Daily Papers

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

We test the robustness of debate as a method of scalable oversight by training models to debate with data generated via self-play. In a long-context reading comprehension task, we find that language model based evaluators answer questions more accurately when judging models optimized to win debates. By contrast, we find no such relationship for consultancy models trained to persuade a judge without an opposing debater present. In quantitative and qualitative comparisons between our debate models and novel consultancy baselines, we find evidence that debate training encourages stronger and more informative arguments, showing promise that it can help provide high-quality supervision for tasks that are difficult to directly evaluate.

Claim verification is critical for enhancing digital literacy. However, the state-of-the-art single-LLM methods struggle with complex claim verification that involves multi-faceted evidences. Inspired by real-world fact-checking practices, we propose DebateCV, the first claim verification framework that adopts a debate-driven methodology using multiple LLM agents. In our framework, two Debaters take opposing stances on a claim and engage in multi-round argumentation, while a Moderator evaluates the arguments and renders a verdict with justifications. To further improve the performance of the Moderator, we introduce a novel post-training strategy that leverages synthetic debate data generated by the zero-shot DebateCV, effectively addressing the scarcity of real-world debate-driven claim verification data. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing claim verification methods under varying levels of evidence quality. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DebateCV-6781.

We introduce Debate Speech Evaluation as a novel and challenging benchmark for assessing LLM judges. Evaluating debate speeches requires a deep understanding of the speech at multiple levels, including argument strength and relevance, the coherence and organization of the speech, the appropriateness of its style and tone, and so on. This task involves a unique set of cognitive abilities that have previously received limited attention in systematic LLM benchmarking. To explore such skills, we leverage a dataset of over 600 meticulously annotated debate speeches and present the first in-depth analysis of how state-of-the-art LLMs compare to human judges on this task. Our findings reveal a nuanced picture: while larger models can approximate individual human judgments in some respects, they differ substantially in their overall judgment behavior. We also investigate the ability of frontier LLMs to generate persuasive, opinionated speeches, showing that models may perform at a human level on this task.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Large language models frequently encounter conflicts between their parametric knowledge and contextual input, often resulting in factual inconsistencies or hallucinations. We propose Self-Reflective Debate for Contextual Reliability (SR-DCR), a lightweight framework that integrates token-level self-confidence with an asymmetric multi-agent debate to adjudicate such conflicts. A critic, deprived of context, challenges a defender who argues from the given passage; a judge model evaluates the debate and determines the context's reliability. The final answer is selected by combining the verdict with model confidence. Experiments on the ClashEval benchmark demonstrate that SR-DCR consistently enhances robustness to misleading context while maintaining accuracy on trustworthy inputs, outperforming both classical debate and confidence-only baselines with minimal computational overhead. The code is available at https://github.com/smiles724/Self-Reflective-Debates.

Debate is the process of exchanging viewpoints or convincing others on a particular issue. Recent research has provided empirical evidence that the persuasiveness of an argument is determined not only by language usage but also by communicator characteristics. Researchers have paid much attention to aspects of languages, such as linguistic features and discourse structures, but combining argument persuasiveness and impact with the social personae of the audience has not been explored due to the difficulty and complexity. We have observed the impressive simulation and personification capability of ChatGPT, indicating a giant pre-trained language model may function as an individual to provide personae and exert unique influences based on diverse background knowledge. Therefore, we propose a persona knowledge-aligned framework for argument quality assessment tasks from the audience side. This is the first work that leverages the emergence of ChatGPT and injects such audience personae knowledge into smaller language models via prompt tuning. The performance of our pipeline demonstrates significant and consistent improvement compared to competitive architectures.

Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.

Making LLMs speak for different, especially minority groups of people, and generate statements supporting their diverse or even controversial perspectives is critical to creating an inclusive environment. However, existing LLMs lack sufficient controllability to the stance of their generated content, which often contains inconsistent, neutral, or biased statements. In this paper, we improve the controllability of LLMs in generating statements supporting an argument the user defined in the prompt. We find that multi-round debates between two LLMs with opposite stances generate higher-quality and more salient statements for each, which are important training data to improve the controllability of LLMs. Motivated by this, we develop a novel debate & tuning (DEBATUNE) pipeline finetuning LLMs to generate the statements obtained via debate. To examine DEBATUNE, we curate the largest dataset of debate topics so far, which covers 710 controversial topics and corresponding arguments for each topic. Evaluations by the GPT-4 judge with a novel controversy controllability metric show that LLMs' capability of generating diverse perspectives is significantly improved by DEBATUNE. Moreover, such controllability can be generalized to unseen topics, generating high-quality statements supporting controversial arguments.

Recent work within the Argument Mining community has shown the applicability of Natural Language Processing systems for solving problems found within competitive debate. One of the most important tasks within competitive debate is for debaters to create high quality debate cases. We show that effective debate cases can be constructed using constrained shortest path traversals on Argumentative Semantic Knowledge Graphs. We study this potential in the context of a type of American Competitive Debate, called Policy Debate, which already has a large scale dataset targeting it called DebateSum. We significantly improve upon DebateSum by introducing 53180 new examples, as well as further useful metadata for every example, to the dataset. We leverage the txtai semantic search and knowledge graph toolchain to produce and contribute 9 semantic knowledge graphs built on this dataset. We create a unique method for evaluating which knowledge graphs are better in the context of producing policy debate cases. A demo which automatically generates debate cases, along with all other code and the Knowledge Graphs, are open-sourced and made available to the public here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DebateKG

This paper investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs have shown promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality. The findings suggest that combining LLMs with real-time external knowledge retrieval offers a promising direction for developing more effective and reliable counter-argumentation systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have improved significantly in their reasoning through extensive training on massive datasets. However, relying solely on additional data for improvement is becoming increasingly impractical, highlighting the need for models to autonomously enhance their reasoning without external supervision. In this paper, we propose Debate, Train, Evolve (DTE), a novel ground truth-free training framework that uses multi-agent debate traces to evolve a single language model. We also introduce a new prompting strategy Reflect-Critique-Refine, to improve debate quality by explicitly instructing agents to critique and refine their reasoning. Extensive evaluations on five reasoning benchmarks with six open-weight models show that our DTE framework achieve substantial improvements, with an average accuracy gain of 8.92% on the challenging GSM-PLUS dataset. Furthermore, we observe strong cross-domain generalization, with an average accuracy gain of 5.8% on all other benchmarks, suggesting that our method captures general reasoning capabilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields, necessitating the development of effective methods to evaluate and compare their performance. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either based on fixed, domain-specific questions that lack the flexibility required in many real-world applications, or rely on human input, making them unscalable. To address these issues, we propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between LLMs, judged by another LLM. This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as argumentative reasoning and inconsistency recognition. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs using the debate framework and achieve rankings that align closely with popular rankings based on human input, eliminating the need for costly human crowdsourcing.

Multi-Agent Debate~(MAD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving the performance of large language models through collaborative reasoning. Despite recent advances, the key factors driving MAD's effectiveness remain unclear. In this work, we disentangle MAD into two key components--Majority Voting and inter-agent Debate--and assess their respective contributions. Through extensive experiments across seven NLP benchmarks, we find that Majority Voting alone accounts for most of the performance gains typically attributed to MAD. To explain this, we propose a theoretical framework that models debate as a stochastic process. We prove that it induces a martingale over agents' belief trajectories, implying that debate alone does not improve expected correctness. Guided by these insights, we demonstrate that targeted interventions, by biasing the belief update toward correction, can meaningfully enhance debate effectiveness. Overall, our findings suggest that while MAD has potential, simple ensembling methods remain strong and more reliable alternatives in many practical settings. Code is released in https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/debate-or-vote.

Despite the utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a wide range of tasks and scenarios, developing a method for reliably evaluating LLMs across varied contexts continues to be challenging. Modern evaluation approaches often use LLMs to assess responses generated by LLMs. However, the meta-evaluation conducted to assess the effectiveness of these LLMs as evaluators is typically constrained by the coverage of existing benchmarks or requires extensive human annotation. This underscores the urgency of methods for scalable meta-evaluation that can effectively, reliably, and efficiently evaluate the performance of LLMs as evaluators across diverse tasks and scenarios, particularly in potentially new, user-defined scenarios. To fill this gap, we propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework that leverages the capabilities of multiple communicative LLM agents. This framework supports multi-round discussions to assist human annotators in discerning the most capable LLMs as evaluators, which significantly eases their workload in cases that used to require large-scale annotations during meta-evaluation. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available at: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/scaleeval.

With the recent advances of large language models (LLMs), it is no longer infeasible to build an automated debate system that helps people to synthesise persuasive arguments. Previous work attempted this task by integrating multiple components. In our work, we introduce an argument mining dataset that captures the end-to-end process of preparing an argumentative essay for a debate, which covers the tasks of claim and evidence identification (Task 1 ED), evidence convincingness ranking (Task 2 ECR), argumentative essay summarisation and human preference ranking (Task 3 ASR) and metric learning for automated evaluation of resulting essays, based on human feedback along argument quality dimensions (Task 4 SQE). Our dataset contains 14k examples of claims that are fully annotated with the various properties supporting the aforementioned tasks. We evaluate multiple generative baselines for each of these tasks, including representative LLMs. We find, that while they show promising results on individual tasks in our benchmark, their end-to-end performance on all four tasks in succession deteriorates significantly, both in automated measures as well as in human-centred evaluation. This challenge presented by our proposed dataset motivates future research on end-to-end argument mining and summarisation. The repository of this project is available at https://github.com/HarrywillDr/ArgSum-Datatset

Query-focused summarization (QFS) gives a summary of documents to answer a query. Past QFS work assumes queries have one answer, ignoring debatable ones (Is law school worth it?). We introduce Debatable QFS (DQFS), a task to create summaries that answer debatable queries via documents with opposing perspectives; summaries must comprehensively cover all sources and balance perspectives, favoring no side. These goals elude LLM QFS systems, which: 1) lack structured content plans, failing to guide LLMs to write balanced summaries, and 2) use the same query to retrieve contexts across documents, failing to cover all perspectives specific to each document's content. To overcome this, we design MODS, a multi-LLM framework mirroring human panel discussions. MODS treats documents as individual Speaker LLMs and has a Moderator LLM that picks speakers to respond to tailored queries for planned topics. Speakers use tailored queries to retrieve relevant contexts from their documents and supply perspectives, which are tracked in a rich outline, yielding a content plan to guide the final summary. Experiments on ConflictingQA with controversial web queries and DebateQFS, our new dataset of debate queries from Debatepedia, show MODS beats SOTA by 38-59% in topic paragraph coverage and balance, based on new citation metrics. Users also find MODS's summaries to be readable and more balanced.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

Prior work in Argument Mining frequently alludes to its potential applications in automatic debating systems. Despite this focus, almost no datasets or models exist which apply natural language processing techniques to problems found within competitive formal debate. To remedy this, we present the DebateSum dataset. DebateSum consists of 187,386 unique pieces of evidence with corresponding argument and extractive summaries. DebateSum was made using data compiled by competitors within the National Speech and Debate Association over a 7-year period. We train several transformer summarization models to benchmark summarization performance on DebateSum. We also introduce a set of fasttext word-vectors trained on DebateSum called debate2vec. Finally, we present a search engine for this dataset which is utilized extensively by members of the National Speech and Debate Association today. The DebateSum search engine is available to the public here: http://www.debate.cards

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is debate, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48% and 60%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

Text evaluation has historically posed significant challenges, often demanding substantial labor and time cost. With the emergence of large language models (LLMs), researchers have explored LLMs' potential as alternatives for human evaluation. While these single-agent-based approaches show promise, experimental results suggest that further advancements are needed to bridge the gap between their current effectiveness and human-level evaluation quality. Recognizing that best practices of human evaluation processes often involve multiple human annotators collaborating in the evaluation, we resort to a multi-agent debate framework, moving beyond single-agent prompting strategies. The multi-agent-based approach enables a group of LLMs to synergize with an array of intelligent counterparts, harnessing their distinct capabilities and expertise to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in handling intricate tasks. In this paper, we construct a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models on open-ended questions and traditional natural language generation (NLG) tasks. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments. Our code is available at https://github.com/chanchimin/ChatEval.

We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

Controversy is a reflection of our zeitgeist, and an important aspect to any discourse. The rise of large language models (LLMs) as conversational systems has increased public reliance on these systems for answers to their various questions. Consequently, it is crucial to systematically examine how these models respond to questions that pertaining to ongoing debates. However, few such datasets exist in providing human-annotated labels reflecting the contemporary discussions. To foster research in this area, we propose a novel construction of a controversial questions dataset, expanding upon the publicly released Quora Question Pairs Dataset. This dataset presents challenges concerning knowledge recency, safety, fairness, and bias. We evaluate different LLMs using a subset of this dataset, illuminating how they handle controversial issues and the stances they adopt. This research ultimately contributes to our understanding of LLMs' interaction with controversial issues, paving the way for improvements in their comprehension and handling of complex societal debates.

