Mean Opinion Scores

Traditional image quality assessment (IQA) methods rely on mean opinion scores (MOS), which are resource-intensive to collect and fail to provide interpretable, localized feedback on specific image distortions. We overcome these limitations by shifting from absolute quality prediction to a relational and directional assessment. Our approach utilizes a self-supervised synthetic distortion engine to generate training data, eliminating the need for manual annotation. A distortion prediction network is trained with an anti-symmetric objective to produce spatially-aware, disentangled maps that identify the type, intensity, and direction of distortions relative to a reference image. Subsequently, a scoring network is trained via contrastive learning on ordinally ranked image sets to predict a relational quality score. Our method provides a more granular and interpretable approach to IQA for the targeted optimization of image processing algorithms without requiring any human-labeled quality scores.

It is increasingly recognized that human annotators do not always agree, and such disagreement is inherent in many annotation tasks. However, not all instances in a given task elicit the same degree of opinion divergence. In this paper, we investigate annotation variation patterns in graded human ratings for inappropriate languages, including offensive language, hate speech, and toxic language perception. We examine whether the degree of annotation disagreement can be predicted from textual features. We further propose the Opposition Index, a metric that quantifies perspective opposition among annotators on a given item, and investigate the predictability of instances with potentially opposing human opinions. Our results show a moderate positive correlation between estimated and observed annotation variance. We find that two approaches achieve comparable performance in variance prediction: directly predicting the variance value and estimating it from predicted annotation distributions. Our results on opposition perspective prediction show that items with high opposition index values are more difficult to predict and are often underestimated by models.

Online comments play a crucial role in shaping public sentiment and opinion dynamics on social media. However, evaluating their popularity remains challenging, not only because it depends on linguistic quality, originality, and emotional resonance, but also because stylistic preferences vary widely across platforms and user groups, causing the same comment to resonate differently in different communities. In this work, we present HotComment, a multimodal benchmark integrating video and text modalities that comprehensively quantifies popularity from three enhanced aspects: (1) Content Quality, which evaluates semantic similarity with ground-truth human comments and extends quality assessment through four interpretable dimensions; (2) Popularity Prediction, based on trends from models trained on real-world interaction data; and (3) User Behavior Simulation, which models the distribution of platform users and approximates \textbf{engagement scores} through an agent-based framework. Furthermore, we propose StyleCmt, inspired by social ripple effects, where multiple stylistic dimensions align to amplify socially resonant expressions and suppress incongruent ones.

Automatic systems are increasingly used to assess the originality of responses in creative tasks. They offer a potential solution to key limitations of human assessment (cost, fatigue, and subjectivity), but there is preliminary evidence of a self-preference bias. Accordingly, automatic systems tend to prefer outcomes that are more closely related to their style, rather than to the human one. In this paper, we investigated how Large Language Models (LLMs) align with human raters in assessing the originality of responses in a divergent thinking task. We analysed 4,813 responses to the Alternate Uses Task produced by higher and lower creative humans and ChatGPT-4o. Human raters were two university students who underwent intensive training. Machine raters were two specialised systems fine-tuned on AUT responses and corresponding human ratings (OCSAI and CLAUS) and ChatGPT-4o, which was prompted with the same instructions as human raters. Results confirmed the presence of a self-preference bias in LLMs. Automatic systems tended to privilege artificial responses. However, this self-preference bias disappeared when the analyses controlled for the idea elaboration. We discuss theoretical and methodological implications of these findings by highlighting future directions for research on creativity assessment.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

The rapid proliferation of large audio models (LAMs) demands efficient approaches for model comparison, yet comprehensive benchmarks are costly. To fill this gap, we investigate whether minimal subsets can reliably evaluate LAMs while reducing costs and data redundancy. Analyzing 10 subset selection methods with 18 audio models across 40 tasks covering major LAM evaluation dimensions, we show that subsets of just 50 examples (0.3% of data) can achieve over 0.93 Pearson correlation with full benchmark scores. To understand how well these scores align with what practitioners ultimately care about, user satisfaction, we collect 776 human preference ratings from realistic voice assistant conversations, finding that both subsets and full benchmark achieve only 0.85 correlation with human. To better predict preferences, we trained regression models on these selected subsets, achieving 0.98 correlation -- outperforming regression models trained on both random subsets and the full benchmark. This demonstrates that in regression modeling, well-curated subsets outpredict the full benchmark, showing quality over quantity. We open-source these regression-weighted subsets as the HUMANS benchmark, an efficient proxy for LAM evaluation that captures both benchmark performance and user preferences.

Digital video is central to communication, education, and entertainment, but without audio description (AD), blind and low-vision users are excluded. While crowdsourced platforms and vision-language models (VLMs) expand AD production, quality is rarely checked systematically. Existing evaluations rely on NLP metrics and short-clip guidelines, leaving open the question of how to assess long-form AD quality at scale. To address this, we developed a methodological workflow using Item Response Theory to evaluate VLM and human rater proficiency against expert-established ground truth. Evaluations were based on a six-dimensional framework, grounded in professional guidelines and shaped by insights from our accessibility experts and blind consultants. Findings suggest that top-performing VLMs can approximate ground-truth ratings at levels comparable to human raters. However, qualitative analysis reveals that VLM reasoning is less reliable and actionable than that of human respondents. These insights underscore the potential of hybrid evaluation systems that leverage VLMs alongside human oversight, offering a path toward scalable AD quality control.

Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.

Recommender systems are widely used in the digital landscape to match users with content fitting their preferences. However, growing concerns about fake accounts, strategic manipulation, and other deceptive online behavior place increasing pressure on the reliability of these systems. A common statistical approach behind recommender systems is so-called matrix completion, which predicts how users would rate items they have not yet consumed based on patterns in observed ratings. Realistically applying matrix completion methods requires jointly addressing several overlooked challenges: (i) ratings on discrete scales (such as 1--5 stars); (ii) the presence of malicious users who deliberately manipulate the system to their advantage through fake profiles; (iii) ratings missing not at random since users are more likely to consume items they expect to like; and (iv) fostering transparency, reproducibility, and stability. We jointly address these challenges by proposing a novel method, Robust Discrete Matrix Completion (RDMC), designed to capture the key characteristics of sparse rating data while remaining reliable in the presence of manipulation. We evaluate RDMC through two case studies and carefully designed simulation experiments. Our work thereby offers a statistically-sound blueprint for future studies on how to evaluate recommender systems under realistic scenarios.

In applied statistics and machine learning, the gold standards used for training are often biased and almost always noisy. Dawid and Skene's justifiably popular crowdsourcing model adjusts for rater sensitivity and specificity, but fails to capture distributional properties of rating data gathered for training, which in turn biases training. In this study, we introduce a general purpose measurement-error model with which we can infer consensus categories by adding item-level effects for difficulty, discriminativeness, and guessability. We further show how to constrain the bimodal posterior of these models to avoid adversarial raters. We validate our model's goodness of fit with posterior predictive checks, the Bayesian analogue of $χ^2$ tests, and assess its predictive accuracy using leave-one-out cross-validation. We illustrate our new model with two well-studied data sets, binary rating data for caries in dental X-rays and implication in natural language.