI Coding Agents Code Generation AI Agent Benchmarks Code Generation Benchmarks

Jun 4, 2026cs.LG

Elmes*: Automated Construction of Fine-Grained Evaluation Rubrics for Large Language Models in Long-Tail Educational Scenarios

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know. Existing benchmarks emphasize domain-general correctness or depend on manually designed rubrics that scale poorly to long-tail pedagogical scenarios. We introduce Elmes*, an end-to-end framework for constructing, refining, and applying fine-grained scenario-specific rubrics. Elmes* combines a declarative multi-agent engine for teacher--student--judge interactions with SceneGen, a self-evolving module that co-optimizes evaluation criteria and test data from expert-defined pedagogical dimensions. Using Elmes*, we build Edu-330, covering 330 scenarios across 11 subjects, 3 grade bands, and 10 task types, with over 1{,}000 second-level indicators. Experiments on Edu-330 and four expert-authored gold-standard scenarios show that educational capability is multidimensional: top-tier LLMs differ mainly in creativity and values integration, knowledge-strong models may fail at Socratic scaffolding, and the education-specialized InnoSpark achieves the best human-evaluated average score. LLM judges preserve human-comparable rankings with much lower scoring variance, but exhibit judge-specific biases such as self-preference. Ablations show that expert-scored few-shot anchoring improves human--LLM alignment, while reasoning enforcement and greedy decoding are model-dependent. Elmes* thus provides scalable diagnostic infrastructure for pedagogically grounded LLM evaluation.

Tao Liu, Ye Lu, Ruohua Zhang +4

1Shanghai Institute of AI for Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China · 3Shanghai Innovation Institute, Shanghai 200231, China

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation

Jun 3, 2026cs.CL

Self-Evaluation Is Already There: Eliciting Latent Judge Calibration in Base LLMs with Minimal Data

Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own output? We find that the ability is largely present before any targeted training: prompted few-shot, a base model already predicts an external judge's multi-attribute quality scores on open-ended responses well above chance across three benchmarks. We introduce Self-Evaluation Elicitation (SEE), a method that surfaces this latent ability through a short cycle comprising a calibration-coupled reinforcement learning phase that improves the answer and predicts the judge, followed by a masked distillation phase that sharpens the prediction while leaving the answer untouched. From 160 unique examples, roughly 31x fewer than a reinforcement learning baseline, SEE improves held-out calibration across three benchmarks while preserving answer quality. The elicited self-evaluation is sharply localized within the model's own token distribution and stable across judges it was never trained against, indicating a transferable notion of quality rather than a single judge's preference. These results reframe judge-aligned self-evaluation as a problem of elicitation rather than acquisition.

XiuYu Zhang, Yi Shan, Junfeng Fang +1

National University of Singapore · Beijing University of Technology

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Language Model Self-Assessment Language Model Calibration Evaluation Awareness in Language Models