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, leading to the emergence of "LLM-as-a-Judge," where LLMs are employed as evaluators for complex tasks. With their ability to process diverse data types and provide scalable, cost-effective, and consistent assessments, LLMs present a compelling alternative to traditional expert-driven evaluations. However, ensuring the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems remains a significant challenge that requires careful design and standardization. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-as-a-Judge, addressing the core question: How can reliable LLM-as-a-Judge systems be built? We explore strategies to enhance reliability, including improving consistency, mitigating biases, and adapting to diverse assessment scenarios. Additionally, we propose methodologies for evaluating the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, supported by a novel benchmark designed for this purpose. To advance the development and real-world deployment of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, we also discussed practical applications, challenges, and future directions. This survey serves as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in this rapidly evolving field.

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs and verify moderate agreements. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality. A thorough disagreement analysis further supports a potential of fully automated ReviewScore evaluation.

This paper presents a pilot study aimed at introducing multi-agent debate into multimodal reasoning. The study addresses two key challenges: the trivialization of opinions resulting from excessive summarization and the diversion of focus caused by distractor concepts introduced from images. These challenges stem from the inductive (bottom-up) nature of existing debating schemes. To address the issue, we propose a deductive (top-down) debating approach called Blueprint Debate on Graphs (BDoG). In BDoG, debates are confined to a blueprint graph to prevent opinion trivialization through world-level summarization. Moreover, by storing evidence in branches within the graph, BDoG mitigates distractions caused by frequent but irrelevant concepts. Extensive experiments validate that BDoG is able to achieve state-of-the-art results in ScienceQA and MMBench with significant improvements over previous methods. The source code can be accessed at https://github.com/thecharm/BDoG.

The task of Critical Questions Generation (CQs-Gen) aims to foster critical thinking by enabling systems to generate questions that expose underlying assumptions and challenge the validity of argumentative reasoning structures. Despite growing interest in this area, progress has been hindered by the lack of suitable datasets and automatic evaluation standards. This paper presents a comprehensive approach to support the development and benchmarking of systems for this task. We construct the first large-scale dataset including ~5K manually annotated questions. We also investigate automatic evaluation methods and propose reference-based techniques as the strategy that best correlates with human judgments. Our zero-shot evaluation of 11 LLMs establishes a strong baseline while showcasing the difficulty of the task. Data and code plus a public leaderboard are provided to encourage further research, not only in terms of model performance, but also to explore the practical benefits of CQs-Gen for both automated reasoning and human critical thinking.

Evaluating the conversational abilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a challenging task. Current mainstream approaches primarily rely on the ``LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm, where an LLM is prompted to serve as an evaluator to assess dialogue quality. However, such methods often suffer from various biases, which undermine the reliability and consistency of the evaluation results. To mitigate these biases, recent methods employ multiple LLMs as judges and aggregate their judgments to select the optimal assessment. Although effective, this multi-judge approach incurs significant computational overhead during inference. In this paper, we propose an efficient multi-turn dialogue evaluator that captures the collective wisdom of multiple LLM judges by aggregating their preference knowledge into a single model. Our approach preserves the advantages of diverse multi-judge feedback while drastically reducing the evaluation cost, enabling fast and flexible dialogue quality assessment. Extensive experiments on seven single rating and pairwise comparison dialogue evaluation benchmarks demonstrate that our method outperforms existing baselines across diverse scenarios, showcasing its efficiency and robustness.

Large language models (LLMs) have witnessed rapid advancements, demonstrating remarkable capabilities. However, a notable vulnerability persists: LLMs often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs. This emphasizes the significance of possessing the Premise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises. Most existing studies assess LLMs' reasoning ability in ideal settings, largely ignoring their vulnerabilities when faced with flawed premises. Thus, we introduce the Premise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics. We conducted systematic evaluations of 15 representative LLMs. Our findings reveal: (1) Most models rely heavily on explicit prompts to detect errors, with limited autonomous critique; (2) Premise critique ability depends on question difficulty and error type, with direct contradictions being easier to detect than complex or procedural errors; (3) Reasoning ability does not consistently correlate with the premise critique ability; (4) Flawed premises trigger overthinking in reasoning models, markedly lengthening responses due to repeated attempts at resolving conflicts. These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LLMs' proactive evaluation of input validity, positioning premise critique as a foundational capability for developing reliable, human-centric systems. The code is available at https://github.com/MLGroupJLU/Premise_Critique.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential and impressive performance in automating the generation and optimization of workflows. However, existing approaches are marked by limited reasoning capabilities, high computational demands, and significant resource requirements. To address these issues, we propose DebFlow, a framework that employs a debate mechanism to optimize workflows and integrates reflexion to improve based on previous experiences. We evaluated our method across six benchmark datasets, including HotpotQA, MATH, and ALFWorld. Our approach achieved a 3\% average performance improvement over the latest baselines, demonstrating its effectiveness in diverse problem domains. In particular, during training, our framework reduces resource consumption by 37\% compared to the state-of-the-art baselines. Additionally, we performed ablation studies. Removing the Debate component resulted in a 4\% performance drop across two benchmark datasets, significantly greater than the 2\% drop observed when the Reflection component was removed. These findings strongly demonstrate the critical role of Debate in enhancing framework performance, while also highlighting the auxiliary contribution of reflexion to overall optimization.

The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have presented challenges in evaluating those models. Existing evaluation methods are either reference-based or preference based, which inevitably need human intervention or introduce test bias caused by evaluator models. In this paper, we propose GameEval, a novel approach to evaluating LLMs through goal-driven conversational games, overcoming the limitations of previous methods. GameEval treats LLMs as game players and assigns them distinct roles with specific goals achieved by launching conversations of various forms, including discussion, question answering, and voting. We design three unique games with cooperative or adversarial objectives, accompanied by corresponding evaluation metrics, to show how this new paradigm comprehensively evaluates model performance.Through extensive experiments, we show that GameEval can effectively differentiate the capabilities of various LLMs, providing a comprehensive assessment of their integrated abilities to solve complex problems. Our public anonymous code is available at https://github.com/GameEval/GameEval.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in diverse and challenging scenarios is essential to align them with human preferences. To mitigate the prohibitive costs associated with human evaluations, utilizing a powerful LLM as a judge has emerged as a favored approach. Nevertheless, this methodology encounters several challenges, including substantial expenses, concerns regarding privacy and security, and reproducibility. In this paper, we propose a straightforward, replicable, and accurate automated evaluation method by leveraging a lightweight LLM as the judge, named RocketEval. Initially, we identify that the performance disparity between lightweight and powerful LLMs in evaluation tasks primarily stems from their ability to conduct comprehensive analyses, which is not easily enhanced through techniques such as chain-of-thought reasoning. By reframing the evaluation task as a multi-faceted Q&A using an instance-specific checklist, we demonstrate that the limited judgment accuracy of lightweight LLMs is largely attributes to high uncertainty and positional bias. To address these challenges, we introduce an automated evaluation process grounded in checklist grading, which is designed to accommodate a variety of scenarios and questions. This process encompasses the creation of checklists, the grading of these checklists by lightweight LLMs, and the reweighting of checklist items to align with the supervised annotations. Our experiments carried out on the automated evaluation benchmarks, MT-Bench and WildBench datasets, reveal that RocketEval, when using Gemma-2-2B as the judge, achieves a high correlation (0.965) with human preferences, which is comparable to GPT-4o. Moreover, RocketEval provides a cost reduction exceeding 50-fold for large-scale evaluation and comparison scenarios. Our code is available at https://github.com/Joinn99/RocketEval-ICLR .

Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of "tit for tat" state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents. Codes: https://github.com/Skytliang/Multi-Agents-Debate

As LLMs evolve on a daily basis, there is an urgent need for a trustworthy evaluation method that can provide robust evaluation results in a timely fashion. Currently, as static benchmarks are prone to contamination concerns, users tend to trust human voting platforms, such as Chatbot Arena. However, human annotations require extensive manual efforts. To provide an automatic, robust, and trustworthy evaluation framework, we innovatively propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents. Firstly, an examiner LLM devises queries. Then, a pair of candidate LLMs engage in a multi-round peer-battle around the query, during which the LLM's true performance gaps become visible. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collectively discuss and determine the winner, which alleviates bias and promotes fairness. In our extensive experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences, providing a promising alternative to human evaluation platforms.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots, i.e., underlying beliefs and world views, and their corresponding attitude themes. Given the strength of these latent drivers of arguments, recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning (e.g., falsifying given premises), one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu 'soft' combat system (Hornsey and Fielding, 2017): first, identify an arguer's attitude roots and themes, and then choose a prototypical rebuttal that is aligned with those drivers instead of invalidating those. In this work, we are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation. To this end, we enrich an existing dataset for discourse structure in peer reviews with attitude roots, attitude themes, and canonical rebuttals. To facilitate this process, we recast established annotation concepts from the domain of peer reviews (e.g., aspects a review sentence is relating to) and train domain-specific models. We then propose strong rebuttal generation strategies, which we benchmark on our novel dataset for the task of end-to-end attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation and two subtasks.

Traditionally, a debate usually requires a manual preparation process, including reading plenty of articles, selecting the claims, identifying the stances of the claims, seeking the evidence for the claims, etc. As the AI debate attracts more attention these years, it is worth exploring the methods to automate the tedious process involved in the debating system. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive and large dataset named IAM, which can be applied to a series of argument mining tasks, including claim extraction, stance classification, evidence extraction, etc. Our dataset is collected from over 1k articles related to 123 topics. Near 70k sentences in the dataset are fully annotated based on their argument properties (e.g., claims, stances, evidence, etc.). We further propose two new integrated argument mining tasks associated with the debate preparation process: (1) claim extraction with stance classification (CESC) and (2) claim-evidence pair extraction (CEPE). We adopt a pipeline approach and an end-to-end method for each integrated task separately. Promising experimental results are reported to show the values and challenges of our proposed tasks, and motivate future research on argument mining.

Evaluation has traditionally focused on ranking candidates for a specific skill. Modern generalist models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), decidedly outpace this paradigm. Open-ended evaluation systems, where candidate models are compared on user-submitted prompts, have emerged as a popular solution. Despite their many advantages, we show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental, due to their sensitivity to redundancies. To address this issue, we propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy. We show that our method leads to intuitive ratings and provide insights into the competitive landscape of LLM development.

Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a high review workload, especially for senior researchers in this area. How to cope with this problem is an open question and it is vividly discussed across all major conferences. In this work, we propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. We demonstrate that the decision process in the field of scientific publications is driven by arguments and automatic argument identification is helpful in various use-cases. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. Therefore, we provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments. In our extensive empirical evaluation, we show that Argument Mining can be used to efficiently extract the most relevant parts from reviews, which are paramount for the publication decision. The process remains interpretable since the extracted arguments can be highlighted in a review without detaching them from their context.

Evaluations are critical for understanding the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Fundamentally, evaluations are experiments; but the literature on evaluations has largely ignored the literature from other sciences on experiment analysis and planning. This article shows researchers with some training in statistics how to think about and analyze data from language model evaluations. Conceptualizing evaluation questions as having been drawn from an unseen super-population, we present formulas for analyzing evaluation data, measuring differences between two models, and planning an evaluation experiment. We make a number of specific recommendations for running language model evaluations and reporting experiment results in a way that minimizes statistical noise and maximizes informativeness.

While dialogue remains an important end-goal of natural language research, the difficulty of evaluation is an oft-quoted reason why it remains troublesome to make real progress towards its solution. Evaluation difficulties are actually two-fold: not only do automatic metrics not correlate well with human judgments, but also human judgments themselves are in fact difficult to measure. The two most used human judgment tests, single-turn pairwise evaluation and multi-turn Likert scores, both have serious flaws as we discuss in this work. We instead provide a novel procedure involving comparing two full dialogues, where a human judge is asked to pay attention to only one speaker within each, and make a pairwise judgment. The questions themselves are optimized to maximize the robustness of judgments across different annotators, resulting in better tests. We also show how these tests work in self-play model chat setups, resulting in faster, cheaper tests. We hope these tests become the de facto standard, and will release open-source code to that end.

Manual curation of evaluation datasets is struggling to keep up with the rapidly expanding capabilities and deployment scenarios of language models. Towards scalable model profiling, we introduce and validate a framework for evaluating LLMs, called Adaptive Evaluations. Adaptive evaluations use scaffolded language models (evaluator agents) to search through a target model's behavior on a domain dataset and create difficult questions (tasks) that can discover and probe the model's failure modes. We find that frontier models lack consistency when adaptively probed with our framework on a diverse suite of datasets and tasks, including but not limited to legal reasoning, forecasting, and online harassment. Generated questions pass human validity checks and often transfer to other models with different capability profiles, demonstrating that adaptive evaluations can also be used to create difficult domain-specific datasets.

To make AI systems broadly useful for challenging real-world tasks, we need them to learn complex human goals and preferences. One approach to specifying complex goals asks humans to judge during training which agent behaviors are safe and useful, but this approach can fail if the task is too complicated for a human to directly judge. To help address this concern, we propose training agents via self play on a zero sum debate game. Given a question or proposed action, two agents take turns making short statements up to a limit, then a human judges which of the agents gave the most true, useful information. In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to convince a sparse classifier, boosting the classifier's accuracy from 59.4% to 88.9% given 6 pixels and from 48.2% to 85.2% given 4 pixels. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical aspects of the debate model, focusing on potential weaknesses as the model scales up, and we propose future human and computer experiments to test these properties.

Multi-agent debates have been introduced to improve the accuracy of Large Language Models (LLMs) by having multiple agents discuss solutions to a problem over several rounds of debate. However, models often generate incorrect yet confident-sounding responses, which can mislead others. This issue arises partly because agents do not consider how confident their peers are. To address this, we propose DebUnc, a debate framework that uses uncertainty metrics to assess agent confidence. Confidence is then conveyed through a modified attention mechanism that adjusts token weights, or through textual prompts. Evaluations across benchmarks show that attention-based methods are particularly effective and that performance continues to improve as uncertainty estimation becomes more reliable. The code is available at https://github.com/lukeyoffe/debunc.

Battles, or side-by-side comparisons in so called arenas that elicit human preferences, have emerged as a popular approach to assessing the output quality of LLMs. Recently, this idea has been extended to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. While undoubtedly representing an advance in evaluation, battles have at least two drawbacks, particularly in the context of complex information-seeking queries: they are neither explanatory nor diagnostic. Recently, the nugget evaluation methodology has emerged as a promising approach to evaluate the quality of RAG answers. Nuggets decompose long-form LLM-generated answers into atomic facts, highlighting important pieces of information necessary in a "good" response. In this work, we apply our AutoNuggetizer framework to analyze data from roughly 7K Search Arena battles provided by LMArena in a fully automatic manner. Our results show a significant correlation between nugget scores and human preferences, showcasing promise in our approach to explainable and diagnostic system evaluations.

Fake news detection becomes particularly challenging in real-time scenarios, where emerging events often lack sufficient supporting evidence. Existing approaches often rely heavily on external evidence and therefore struggle to generalize under evidence scarcity. To address this issue, we propose Evaluation-Aware Selection of Experts (EASE), a novel framework for real-time fake news detection that dynamically adapts its decision-making process according to the assessed sufficiency of available evidence. EASE introduces a sequential evaluation mechanism comprising three independent perspectives: (1) Evidence-based evaluation, which assesses evidence and incorporates it into decision-making only when the evidence is sufficiently supportive; (2) Reasoning-based evaluation, which leverages the world knowledge of large language models (LLMs) and applies them only when their reliability is adequately established; and (3) Sentiment-based fallback, which integrates sentiment cues when neither evidence nor reasoning is reliable. To enhance the accuracy of evaluation processes, EASE employs instruction tuning with pseudo labels to guide each evaluator in justifying its perspective-specific knowledge through interpretable reasoning. Furthermore, the expert modules integrate the evaluators' justified assessments with the news content to enable evaluation-aware decision-making, thereby enhancing overall detection accuracy. Moreover, we introduce RealTimeNews-25, a new benchmark comprising recent news for evaluating model generalization on emerging news with limited evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EASE not only achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, but also significantly improves generalization to real-time news. The code and dataset are available: https://github.com/wgyhhhh/EASE.

Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models' private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLMs are now increasingly deployed without careful review in assistant and agentic roles. Code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/pradyuprasad/llms_overconfidence

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

Chatbots are designed to carry out human-like conversations across different domains, such as general chit-chat, knowledge exchange, and persona-grounded conversations. To measure the quality of such conversational agents, a dialogue evaluator is expected to conduct assessment across domains as well. However, most of the state-of-the-art automatic dialogue evaluation metrics (ADMs) are not designed for multi-domain evaluation. We are motivated to design a general and robust framework, MDD-Eval, to address the problem. Specifically, we first train a teacher evaluator with human-annotated data to acquire a rating skill to tell good dialogue responses from bad ones in a particular domain and then, adopt a self-training strategy to train a new evaluator with teacher-annotated multi-domain data, that helps the new evaluator to generalize across multiple domains. MDD-Eval is extensively assessed on six dialogue evaluation benchmarks. Empirical results show that the MDD-Eval framework achieves a strong performance with an absolute improvement of 7% over the state-of-the-art ADMs in terms of mean Spearman correlation scores across all the evaluation benchmarks.

There is a multitude of novel generative models for open-domain conversational systems; however, there is no systematic evaluation of different systems. Systematic comparisons require consistency in experimental design, evaluation sets, conversational systems and their outputs, and statistical analysis. We lay out a protocol for the evaluation of conversational models using head-to-head pairwise comparison. We analyze ten recent models that claim state-of-the-art performance using a paired head-to-head performance (win-loss-tie) on five evaluation datasets. Our findings show that DialoGPT and Blender are superior systems using Bradley-Terry model and TrueSkill ranking methods. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of our protocol to evaluate conversational agents and evaluation sets. Finally, we make all code and evaluations publicly available for researchers to compare their model to other state-of-the-art dialog models.

Generative search engines and deep research LLM agents promise trustworthy, source-grounded synthesis, yet users regularly encounter overconfidence, weak sourcing, and confusing citation practices. We introduce DeepTRACE, a novel sociotechnically grounded audit framework that turns prior community-identified failure cases into eight measurable dimensions spanning answer text, sources, and citations. DeepTRACE uses statement-level analysis (decomposition, confidence scoring) and builds citation and factual-support matrices to audit how systems reason with and attribute evidence end-to-end. Using automated extraction pipelines for popular public models (e.g., GPT-4.5/5, You.com, Perplexity, Copilot/Bing, Gemini) and an LLM-judge with validated agreement to human raters, we evaluate both web-search engines and deep-research configurations. Our findings show that generative search engines and deep research agents frequently produce one-sided, highly confident responses on debate queries and include large fractions of statements unsupported by their own listed sources. Deep-research configurations reduce overconfidence and can attain high citation thoroughness, but they remain highly one-sided on debate queries and still exhibit large fractions of unsupported statements, with citation accuracy ranging from 40--80% across systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for complex research tasks such as literature review, idea generation, and scientific paper analysis, yet their ability to truly understand and process the intricate relationships within complex research papers, such as the logical links between claims and supporting evidence remains largely unexplored. In this study, we present CLAIM-BENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capabilities in scientific claim-evidence extraction and validation, a task that reflects deeper comprehension of scientific argumentation. We systematically compare three approaches which are inspired by divide and conquer approaches, across six diverse LLMs, highlighting model-specific strengths and weaknesses in scientific comprehension. Through evaluation involving over 300 claim-evidence pairs across multiple research domains, we reveal significant limitations in LLMs' ability to process complex scientific content. Our results demonstrate that closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude consistently outperform open-source counterparts in precision and recall across claim-evidence identification tasks. Furthermore, strategically designed three-pass and one-by-one prompting approaches significantly improve LLMs' abilities to accurately link dispersed evidence with claims, although this comes at increased computational cost. CLAIM-BENCH sets a new standard for evaluating scientific comprehension in LLMs, offering both a diagnostic tool and a path forward for building systems capable of deeper, more reliable reasoning across full-length papers.

ARC Challenge appears more difficult than ARC Easy for modern LLMs primarily due to an evaluation setup that prevents direct comparison of answer choices rather than inherent complexity. Although some researchers have quietly shifted to a more appropriate scheme over the last year, the implications of this change have yet to be widely acknowledged. We highlight this overlooked shift, show how similar evaluation practices falsely imply reasoning deficits in other benchmarks, and demonstrate that fairer methods dramatically reduce performance gaps (e.g. on SIQA) and even yield superhuman results (OpenBookQA). In doing so, we reveal how evaluation shapes perceived difficulty and offer guidelines to ensure that multiple-choice evaluations accurately reflect actual model capabilities.

Since the natural language processing (NLP) community started to make large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, act as a critic to evaluate the quality of generated texts, most of them only train a critique generation model of a specific scale on specific datasets. We argue that a comprehensive investigation on the key factor of LLM-based evaluation models, such as scaling properties, is lacking, so that it is still inconclusive whether these models have potential to replace GPT-4's evaluation in practical scenarios. In this paper, we propose a new critique generation model called CritiqueLLM, which includes a dialogue-based prompting method for high-quality referenced / reference-free evaluation data. Experimental results show that our model can achieve comparable evaluation performance to GPT-4 especially in system-level correlations, and even outperform GPT-4 in 3 out of 8 tasks in a challenging reference-free setting. We conduct detailed analysis to show promising scaling properties of our model in the quality of generated critiques. We also demonstrate that our generated critiques can act as scalable feedback to directly improve the generation quality of LLMs.

Optimizing the phrasing of argumentative text is crucial in higher education and professional development. However, assessing whether and how the different claims in a text should be revised is a hard task, especially for novice writers. In this work, we explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. By learning from collaborative editing behaviors in online debates, we seek to capture implicit revision patterns in order to develop approaches aimed at guiding writers in how to further improve their arguments. We systematically compare the ability of common word embedding models to capture the differences between different versions of the same text, and we analyze their impact on various types of writing issues. To deal with the noisy nature of revision-based corpora, we propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. Opposed to approaches from prior work, such sampling can be done without employing additional annotations and judgments. Moreover, we provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results. How useful a certain type of context is, depends on the issue the claim is suffering from, though.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Step-by-step reasoning is widely used to enhance the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) in complex problems. Evaluating the quality of reasoning traces is crucial for understanding and improving LLM reasoning. However, the evaluation criteria remain highly unstandardized, leading to fragmented efforts in developing metrics and meta-evaluation benchmarks. To address this gap, this survey provides a comprehensive overview of step-by-step reasoning evaluation, proposing a taxonomy of evaluation criteria with four top-level categories (groundedness, validity, coherence, and utility). We then categorize metrics based on their implementations, survey which metrics are used for assessing each criterion, and explore whether evaluator models can transfer across different criteria. Finally, we identify key directions for future research.

Identifying the quality of free-text arguments has become an important task in the rapidly expanding field of computational argumentation. In this work, we explore the challenging task of argument quality ranking. To this end, we created a corpus of 30,497 arguments carefully annotated for point-wise quality, released as part of this work. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest dataset annotated for point-wise argument quality, larger by a factor of five than previously released datasets. Moreover, we address the core issue of inducing a labeled score from crowd annotations by performing a comprehensive evaluation of different approaches to this problem. In addition, we analyze the quality dimensions that characterize this dataset. Finally, we present a neural method for argument quality ranking, which outperforms several baselines on our own dataset, as well as previous methods published for another dataset.

We propose WIBA, a novel framework and suite of methods that enable the comprehensive understanding of "What Is Being Argued" across contexts. Our approach develops a comprehensive framework that detects: (a) the existence, (b) the topic, and (c) the stance of an argument, correctly accounting for the logical dependence among the three tasks. Our algorithm leverages the fine-tuning and prompt-engineering of Large Language Models. We evaluate our approach and show that it performs well in all the three capabilities. First, we develop and release an Argument Detection model that can classify a piece of text as an argument with an F1 score between 79% and 86% on three different benchmark datasets. Second, we release a language model that can identify the topic being argued in a sentence, be it implicit or explicit, with an average similarity score of 71%, outperforming current naive methods by nearly 40%. Finally, we develop a method for Argument Stance Classification, and evaluate the capability of our approach, showing it achieves a classification F1 score between 71% and 78% across three diverse benchmark datasets. Our evaluation demonstrates that WIBA allows the comprehensive understanding of What Is Being Argued in large corpora across diverse contexts, which is of core interest to many applications in linguistics, communication, and social and computer science. To facilitate accessibility to the advancements outlined in this work, we release WIBA as a free open access platform (wiba.dev).

We introduce CheckEval, a novel evaluation framework using Large Language Models, addressing the challenges of ambiguity and inconsistency in current evaluation methods. CheckEval addresses these challenges by dividing evaluation criteria into detailed sub-aspects and constructing a checklist of Boolean questions for each, simplifying the evaluation. This approach not only renders the process more interpretable but also significantly enhances the robustness and reliability of results by focusing on specific evaluation dimensions. Validated through a focused case study using the SummEval benchmark, CheckEval indicates a strong correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, it demonstrates a highly consistent Inter-Annotator Agreement. These findings highlight the effectiveness of CheckEval for objective, flexible, and precise evaluations. By offering a customizable and interactive framework, CheckEval sets a new standard for the use of LLMs in evaluation, responding to the evolving needs of the field and establishing a clear method for future LLM-based evaluation.

Automatic evaluation benchmarks such as MT-Bench, Arena-Hard, and Auto-Arena are seeing growing adoption for the evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing research has primarily focused on approximating human-based model rankings using limited data and LLM-as-a-Judge. However, the fundamental premise of these studies, which attempts to replicate human rankings, is flawed. Specifically, these benchmarks typically offer only overall scores, limiting their utility to leaderboard rankings, rather than providing feedback that can guide model optimization and support model profiling. Therefore, we advocate for an evaluation paradigm shift from approximating human-based model rankings to providing feedback with analytical value. To this end, we introduce Feedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results, thereby enabling thorough identification of a model's specific strengths and weaknesses. Such feedback not only supports the targeted optimization of the model but also enhances the understanding of its behavior. Feedbacker comprises three key components: an extensible tree-based query taxonomy builder, an automated query synthesis scheme, and a suite of visualization and analysis tools. Furthermore, we propose a novel LLM-as-a-Judge method: PC2 (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) pointwise evaluation. This method derives evaluation criteria by pre-comparing the differences between several auxiliary responses, achieving the accuracy of pairwise evaluation while maintaining the time complexity of pointwise evaluation. Finally, leveraging the evaluation results of 17 mainstream LLMs, we demonstrate the usage of Feedbacker and highlight its effectiveness and potential. Our homepage project is available at https://liudan193.github.io/Feedbacker.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in scientific research assessment, particularly in automated paper review. However, existing LLM-based review systems face significant challenges, including limited domain expertise, hallucinated reasoning, and a lack of structured evaluation. To address these limitations, we introduce DeepReview, a multi-stage framework designed to emulate expert reviewers by incorporating structured analysis, literature retrieval, and evidence-based argumentation. Using DeepReview-13K, a curated dataset with structured annotations, we train DeepReviewer-14B, which outperforms CycleReviewer-70B with fewer tokens. In its best mode, DeepReviewer-14B achieves win rates of 88.21\% and 80.20\% against GPT-o1 and DeepSeek-R1 in evaluations. Our work sets a new benchmark for LLM-based paper review, with all resources publicly available. The code, model, dataset and demo have be released in http://ai-researcher.net.

Automatic evaluation is an integral aspect of dialogue system research. The traditional reference-based NLG metrics are generally found to be unsuitable for dialogue assessment. Consequently, recent studies have suggested various unique, reference-free neural metrics that better align with human evaluations. Notably among them, large language models (LLMs), particularly the instruction-tuned variants like ChatGPT, are shown to be promising substitutes for human judges. Yet, existing works on utilizing LLMs for automatic dialogue evaluation are limited in their scope in terms of the number of meta-evaluation datasets, mode of evaluation, coverage of LLMs, etc. Hence, it remains inconclusive how effective these LLMs are. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive study on the application of LLMs for automatic dialogue evaluation. Specifically, we analyze the multi-dimensional evaluation capability of 30 recently emerged LLMs at both turn and dialogue levels, using a comprehensive set of 12 meta-evaluation datasets. Additionally, we probe the robustness of the LLMs in handling various adversarial perturbations at both turn and dialogue levels. Finally, we explore how model-level and dimension-level ensembles impact the evaluation performance. All resources are available at https://github.com/e0397123/comp-analysis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

We propose LLM-Eval, a unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models (LLMs). Existing evaluation methods often rely on human annotations, ground-truth responses, or multiple LLM prompts, which can be expensive and time-consuming. To address these issues, we design a single prompt-based evaluation method that leverages a unified evaluation schema to cover multiple dimensions of conversation quality in a single model call. We extensively evaluate the performance of LLM-Eval on various benchmark datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability compared to state-of-the-art evaluation methods. Our analysis also highlights the importance of choosing suitable LLMs and decoding strategies for accurate evaluation results. LLM-Eval offers a versatile and robust solution for evaluating open-domain conversation systems, streamlining the evaluation process and providing consistent performance across diverse scenarios.

Evaluating the quality of a dialogue system is an understudied problem. The recent evolution of evaluation method motivated this survey, in which an explicit and comprehensive analysis of the existing methods is sought. We are first to divide the evaluation methods into three classes, i.e., automatic evaluation, human-involved evaluation and user simulator based evaluation. Then, each class is covered with main features and the related evaluation metrics. The existence of benchmarks, suitable for the evaluation of dialogue techniques are also discussed in detail. Finally, some open issues are pointed out to bring the evaluation method into a new frontier.

Large language models (LLMs), while promising, face criticisms for biases, hallucinations, and a lack of reasoning capability. This paper introduces SocraSynth, a multi-LLM agent reasoning platform developed to mitigate these issues. SocraSynth utilizes conditional statistics and systematic context enhancement through continuous arguments, alongside adjustable debate contentiousness levels. The platform typically involves a human moderator and two LLM agents representing opposing viewpoints on a given subject. SocraSynth operates in two main phases: knowledge generation and reasoning evaluation. In the knowledge generation phase, the moderator defines the debate topic and contentiousness level, prompting the agents to formulate supporting arguments for their respective stances. The reasoning evaluation phase then employs Socratic reasoning and formal logic principles to appraise the quality of the arguments presented. The dialogue concludes with the moderator adjusting the contentiousness from confrontational to collaborative, gathering final, conciliatory remarks to aid in human reasoning and decision-making. Through case studies in three distinct application domains, this paper showcases SocraSynth's effectiveness in fostering rigorous research, dynamic reasoning, comprehensive assessment, and enhanced collaboration. This underscores the value of multi-agent interactions in leveraging LLMs for advanced knowledge extraction and decision-making support.

Despite tremendous advancements in dialogue systems, stable evaluation still requires human judgments producing notoriously high-variance metrics due to their inherent subjectivity. Moreover, methods and labels in dialogue evaluation are not fully standardized, especially for open-domain chats, with a lack of work to compare and assess the validity of those approaches. The use of inconsistent evaluation can misinform the performance of a dialogue system, which becomes a major hurdle to enhance it. Thus, a dimensional evaluation of chat-oriented open-domain dialogue systems that reliably measures several aspects of dialogue capabilities is desired. This paper presents a novel human evaluation method to estimate the rates of many dialogue system behaviors. Our method is used to evaluate four state-of-the-art open-domain dialogue systems and compared with existing approaches. The analysis demonstrates that our behavior method is more suitable than alternative Likert-style or comparative approaches for dimensional evaluation of these systems.

Ensuring that online discussions are civil and productive is a major challenge for social media platforms. Such platforms usually rely both on users and on automated detection tools to flag inappropriate arguments of other users, which moderators then review. However, this kind of post-hoc moderation is expensive and time-consuming, and moderators are often overwhelmed by the amount and severity of flagged content. Instead, a promising alternative is to prevent negative behavior during content creation. This paper studies how inappropriate language in arguments can be computationally mitigated. We propose a reinforcement learning-based rewriting approach that balances content preservation and appropriateness based on existing classifiers, prompting an instruction-finetuned large language model (LLM) as our initial policy. Unlike related style transfer tasks, rewriting inappropriate arguments allows deleting and adding content permanently. It is therefore tackled on document level rather than sentence level. We evaluate different weighting schemes for the reward function in both absolute and relative human assessment studies. Systematic experiments on non-parallel data provide evidence that our approach can mitigate the inappropriateness of arguments while largely preserving their content. It significantly outperforms competitive baselines, including few-shot learning, prompting, and humans.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced autonomous agents' planning and decision-making, yet they struggle with complex tasks requiring diverse expertise and multi-step reasoning. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, introduced in NLP research, address this gap by enabling structured debates among LLM-based agents to refine solutions iteratively. MAD promotes divergent thinking through role-specific agents, dynamic interactions, and structured decision-making. Recognizing parallels between Software Engineering (SE) and collaborative human problem-solving, this study investigates MAD's effectiveness on two SE tasks. We adapt MAD systems from NLP, analyze agent interactions to assess consensus-building and iterative refinement, and propose two enhancements targeting observed weaknesses. Our findings show that structured debate and collaboration improve problem-solving and yield strong performance in some cases, highlighting MAD's potential for SE automation while identifying areas for exploration.

The development and popularization of large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns that they will be used to create tailor-made, convincing arguments to push false or misleading narratives online. Early work has found that language models can generate content perceived as at least on par and often more persuasive than human-written messages. However, there is still limited knowledge about LLMs' persuasive capabilities in direct conversations with human counterparts and how personalization can improve their performance. In this pre-registered study, we analyze the effect of AI-driven persuasion in a controlled, harmless setting. We create a web-based platform where participants engage in short, multiple-round debates with a live opponent. Each participant is randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions, corresponding to a two-by-two factorial design: (1) Games are either played between two humans or between a human and an LLM; (2) Personalization might or might not be enabled, granting one of the two players access to basic sociodemographic information about their opponent. We found that participants who debated GPT-4 with access to their personal information had 81.7% (p < 0.01; N=820 unique participants) higher odds of increased agreement with their opponents compared to participants who debated humans. Without personalization, GPT-4 still outperforms humans, but the effect is lower and statistically non-significant (p=0.31). Overall, our results suggest that concerns around personalization are meaningful and have important implications for the governance of social media and the design of new online environments.

The increasing amount of political debates and politics-related discussions calls for the definition of novel computational methods to automatically analyse such content with the final goal of lightening up political deliberation to citizens. However, the specificity of the political language and the argumentative form of these debates (employing hidden communication strategies and leveraging implicit arguments) make this task very challenging, even for current general-purpose pre-trained Language Models. To address this issue, we introduce a novel pre-trained Language Model for political discourse language called RooseBERT. Pre-training a language model on a specialised domain presents different technical and linguistic challenges, requiring extensive computational resources and large-scale data. RooseBERT has been trained on large political debate and speech corpora (8K debates, each composed of several sub-debates on different topics) in English. To evaluate its performances, we fine-tuned it on four downstream tasks related to political debate analysis, i.e., named entity recognition, sentiment analysis, argument component detection and classification, and argument relation prediction and classification. Our results demonstrate significant improvements over general-purpose Language Models on these four tasks, highlighting how domain-specific pre-training enhances performance in political debate analysis. We release the RooseBERT language model for the research community.

Using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate text quality has recently gained popularity. Some prior works explore the idea of using LLMs for evaluation, while they differ in some details of the evaluation process. In this paper, we analyze LLM evaluation (Chiang and Lee, 2023) and G-Eval (Liu et al., 2023), and we discuss how those details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal. Last, we reveal that asking the LLM to explain its own ratings consistently improves the correlation between the ChatGPT and human ratings and pushes state-of-the-art (SoTA) correlations on two meta-evaluation datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that require complex reasoning. Most benchmarks focus on final outcomes but overlook the intermediate reasoning steps - such as planning, revision, and decision making under resource constraints. We argue that measuring these internal processes is essential for understanding model behavior and improving reliability. We propose using strategic games as a natural evaluation environment: closed, rule-based systems with clear states, limited resources, and automatic feedback. We introduce a framework that evaluates LLMs along three core dimensions: planning, revision, and resource-constrained decision making. To operationalize this, we define metrics beyond win rate, including overcorrection risk rate, correction success rate, improvement slope, and over-budget ratio. In 4320 adversarial rounds across 12 leading models, ChatGPT-o3-mini achieves the top composite score, with a win rate of 74.7 percent, a correction success rate of 78.6 percent, and an improvement slope of 0.041. By contrast, Qwen-Plus, despite an overcorrection risk rate of 81.6 percent, wins only 25.6 percent of its matches - primarily due to excessive resource use. We also observe a negative correlation between overcorrection risk rate and correction success rate (Pearson r = -0.51, p = 0.093), suggesting that more frequent edits do not always improve outcomes. Our findings highlight the value of assessing not only what LLMs decide but how they arrive at those decisions

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has shown promising practical results. However, their low interpretability often leads to errors in unforeseen circumstances, limiting their utility. Many works have focused on creating comprehensive evaluation systems, but previous benchmarks have primarily assessed problem-solving abilities while neglecting the response's uncertainty, which may result in unreliability. Recent methods for measuring LLM reliability are resource-intensive and unable to test black-box models. To address this, we propose UBENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM reliability. UBENCH includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. Experimental results show that UBENCH has achieved state-of-the-art performance, while its single-sampling method significantly saves computational resources compared to baseline methods that require multiple samplings. Additionally, based on UBENCH, we evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding, closely followed by GPT-4. We also explore the impact of Chain-of-Thought prompts, role-playing prompts, option order, and temperature on LLM reliability, analyzing the varying effects on different LLMs.

The remarkable growth in large language model (LLM) capabilities has spurred exploration into multi-agent systems, with debate frameworks emerging as a promising avenue for enhanced problem-solving. These multi-agent debate (MAD) approaches, where agents collaboratively present, critique, and refine arguments, potentially offer improved reasoning, robustness, and diverse perspectives over monolithic models. Despite prior studies leveraging MAD, a systematic understanding of its effectiveness compared to self-agent methods, particularly under varying conditions, remains elusive. This paper seeks to fill this gap by conceptualizing MAD as a test-time computational scaling technique, distinguished by collaborative refinement and diverse exploration capabilities. We conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation comparing MAD with strong self-agent test-time scaling baselines on mathematical reasoning and safety-related tasks. Our study systematically examines the influence of task difficulty, model scale, and agent diversity on MAD's performance. Key findings reveal that, for mathematical reasoning, MAD offers limited advantages over self-agent scaling but becomes more effective with increased problem difficulty and decreased model capability, while agent diversity shows little benefit. Conversely, for safety tasks, MAD's collaborative refinement can increase vulnerability, but incorporating diverse agent configurations facilitates a gradual reduction in attack success through the collaborative refinement process. We believe our findings provide critical guidance for the future development of more effective and strategically deployed MAD systems.

In this work, we present a database of multimodal communication features extracted from debate speeches in the 2019 North American Universities Debate Championships (NAUDC). Feature sets were extracted from the visual (facial expression, gaze, and head pose), audio (PRAAT), and textual (word sentiment and linguistic category) modalities of raw video recordings of competitive collegiate debaters (N=717 6-minute recordings from 140 unique debaters). Each speech has an associated competition debate score (range: 67-96) from expert judges as well as competitor demographic and per-round reflection surveys. We observe the fully multimodal model performs best in comparison to models trained on various compositions of modalities. We also find that the weights of some features (such as the expression of joy and the use of the word we) change in direction between the aforementioned models. We use these results to highlight the value of a multimodal dataset for studying competitive, collegiate debate.

Argumentation is one of society's foundational pillars, and, sparked by advances in NLP and the vast availability of text data, automated mining of arguments receives increasing attention. A decisive property of arguments is their strength or quality. While there are works on the automated estimation of argument strength, their scope is narrow: they focus on isolated datasets and neglect the interactions with related argument mining tasks, such as argument identification, evidence detection, or emotional appeal. In this work, we close this gap by approaching argument quality estimation from multiple different angles: Grounded on rich results from thorough empirical evaluations, we assess the generalization capabilities of argument quality estimation across diverse domains, the interplay with related argument mining tasks, and the impact of emotions on perceived argument strength. We find that generalization depends on a sufficient representation of different domains in the training part. In zero-shot transfer and multi-task experiments, we reveal that argument quality is among the more challenging tasks but can improve others. Finally, we show that emotions play a minor role in argument quality than is often assumed.

Although human evaluation remains the gold standard for open-domain dialogue evaluation, the growing popularity of automated evaluation using Large Language Models (LLMs) has also extended to dialogue. However, most frameworks leverage benchmarks that assess older chatbots on aspects such as fluency and relevance, which are not reflective of the challenges associated with contemporary models. In fact, a qualitative analysis on Soda, a GPT-3.5 generated dialogue dataset, suggests that current chatbots may exhibit several recurring issues related to coherence and commonsense knowledge, but generally produce highly fluent and relevant responses. Noting the aforementioned limitations, this paper introduces Soda-Eval, an annotated dataset based on Soda that covers over 120K turn-level assessments across 10K dialogues, where the annotations were generated by GPT-4. Using Soda-Eval as a benchmark, we then study the performance of several open-access instruction-tuned LLMs, finding that dialogue evaluation remains challenging. Fine-tuning these models improves performance over few-shot inferences, both in terms of correlation and explanation.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various applications, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of natural language processing (NLP) research. However, recent evaluation frameworks often rely on the output probabilities of LLMs for predictions, primarily due to computational constraints, diverging from real-world LLM usage scenarios. While widely employed, the efficacy of these probability-based evaluation strategies remains an open research question. This study aims to scrutinize the validity of such probability-based evaluation methods within the context of using LLMs for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), highlighting their inherent limitations. Our empirical investigation reveals that the prevalent probability-based evaluation method inadequately aligns with generation-based prediction. Furthermore, current evaluation frameworks typically assess LLMs through predictive tasks based on output probabilities rather than directly generating responses, owing to computational limitations. We illustrate that these probability-based approaches do not effectively correspond with generative predictions. The outcomes of our study can enhance the understanding of LLM evaluation methodologies and provide insights for future research in this domain.

Recent multi-modal Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4o have demonstrated strong capabilities of direct speech interaction. However, the lack of specialized and comprehensive benchmarks for end-to-end speech LLM evaluation hinders optimizing the user experience of Audio LLMs in real-world applications. Existing evaluation methods often adapt text-based benchmarks, overlooking speech's unique characteristics and challenges, including prosody, homophones, stuttering, and differing user expectations. Here, we present a novel approach to thoroughly evaluate LLMs in practical speech conversations. We systematically curate real-world chat data relevant to spoken scenarios, introduce diversity in speaker attributes and acoustic conditions, and augment the dataset with speech-specific phenomena. We further design a query-aware evaluation method to use customized evaluation checklists and prompts to enhance the accuracy of automatic evaluation. We conduct comprehensive testing and detailed analysis of various mainstream speech models, revealing significant differences in model performance across different speech scenarios. The use of query-aware evaluation further enables a finer-grained assessment under various speech-specific scenarios. Our benchmark can provide valuable insights for speech model development and evaluation.

Studies have underscored how, regardless of the recent breakthrough and swift advances in AI research, even state-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning. The results seem to suggest that LLMs still work as (highly advanced) data pattern identifiers, scoring poorly when attempting to generalise and solve reasoning problems the models have never previously seen or that are not close to samples presented in their training data. To address this compelling concern, this paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation. We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. By probing the rationale behind the models' reasoning process, the LLM can assess whether some logical mistake is occurring and correct it before providing the final reply to the user prompt. The underlying idea is drawn from the gold standard of any valid argumentative procedure: the conclusion is valid if it is entailed by accepted premises. Or, to paraphrase such Aristotelian principle in a real-world approximation, characterised by incomplete information and presumptive logic, the conclusion is valid if not proved otherwise. This approach successfully steers the models' output through a reasoning pipeline, resulting in better performance against the baseline and its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementation. To this end, an extensive evaluation of the proposed approach on the MT-Bench Reasoning and Math tasks across a range of LLMs is provided.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable capabilities in various Natural Language Processing tasks. For automatic open-domain dialogue evaluation in particular, LLMs have been seamlessly integrated into evaluation frameworks, and together with human evaluation, compose the backbone of most evaluations. However, existing evaluation benchmarks often rely on outdated datasets and evaluate aspects like Fluency and Relevance, which fail to adequately capture the capabilities and limitations of state-of-the-art chatbot models. This paper critically examines current evaluation benchmarks, highlighting that the use of older response generators and quality aspects fail to accurately reflect modern chatbot capabilities. A small annotation experiment on a recent LLM-generated dataset (SODA) reveals that LLM evaluators such as GPT-4 struggle to detect actual deficiencies in dialogues generated by current LLM chatbots.

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is challenging. Traditional ground-truth-based benchmarks fail to capture the comprehensiveness and nuance of real-world queries, while LLM-as-judge benchmarks suffer from grading biases and limited query quantity. Both of them may also become contaminated over time. User-facing evaluation, such as Chatbot Arena, provides reliable signals but is costly and slow. In this work, we propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard LLM evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks. It bridges (1) comprehensive and well-distributed real-world user queries and (2) efficient and fairly-graded ground-truth-based benchmarks, by matching queries mined from the web with similar queries from existing benchmarks. Based on MixEval, we further build MixEval-Hard, which offers more room for model improvement. Our benchmarks' advantages lie in (1) a 0.96 model ranking correlation with Chatbot Arena arising from the highly impartial query distribution and grading mechanism, (2) fast, cheap, and reproducible execution (6% of the time and cost of MMLU), and (3) dynamic evaluation enabled by the rapid and stable data update pipeline. We provide extensive meta-evaluation and analysis for our and existing LLM benchmarks to deepen the community's understanding of LLM evaluation and guide future research directions.

In this work, we focus on the problem of retrieving relevant arguments for a query claim covering diverse aspects. State-of-the-art methods rely on explicit mappings between claims and premises, and thus are unable to utilize large available collections of premises without laborious and costly manual annotation. Their diversity approach relies on removing duplicates via clustering which does not directly ensure that the selected premises cover all aspects. This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments. Beyond that, it aims to cover diverse facets of the query, instead of trying to identify duplicates explicitly. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that our approach leads to a significant improvement in the argument retrieval task even though it requires less data.

As large language models take on growing roles as automated evaluators in practical settings, a critical question arises: Can individuals persuade an LLM judge to assign unfairly high scores? This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks, where correctness should be independent of stylistic variation. Grounded in Aristotle's rhetorical principles, we formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses. Across six math benchmarks, we find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion. Notably, increasing model size does not substantially mitigate this vulnerability. Further analysis demonstrates that combining multiple persuasion techniques amplifies the bias, and pairwise evaluation is likewise susceptible. Moreover, the persuasive effect persists under counter prompting strategies, highlighting a critical vulnerability in LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines and underscoring the need for robust defenses against persuasion-based attacks.

Developing questions that are pedagogically sound, relevant, and promote learning is a challenging and time-consuming task for educators. Modern-day large language models (LLMs) generate high-quality content across multiple domains, potentially helping educators to develop high-quality questions. Automated educational question generation (AEQG) is important in scaling online education catering to a diverse student population. Past attempts at AEQG have shown limited abilities to generate questions at higher cognitive levels. In this study, we examine the ability of five state-of-the-art LLMs of different sizes to generate diverse and high-quality questions of different cognitive levels, as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. We use advanced prompting techniques with varying complexity for AEQG. We conducted expert and LLM-based evaluations to assess the linguistic and pedagogical relevance and quality of the questions. Our findings suggest that LLms can generate relevant and high-quality educational questions of different cognitive levels when prompted with adequate information, although there is a significant variance in the performance of the five LLms considered. We also show that automated evaluation is not on par with human evaluation.

LLM-as-a-Judge, which generates chain-of-thought (CoT) judgments, has become a widely adopted auto-evaluation method. However, its reliability is compromised by the CoT reasoning's inability to capture comprehensive and deeper details, often leading to incomplete outcomes. Existing methods mainly rely on majority voting or criteria expansion, which is insufficient to address the limitation in CoT. We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses, thereby exposing deeper and more comprehensive details within the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed CoT judgment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach enhances evaluation reliability, achieving an average accuracy gain of 6.7% across five benchmarks. Moreover, our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), referred to as crowd rejection sampling, thereby enabling more efficient SFT. Our analysis confirms that CoTs generated by ours are more comprehensive and of higher quality, and evaluation accuracy improves as inference scales.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations. This underscores the need for robust evaluation methodologies to accurately assess LLM-based applications. Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation. Recent research has explored leveraging LLMs to mimic human reasoning and decision-making processes for evaluation purposes known as LLM-as-a-judge framework. However, these existing frameworks have two significant limitations. First, they lack the flexibility to adapt to different text styles, including various answer and ground truth styles, thereby reducing their generalization performance. Second, the evaluation scores produced by these frameworks are often skewed and hard to interpret, showing a low correlation with human judgment. To address these challenges, we propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications. This system iteratively refines evaluation prompts and balances the trade-off between the adaptive requirements of downstream tasks and the alignment with human perception. Our experimental results show that the proposed multi-agent LLM Judge framework not only enhances evaluation accuracy compared to existing methods but also produces evaluation scores that better align with human perception.

Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub criteria drift: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears dependent on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined a priori), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limited to static review generation based on submitted papers, which fail to capture the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world peer reviews. In this paper, we reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources, including the top-tier conference and prestigious journal. This dataset is meticulously designed to facilitate the applications of LLMs for multi-turn dialogues, effectively simulating the complete peer-review process. Furthermore, we propose a series of metrics to evaluate the performance of LLMs for each role under this reformulated peer-review setting, ensuring fair and comprehensive evaluations. We believe this work provides a promising perspective on enhancing the LLM-driven peer-review process by incorporating dynamic, role-based interactions. It aligns closely with the iterative and interactive nature of real-world academic peer review, offering a robust foundation for future research and development in this area. We open-source the dataset at https://github.com/chengtan9907/ReviewMT.

Despite the remarkable coherence of Large Language Models (LLMs), existing evaluation methods often suffer from fluency bias and rely heavily on multiple-choice formats, making it difficult to assess factual accuracy and complex reasoning effectively. LLMs thus frequently generate factually inaccurate responses, especially in complex reasoning tasks, highlighting two prominent challenges: (1) the inadequacy of existing methods to evaluate reasoning and factual accuracy effectively, and (2) the reliance on human evaluators for nuanced judgment, as illustrated by Williams and Huckle (2024)[1], who found manual grading indispensable despite automated grading advancements. To address evaluation gaps in open-ended reasoning tasks, we introduce the EQUATOR Evaluator (Evaluation of Question Answering Thoroughness in Open-ended Reasoning). This framework combines deterministic scoring with a focus on factual accuracy and robust reasoning assessment. Using a vector database, EQUATOR pairs open-ended questions with human-evaluated answers, enabling more precise and scalable evaluations. In practice, EQUATOR significantly reduces reliance on human evaluators for scoring and improves scalability compared to Williams and Huckle's (2004)[1] methods. Our results demonstrate that this framework significantly outperforms traditional multiple-choice evaluations while maintaining high accuracy standards. Additionally, we introduce an automated evaluation process leveraging smaller, locally hosted LLMs. We used LLaMA 3.2B, running on the Ollama binaries to streamline our assessments. This work establishes a new paradigm for evaluating LLM performance, emphasizing factual accuracy and reasoning ability, and provides a robust methodological foundation for future research.

We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.

Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios. Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models, such as GPT-4. However, these methods are largely limited to text-based analyses under predefined general criteria, resulting in reduced adaptability for unseen instructions and demonstrating instability in evaluating adherence to quantitative and structural constraints. To address these limitations, we propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses to evaluate LLM responses. ARJudge consists of two components: a fine-tuned Analyzer that generates multi-faceted evaluation analyses and a tuning-free Refiner that combines and refines all analyses to make the final judgment. We construct a Composite Analysis Corpus that integrates tasks for evaluation criteria generation alongside text-based and code-driven analysis generation to train the Analyzer. Our results demonstrate that ARJudge outperforms existing fine-tuned evaluators in effectiveness and robustness. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of multi-faceted evaluation and code-driven analyses in enhancing evaluation capabilities.

Knowledge-grounded dialogue is a task of generating an informative response based on both the dialogue history and external knowledge source. In general, there are two forms of knowledge: manually annotated knowledge graphs and knowledge text from website. From various evaluation viewpoints, each type of knowledge has advantages and downsides. To further distinguish the principles and determinants from the intricate factors, we conduct a thorough experiment and study on the task to answer three essential questions. The questions involve the choice of appropriate knowledge form, the degree of mutual effects between knowledge and the model selection, and the few-shot performance of knowledge. Supported by statistical shreds of evidence, we offer conclusive solutions and sensible suggestions for directions and standards of future research.

The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) has traditionally relied on static benchmarks, a paradigm that poses two major limitations: (1) predefined test sets lack adaptability to diverse application domains, and (2) standardized evaluation protocols often fail to capture fine-grained assessments of domain-specific knowledge and contextual reasoning abilities. To overcome these challenges, we propose GuessArena, an adaptive evaluation framework grounded in adversarial game-based interactions. Inspired by the interactive structure of the Guess Who I Am? game, our framework seamlessly integrates dynamic domain knowledge modeling with progressive reasoning assessment to improve evaluation fidelity. Empirical studies across five vertical domains-finance, healthcare, manufacturing, information technology, and education-demonstrate that GuessArena effectively distinguishes LLMs in terms of domain knowledge coverage and reasoning chain completeness. Compared to conventional benchmarks, our method provides substantial advantages in interpretability, scalability, and scenario adaptability.

Evaluation and ranking of large language models (LLMs) has become an important problem with the proliferation of these models and their impact. Evaluation methods either require human responses which are expensive to acquire or use pairs of LLMs to evaluate each other which can be unreliable. In this paper, we provide a novel perspective where, given a dataset of prompts (viz. questions, instructions, etc.) and a set of LLMs, we rank them without access to any ground truth or reference responses. Inspired by real life where both an expert and a knowledgeable person can identify a novice our main idea is to consider triplets of models, where each one of them evaluates the other two, correctly identifying the worst model in the triplet with high probability. We also analyze our idea and provide sufficient conditions for it to succeed. Applying this idea repeatedly, we propose two methods to rank LLMs. In experiments on different generative tasks (summarization, multiple-choice, and dialog), our methods reliably recover close to true rankings without reference data. This points to a viable low-resource mechanism for practical use.

The large language model (LLM)-as-judge paradigm has been used to meet the demand for a cheap, reliable, and fast evaluation of model outputs during AI system development and post-deployment monitoring. While judge models -- LLMs finetuned to specialize in assessing and critiquing model outputs -- have been touted as general purpose evaluators, they are typically evaluated only on non-contextual scenarios, such as instruction following. The omission of contextual settings -- those where external information is used as context to generate an output -- is surprising given the increasing prevalence of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and summarization use cases. Contextual assessment is uniquely challenging, as evaluation often depends on practitioner priorities, leading to conditional evaluation criteria (e.g., comparing responses based on factuality and then considering completeness if they are equally factual). To address the gap, we propose ContextualJudgeBench, a judge benchmark with 2,000 challenging response pairs across eight splits inspired by real-world contextual evaluation scenarios. We build our benchmark with a multi-pronged data construction pipeline that leverages both existing human annotations and model-based perturbations. Our comprehensive study across 11 judge models and 9 general purpose models, reveals that the contextual information and its assessment criteria present a significant challenge to even state-of-the-art models. For example, OpenAI's o1, the best-performing model, barely reaches 55% consistent accuracy.

Task-oriented dialogue (TOD) systems are experiencing a revolution driven by Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the evaluation methodologies for these systems remain insufficient for their growing sophistication. While traditional automatic metrics effectively assessed earlier modular systems, they focus solely on the dialogue level and cannot detect critical intermediate errors that can arise during user-agent interactions. In this paper, we introduce TD-EVAL (Turn and Dialogue-level Evaluation), a two-step evaluation framework that unifies fine-grained turn-level analysis with holistic dialogue-level comparisons. At turn level, we evaluate each response along three TOD-specific dimensions: conversation cohesion, backend knowledge consistency, and policy compliance. Meanwhile, we design TOD Agent Arena that uses pairwise comparisons to provide a measure of dialogue-level quality. Through experiments on MultiWOZ 2.4 and {\tau}-Bench, we demonstrate that TD-EVAL effectively identifies the conversational errors that conventional metrics miss. Furthermore, TD-EVAL exhibits better alignment with human judgments than traditional and LLM-based metrics. These findings demonstrate that TD-EVAL introduces a new paradigm for TOD system evaluation, efficiently assessing both turn and system levels with a plug-and-play framework for future research.

Topic model evaluation, like evaluation of other unsupervised methods, can be contentious. However, the field has coalesced around automated estimates of topic coherence, which rely on the frequency of word co-occurrences in a reference corpus. Contemporary neural topic models surpass classical ones according to these metrics. At the same time, topic model evaluation suffers from a validation gap: automated coherence, developed for classical models, has not been validated using human experimentation for neural models. In addition, a meta-analysis of topic modeling literature reveals a substantial standardization gap in automated topic modeling benchmarks. To address the validation gap, we compare automated coherence with the two most widely accepted human judgment tasks: topic rating and word intrusion. To address the standardization gap, we systematically evaluate a dominant classical model and two state-of-the-art neural models on two commonly used datasets. Automated evaluations declare a winning model when corresponding human evaluations do not, calling into question the validity of fully automatic evaluations independent of human judgments.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional results on current benchmarks when working individually. The advancement in their capabilities, along with a reduction in parameter size and inference times, has facilitated the use of these models as agents, enabling interactions among multiple models to execute complex tasks. Such collaborations offer several advantages, including the use of specialized models (e.g. coding), improved confidence through multiple computations, and enhanced divergent thinking, leading to more diverse outputs. Thus, the collaborative use of language models is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. In this work, we evaluate the behavior of a network of models collaborating through debate under the influence of an adversary. We introduce pertinent metrics to assess the adversary's effectiveness, focusing on system accuracy and model agreement. Our findings highlight the importance of a model's persuasive ability in influencing others. Additionally, we explore inference-time methods to generate more compelling arguments and evaluate the potential of prompt-based mitigation as a defensive strategy.

Navigating high-stakes dilemmas involving conflicting values is challenging even for humans, let alone for AI. Yet prior work in evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in such situations has been limited to everyday scenarios. To close this gap, this work first introduces CLASH (Character perspective-based LLM Assessments in Situations with High-stakes), a meticulously curated dataset consisting of 345 high-impact dilemmas along with 3,795 individual perspectives of diverse values. In particular, we design CLASH in a way to support the study of critical aspects of value-based decision-making processes which are missing from prior work, including understanding decision ambivalence and psychological discomfort as well as capturing the temporal shifts of values in characters' perspectives. By benchmarking 10 open and closed frontier models, we uncover several key findings. (1) Even the strongest models, such as GPT-4o and Claude-Sonnet, achieve less than 50% accuracy in identifying situations where the decision should be ambivalent, while they perform significantly better in clear-cut scenarios. (2) While LLMs reasonably predict psychological discomfort as marked by human, they inadequately comprehend perspectives involving value shifts, indicating a need for LLMs to reason over complex values. (3) Our experiments also reveal a significant correlation between LLMs' value preferences and their steerability towards a given value. (4) Finally, LLMs exhibit greater steerability when engaged in value reasoning from a third-party perspective, compared to a first-person setup, though certain value pairs benefit uniquely from the first-person framing.

Evaluating the quality of a dialogue interaction between two agents is a difficult task, especially in open-domain chit-chat style dialogue. There have been recent efforts to develop automatic dialogue evaluation metrics, but most of them do not generalize to unseen datasets and/or need a human-generated reference response during inference, making it infeasible for online evaluation. Here, we propose an unreferenced automated evaluation metric that uses large pre-trained language models to extract latent representations of utterances, and leverages the temporal transitions that exist between them. We show that our model achieves higher correlation with human annotations in an online setting, while not requiring true responses for comparison during inference.

As research in large language models (LLMs) continues to accelerate, LLM-based evaluation has emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations for comparing the ever increasing list of models. This paper investigates the efficacy of these "LLM evaluators", particularly in using them to assess instruction following, a metric that gauges how closely generated text adheres to the given instruction. We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. The authors manually curated 419 pairs of outputs, one adhering to instructions while the other diverging, yet may possess deceptive qualities that mislead an LLM evaluator, e.g., a more engaging tone. Contrary to existing meta-evaluation, we discover that different evaluators (i.e., combinations of LLMs and prompts) exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement. We also present a novel suite of prompting strategies that further close the gap between LLM and human evaluators. With LLMBar, we hope to offer more insight into LLM evaluators and foster future research in developing better instruction-following models.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE, while useful, are increasingly inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges. Through experiments on three open-ended question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that combining multiple LLMs-as-judges significantly improves the reliability and accuracy of evaluations, particularly in complex tasks where a single model might struggle. Our findings reveal a strong correlation with human evaluations, establishing our method as a viable and effective alternative to traditional metrics and human judgments, particularly in the context of LLM-based chat assistants where the complexity and diversity of responses challenge existing benchmarks.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics like public health where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI truthfulness by enabling humans to supervise systems that may exceed human capabilities--yet humans themselves hold different beliefs and biases that impair their judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies: one with human judges holding either mainstream or skeptical beliefs evaluating factuality claims through AI-assisted debate or consultancy protocols, and a second examining the same problem with personalized AI judges designed to mimic these different human belief systems. In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy with a single-advisor system by 10% overall. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (+15.2% accuracy), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight--leveraging both diverse human and AI judgments to move closer to truth in contested domains.

The rapid development of large language model (LLM) evaluation methodologies and datasets has led to a profound challenge: integrating state-of-the-art evaluation techniques cost-effectively while ensuring reliability, reproducibility, and efficiency. Currently, there is a notable absence of a unified and adaptable framework that seamlessly integrates various evaluation approaches. Moreover, the reliability of evaluation findings is often questionable due to potential data contamination, with the evaluation efficiency commonly overlooked when facing the substantial costs associated with LLM inference. In response to these challenges, we introduce FreeEval, a modular and scalable framework crafted to enable trustworthy and efficient automatic evaluations of LLMs. Firstly, FreeEval's unified abstractions simplify the integration and improve the transparency of diverse evaluation methodologies, encompassing dynamic evaluation that demand sophisticated LLM interactions. Secondly, the framework integrates meta-evaluation techniques like human evaluation and data contamination detection, which, along with dynamic evaluation modules in the platform, enhance the fairness of the evaluation outcomes. Lastly, FreeEval is designed with a high-performance infrastructure, including distributed computation and caching strategies, enabling extensive evaluations across multi-node, multi-GPU clusters for open-source and proprietary LLMs.

The rapid advancement of speech-to-speech (S2S) large language models (LLMs) has significantly improved real-time spoken interaction. However, current evaluation frameworks remain inadequate for assessing performance in complex, multi-turn dialogues. To address this, we introduce MTalk-Bench, a multi-turn S2S benchmark covering three core dimensions: Semantic Information, Paralinguistic Information, and Ambient Sound. Each dimension includes nine realistic scenarios, along with targeted tasks to assess specific capabilities such as reasoning. Our dual-method evaluation framework combines Arena-style evaluation (pairwise comparison) and Rubrics-based evaluation (absolute scoring) for relative and absolute assessment. The benchmark includes both model and human outputs, evaluated by human evaluators and LLMs. Experimental results reveal two sets of findings. Overall performance of S2S LLMs: (1) models excel at semantic information processing yet underperform on paralinguistic information and ambient sounds perception; (2) models typically regain coherence by increasing response length, sacrificing efficiency in multi-turn dialogues; (3) modality-aware, task-specific designs outperform brute scaling. Evaluation framework and reliability: (1) Arena and Rubrics yield consistent, complementary rankings, but reliable distinctions emerge only when performance gaps are large; (2) LLM-as-a-judge aligns with humans when gaps are clear or criteria explicit, but exhibits position and length biases and is reliable on nonverbal evaluation only with text annotations. These results highlight current limitations in S2S evaluation and the need for more robust, speech-aware assessment frameworks.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator's limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Reasoning-based Bias Detector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types--verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment--evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD's strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively. These results highlight RBD's effectiveness and scalability. Additional experiments further demonstrate its strong generalization across biases and domains, as well as its efficiency.

The increasing capability of Large Language Models to act as human-like social agents raises two important questions in the area of opinion dynamics. First, whether these agents can generate effective arguments that could be injected into the online discourse to steer the public opinion. Second, whether artificial agents can interact with each other to reproduce dynamics of persuasion typical of human social systems, opening up opportunities for studying synthetic social systems as faithful proxies for opinion dynamics in human populations. To address these questions, we designed a synthetic persuasion dialogue scenario on the topic of climate change, where a 'convincer' agent generates a persuasive argument for a 'skeptic' agent, who subsequently assesses whether the argument changed its internal opinion state. Different types of arguments were generated to incorporate different linguistic dimensions underpinning psycho-linguistic theories of opinion change. We then asked human judges to evaluate the persuasiveness of machine-generated arguments. Arguments that included factual knowledge, markers of trust, expressions of support, and conveyed status were deemed most effective according to both humans and agents, with humans reporting a marked preference for knowledge-based arguments. Our experimental framework lays the groundwork for future in-silico studies of opinion dynamics, and our findings suggest that artificial agents have the potential of playing an important role in collective processes of opinion formation in online social media.

Objectives: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to assist clinicians and support patients, no existing work has explored dialogue systems for standard diagnostic interviews and assessments. This study aims to bridge the gap in mental healthcare accessibility by developing an LLM-powered dialogue system that replicates clinician behavior. Materials and Methods: We introduce TRUST, a framework of cooperative LLM modules capable of conducting formal diagnostic interviews and assessments for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). To guide the generation of appropriate clinical responses, we propose a Dialogue Acts schema specifically designed for clinical interviews. Additionally, we develop a patient simulation approach based on real-life interview transcripts to replace time-consuming and costly manual testing by clinicians. Results: A comprehensive set of evaluation metrics is designed to assess the dialogue system from both the agent and patient simulation perspectives. Expert evaluations by conversation and clinical specialists show that TRUST performs comparably to real-life clinical interviews. Discussion: Our system performs at the level of average clinicians, with room for future enhancements in communication styles and response appropriateness. Conclusions: Our TRUST framework shows its potential to facilitate mental healthcare availability.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in natural language generation but often confidently produce incorrect responses, especially in tasks like mathematical reasoning. Chain-of-thought prompting, self-verification, and multi-agent debate are among the strategies proposed to improve the reasoning and factual accuracy of LLMs. Building on Du et al.'s multi-agent debate framework, we find that multi-agent debate helps at any model scale, and that diversity of thought elicits stronger reasoning in debating LLMs. Across various model sizes, performance on mathematical reasoning tasks benefits most when diverse trained models are used. Remarkably, after 4 rounds of debate, a diverse set of medium-capacity models (Gemini-Pro, Mixtral 7BX8, and PaLM 2-M) outperforms GPT-4 on the GSM-8K benchmark, scoring 91% accuracy. By comparison, when 3 instances of Gemini-Pro are used, performance only reaches 82%. Finally, this diverse set of medium-capacity models sets a new state-of-the-art performance on the ASDiv benchmark (94%). These results underscore the idea that the future of AI is agentic, with diverse cooperating agents yielding emergent capabilities beyond even the most powerful individual models.

We introduce POLLUX, a comprehensive open-source benchmark designed to evaluate the generative capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in Russian. Our main contribution is a novel evaluation methodology that enhances the interpretability of LLM assessment. For each task type, we define a set of detailed criteria and develop a scoring protocol where models evaluate responses and provide justifications for their ratings. This enables transparent, criteria-driven evaluation beyond traditional resource-consuming, side-by-side human comparisons. POLLUX includes a detailed, fine-grained taxonomy of 35 task types covering diverse generative domains such as code generation, creative writing, and practical assistant use cases, totaling 2,100 manually crafted and professionally authored prompts. Each task is categorized by difficulty (easy/medium/hard), with experts constructing the dataset entirely from scratch. We also release a family of LLM-as-a-Judge (7B and 32B) evaluators trained for nuanced assessment of generative outputs. This approach provides scalable, interpretable evaluation and annotation tools for model development, effectively replacing costly and less precise human judgments.

The unprecedented performance of large language models (LLMs) necessitates improvements in evaluations. Rather than merely exploring the breadth of LLM abilities, we believe meticulous and thoughtful designs are essential to thorough, unbiased, and applicable evaluations. Given the importance of world knowledge to LLMs, we construct a Knowledge-oriented LLM Assessment benchmark (KoLA), in which we carefully design three crucial factors: (1) For ability modeling, we mimic human cognition to form a four-level taxonomy of knowledge-related abilities, covering 19 tasks. (2) For data, to ensure fair comparisons, we use both Wikipedia, a corpus prevalently pre-trained by LLMs, along with continuously collected emerging corpora, aiming to evaluate the capacity to handle unseen data and evolving knowledge. (3) For evaluation criteria, we adopt a contrastive system, including overall standard scores for better numerical comparability across tasks and models and a unique self-contrast metric for automatically evaluating knowledge hallucination. We evaluate 21 open-source and commercial LLMs and obtain some intriguing findings. The KoLA dataset and open-participation leaderboard are publicly released at https://kola.xlore.cn and will be continuously updated to provide references for developing LLMs and knowledge-related systems.

Bias in LLMs can harm user experience and societal outcomes. However, current bias mitigation methods often require intensive human feedback, lack transferability to other topics or yield overconfident and random outputs. We find that involving LLMs in role-playing scenario boosts their ability to recognize and mitigate biases. Based on this, we propose Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback (RLDF), a novel approach for bias mitigation replacing human feedback in traditional RLHF. We utilize LLMs in multi-role debates to create a dataset that includes both high-bias and low-bias instances for training the reward model in reinforcement learning. Our approach comprises two modes: (1) self-reflection, where the same LLM participates in multi-role debates, and (2) teacher-student, where a more advanced LLM like GPT-3.5-turbo guides the LLM to perform this task. Experimental results across different LLMs on BBQ and our datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in bias mitigation. Our source code and datasets are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/RLDF-E344.

High-quality arguments are an essential part of decision-making. Automatically predicting the quality of an argument is a complex task that recently got much attention in argument mining. However, the annotation effort for this task is exceptionally high. Therefore, we test uncertainty-based active learning (AL) methods on two popular argument-strength data sets to estimate whether sample-efficient learning can be enabled. Our extensive empirical evaluation shows that uncertainty-based acquisition functions can not surpass the accuracy reached with the random acquisition on these data sets.

Evaluating the quality and variability of text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) poses a significant, yet unresolved research challenge. Traditional evaluation methods, such as ROUGE and BERTScore, which measure token similarity, often fail to capture the holistic semantic equivalence. This results in a low correlation with human judgments and intuition, which is especially problematic in high-stakes applications like healthcare and finance where reliability, safety, and robust decision-making are highly critical. This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of LLM-generated texts using a divide-conquer-reasoning approach. Unlike existing LLM-based evaluators that operate at the paragraph level, our method employs a divide-and-conquer evaluator (DCE) that breaks down the paragraph-to-paragraph comparison between two generated responses into individual sentence-to-paragraph comparisons, each evaluated based on predefined criteria. To facilitate this approach, we introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Beyond the consistency evaluation, we further present a reason-assisted improver (RAI) that leverages the analytical reasons with explanations identified by DCE to generate new responses aimed at reducing these inconsistencies. Through comprehensive and systematic empirical analysis, we show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin (e.g., +19.3% and +24.3% on the SummEval dataset) in evaluating the consistency of LLM generation across multiple benchmarks in semantic, factual, and summarization consistency tasks. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.

In this position paper, we argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking that draws upon insights from disciplines such as user experience research and human behavioral psychology to ensure that the experimental design and results are reliable. The conclusions from these evaluations, thus, must consider factors such as usability, aesthetics, and cognitive biases. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. Furthermore, the evaluation should differentiate the capabilities and weaknesses of increasingly powerful large language models -- which requires effective test sets. The scalability of human evaluation is also crucial to wider adoption. Hence, to design an effective human evaluation system in the age of generative NLP, we propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.

In line with the principle of honesty, there has been a growing effort to train large language models (LLMs) to generate outputs containing epistemic markers. However, evaluation in the presence of epistemic markers has been largely overlooked, raising a critical question: Could the use of epistemic markers in LLM-generated outputs lead to unintended negative consequences? To address this, we present EMBER, a benchmark designed to assess the robustness of LLM-judges to epistemic markers in both single and pairwise evaluation settings. Our findings, based on evaluations using EMBER, reveal that all tested LLM-judges, including GPT-4o, show a notable lack of robustness in the presence of epistemic markers. Specifically, we observe a negative bias toward epistemic markers, with a stronger bias against markers expressing uncertainty. This suggests that LLM-judges are influenced by the presence of these markers and do not focus solely on the correctness of the content.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can struggle to balance gullibility to misinformation and resistance to valid corrections in persuasive dialogues, a critical challenge for reliable deployment. We introduce DuET-PD (Dual Evaluation for Trust in Persuasive Dialogues), a framework evaluating multi-turn stance-change dynamics across dual dimensions: persuasion type (corrective/misleading) and domain (knowledge via MMLU-Pro, and safety via SALAD-Bench). We find that even a state-of-the-art model like GPT-4o achieves only 27.32% accuracy in MMLU-Pro under sustained misleading persuasions. Moreover, results reveal a concerning trend of increasing sycophancy in newer open-source models. To address this, we introduce Holistic DPO, a training approach balancing positive and negative persuasion examples. Unlike prompting or resist-only training, Holistic DPO enhances both robustness to misinformation and receptiveness to corrections, improving Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct's accuracy under misleading persuasion in safety contexts from 4.21% to 76.54%. These contributions offer a pathway to developing more reliable and adaptable LLMs for multi-turn dialogue. Code is available at https://github.com/Social-AI-Studio/DuET-PD.

Perceiving and generating diverse modalities are crucial for AI models to effectively learn from and engage with real-world signals, necessitating reliable evaluations for their development. We identify two major issues in current evaluations: (1) inconsistent standards, shaped by different communities with varying protocols and maturity levels; and (2) significant query, grading, and generalization biases. To address these, we introduce MixEval-X, the first any-to-any real-world benchmark designed to optimize and standardize evaluations across input and output modalities. We propose multi-modal benchmark mixture and adaptation-rectification pipelines to reconstruct real-world task distributions, ensuring evaluations generalize effectively to real-world use cases. Extensive meta-evaluations show our approach effectively aligns benchmark samples with real-world task distributions and the model rankings correlate strongly with that of crowd-sourced real-world evaluations (up to 0.98). We provide comprehensive leaderboards to rerank existing models and organizations and offer insights to enhance understanding of multi-modal evaluations and inform future research.

Auto-evaluation is crucial for assessing response quality and offering feedback for model development. Recent studies have explored training large language models (LLMs) as generative judges to evaluate and critique other models' outputs. In this work, we investigate the idea of learning from both positive and negative data with preference optimization to enhance the evaluation capabilities of LLM judges across an array of different use cases. We achieve this by employing three approaches to collect the preference pairs for different use cases, each aimed at improving our generative judge from a different perspective. Our comprehensive study over a wide range of benchmarks demonstrates the effectiveness of our method. In particular, our generative judge achieves the best performance on 10 out of 13 benchmarks, outperforming strong baselines like GPT-4o and specialized judge models. Further analysis show that our judge model robustly counters inherent biases such as position and length bias, flexibly adapts to any evaluation protocol specified by practitioners, and provides helpful language feedback for improving downstream generator models.

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs as a reference-free metric for open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho and MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose the (1) peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments, respectively. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.

Social deduction games like Werewolf combine language, reasoning, and strategy, providing a testbed for studying natural language and social intelligence. However, most studies reduce the game to LLM-based self-play, yielding templated utterances and anecdotal cases that overlook the richness of social gameplay. Evaluation further relies on coarse metrics such as survival time or subjective scoring due to the lack of quality reference data. To address these gaps, we curate a high-quality, human-verified multimodal Werewolf dataset containing over 100 hours of video, 32.4M utterance tokens, and 15 rule variants. Based on this dataset, we propose a novel strategy-alignment evaluation that leverages the winning faction's strategies as ground truth in two stages: 1) Speech evaluation, formulated as multiple-choice-style tasks that assess whether the model can adopt appropriate stances across five dimensions of social ability; and 2) Decision evaluation, which assesses the model's voting choices and opponent-role inferences. This framework enables a fine-grained evaluation of models' linguistic and reasoning capabilities, while capturing their ability to generate strategically coherent gameplay. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs show diverse performance, with roughly half remain below 0.50, revealing clear gaps in deception and counterfactual reasoning. We hope our dataset further inspires research on language, reasoning, and strategy in multi-agent interaction.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become deeply integrated into human life and increasingly influence decision-making, it's crucial to evaluate whether and to what extent they exhibit subjective preferences, opinions, and beliefs. These tendencies may stem from biases within the models, which may shape their behavior, influence the advice and recommendations they offer to users, and potentially reinforce certain viewpoints. This paper presents the Preference, Opinion, and Belief survey (POBs), a benchmark developed to assess LLMs' subjective inclinations across societal, cultural, ethical, and personal domains. We applied our benchmark to evaluate leading open- and closed-source LLMs, measuring desired properties such as reliability, neutrality, and consistency. In addition, we investigated the effect of increasing the test-time compute, through reasoning and self-reflection mechanisms, on those metrics. While effective in other tasks, our results show that these mechanisms offer only limited gains in our domain. Furthermore, we reveal that newer model versions are becoming less consistent and more biased toward specific viewpoints, highlighting a blind spot and a concerning trend. POBS: https://ibm.github.io/POBS

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

How do large language models understand moral dimensions compared to humans? This first large-scale Bayesian evaluation of market-leading language models provides the answer. In contrast to prior work using deterministic ground truth (majority or inclusion rules), we model annotator disagreements to capture both aleatoric uncertainty (inherent human disagreement) and epistemic uncertainty (model domain sensitivity). We evaluate top language models (Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek-V3, Llama 4 Maverick) across 250K+ annotations from ~700 annotators on 100K+ texts spanning social media, news, and forums. Our GPU-optimized Bayesian framework processed 1M+ model queries, revealing that AI models typically rank among the top 25\% of human annotators, achieving much better-than-average balanced accuracy. Importantly, we find that AI produces far fewer false negatives than humans, highlighting their more sensitive moral detection capabilities.

Large-scale Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized human-AI interaction and achieved significant success in the generation of novel ideas. However, current assessments of idea generation overlook crucial factors such as knowledge leakage in LLMs, the absence of open-ended benchmarks with grounded truth, and the limited scope of feasibility analysis constrained by prompt design. These limitations hinder the potential of uncovering groundbreaking research ideas. In this paper, we present AI Idea Bench 2025, a framework designed to quantitatively evaluate and compare the ideas generated by LLMs within the domain of AI research from diverse perspectives. The framework comprises a comprehensive dataset of 3,495 AI papers and their associated inspired works, along with a robust evaluation methodology. This evaluation system gauges idea quality in two dimensions: alignment with the ground-truth content of the original papers and judgment based on general reference material. AI Idea Bench 2025's benchmarking system stands to be an invaluable resource for assessing and comparing idea-generation techniques, thereby facilitating the automation of scientific discovery.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance in various evaluation benchmarks. However, concerns are raised about potential data contamination in their considerable volume of training corpus. Moreover, the static nature and fixed complexity of current benchmarks may inadequately gauge the advancing capabilities of LLMs. In this paper, we introduce DyVal, a general and flexible protocol for dynamic evaluation of LLMs. Based on our framework, we build graph-informed DyVal by leveraging the structural advantage of directed acyclic graphs to dynamically generate evaluation samples with controllable complexities. DyVal generates challenging evaluation sets on reasoning tasks including mathematics, logical reasoning, and algorithm problems. We evaluate various LLMs ranging from Flan-T5-large to GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4. Experiments show that LLMs perform worse in DyVal-generated evaluation samples with different complexities, highlighting the significance of dynamic evaluation. We also analyze the failure cases and results of different prompting methods. Moreover, DyVal-generated samples are not only evaluation sets, but also helpful data for fine-tuning to improve the performance of LLMs on existing benchmarks. We hope that DyVal can shed light on future evaluation research of LLMs. Code is available at: https://github.com/microsoft/promptbench.

Comprehensive, unbiased, and comparable evaluation of modern generalist policies is uniquely challenging: existing approaches for robot benchmarking typically rely on heavy standardization, either by specifying fixed evaluation tasks and environments, or by hosting centralized ''robot challenges'', and do not readily scale to evaluating generalist policies across a broad range of tasks and environments. In this work, we propose RoboArena, a new approach for scalable evaluation of generalist robot policies in the real world. Instead of standardizing evaluations around fixed tasks, environments, or locations, we propose to crowd-source evaluations across a distributed network of evaluators. Importantly, evaluators can freely choose the tasks and environments they evaluate on, enabling easy scaling of diversity, but they are required to perform double-blind evaluations over pairs of policies. Then, by aggregating preference feedback from pairwise comparisons across diverse tasks and environments, we can derive a ranking of policies. We instantiate our approach across a network of evaluators at seven academic institutions using the DROID robot platform. Through more than 600 pairwise real-robot evaluation episodes across seven generalist policies, we demonstrate that our crowd-sourced approach can more accurately rank the performance of existing generalist policies than conventional, centralized evaluation approaches, while being more scalable, resilient, and trustworthy. We open our evaluation network to the community and hope that it can enable more accessible comparisons of generalist robot policies.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust and challenging benchmarks. Leaderboards like Chatbot Arena rank LLMs based on how well their responses align with human preferences. However, many tasks such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, or persuasiveness, are highly subjective and often lack majoritarian human agreement. Judges may have irreconcilable disagreements about what constitutes a better response. To address the challenge of ranking LLMs on highly subjective tasks, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, the Language Model Council (LMC). The LMC operates through a democratic process to: 1) formulate a test set through equal participation, 2) administer the test among council members, and 3) evaluate responses as a collective jury. We deploy a council of 20 newest LLMs on an open-ended emotional intelligence task: responding to interpersonal dilemmas. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable, robust, and less biased than those from any individual LLM judge, and is more consistent with a human-established leaderboard compared to other benchmarks.

Limited large-scale evaluations exist for facilitation strategies of online discussions due to significant costs associated with human involvement. An effective solution is synthetic discussion simulations using Large Language Models (LLMs) to create initial pilot experiments. We propose a simple, generalizable, LLM-driven methodology to prototype the development of LLM facilitators, and produce high-quality synthetic data without human involvement. We use our methodology to test whether current facilitation strategies can improve the performance of LLM facilitators. We find that, while LLM facilitators significantly improve synthetic discussions, there is no evidence that the application of more elaborate facilitation strategies proposed in modern Social Science research lead to further improvements in discussion quality, compared to more basic approaches. Additionally, we find that small LLMs (such as Mistral Nemo 12B) can perform comparably to larger models (such as LLaMa 70B), and that special instructions must be used for instruction-tuned models to induce toxicity in synthetic discussions. We confirm that each component of our methodology contributes substantially to high quality data via an ablation study. We release an open-source framework, "SynDisco" (pip install syndisco), which implements our methodology. We also release the "Virtual Moderation Dataset" (https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/vmd), a large, publicly available dataset containing LLM-generated and LLM-annotated discussions using multiple open-source LLMs.

This paper evaluates questions generated by LLMs from context, comparing them to human-generated questions across six dimensions. We introduce an automated LLM-based evaluation method, focusing on aspects like question length, type, context coverage, and answerability. Our findings highlight unique characteristics of LLM-generated questions, contributing insights that can support further research in question quality and downstream applications.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly influenced the quality of information in decision-making systems, leading to the prevalence of AI-generated content and challenges in detecting misinformation and managing conflicting information, or "inter-evidence conflicts." This study introduces a method for generating diverse, validated evidence conflicts to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios. We evaluate conflict detection methods, including Natural Language Inference (NLI) models, factual consistency (FC) models, and LLMs, on these conflicts (RQ1) and analyze LLMs' conflict resolution behaviors (RQ2). Our key findings include: (1) NLI and LLM models exhibit high precision in detecting answer conflicts, though weaker models suffer from low recall; (2) FC models struggle with lexically similar answer conflicts, while NLI and LLM models handle these better; and (3) stronger models like GPT-4 show robust performance, especially with nuanced conflicts. For conflict resolution, LLMs often favor one piece of conflicting evidence without justification and rely on internal knowledge if they have prior beliefs.

This paper takes a first step towards a critical thinking curriculum for neural auto-regressive language models. We introduce a synthetic corpus of deductively valid arguments, and generate artificial argumentative texts to train and evaluate GPT-2. Significant transfer learning effects can be observed: Training a model on three simple core schemes allows it to accurately complete conclusions of different, and more complex types of arguments, too. The language models generalize the core argument schemes in a correct way. Moreover, we obtain consistent and promising results for NLU benchmarks. In particular, pre-training on the argument schemes raises zero-shot accuracy on the GLUE diagnostics by up to 15 percentage points. The findings suggest that intermediary pre-training on texts that exemplify basic reasoning abilities (such as typically covered in critical thinking textbooks) might help language models to acquire a broad range of reasoning skills. The synthetic argumentative texts presented in this paper are a promising starting point for building such a "critical thinking curriculum for language models."

This paper presents a case study on the design, administration, post-processing, and evaluation of surveys on large language models (LLMs). It comprises two components: (1) A statistical method for eliciting beliefs encoded in LLMs. We introduce statistical measures and evaluation metrics that quantify the probability of an LLM "making a choice", the associated uncertainty, and the consistency of that choice. (2) We apply this method to study what moral beliefs are encoded in different LLMs, especially in ambiguous cases where the right choice is not obvious. We design a large-scale survey comprising 680 high-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I tell a white lie?") and 687 low-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I stop for a pedestrian on the road?"). Each scenario includes a description, two possible actions, and auxiliary labels indicating violated rules (e.g., "do not kill"). We administer the survey to 28 open- and closed-source LLMs. We find that (a) in unambiguous scenarios, most models "choose" actions that align with commonsense. In ambiguous cases, most models express uncertainty. (b) Some models are uncertain about choosing the commonsense action because their responses are sensitive to the question-wording. (c) Some models reflect clear preferences in ambiguous scenarios. Specifically, closed-source models tend to agree with each other.

Linear programming (LP) problems are pervasive in real-life applications. However, despite their apparent simplicity, an untrained user may find it difficult to determine the linear model of their specific problem. We envisage the creation of a goal-oriented conversational agent that will engage in conversation with the user to elicit all information required so that a subsequent agent can generate the linear model. In this paper, we present an approach for the generation of sample dialogues that can be used to develop and train such a conversational agent. Using prompt engineering, we develop two agents that "talk" to each other, one acting as the conversational agent, and the other acting as the user. Using a set of text descriptions of linear problems from NL4Opt available to the user only, the agent and the user engage in conversation until the agent has retrieved all key information from the original problem description. We also propose an extrinsic evaluation of the dialogues by assessing how well the summaries generated by the dialogues match the original problem descriptions. We conduct human and automatic evaluations, including an evaluation approach that uses GPT-4 to mimic the human evaluation metrics. The evaluation results show an overall good quality of the dialogues, though research is still needed to improve the quality of the GPT-4 evaluation metrics. The resulting dialogues, including the human annotations of a subset, are available to the research community. The conversational agent used for the generation of the dialogues can be used as a baseline.

Grounded text generation systems often generate text that contains factual inconsistencies, hindering their real-world applicability. Automatic factual consistency evaluation may help alleviate this limitation by accelerating evaluation cycles, filtering inconsistent outputs and augmenting training data. While attracting increasing attention, such evaluation metrics are usually developed and evaluated in silo for a single task or dataset, slowing their adoption. Moreover, previous meta-evaluation protocols focused on system-level correlations with human annotations, which leave the example-level accuracy of such metrics unclear. In this work, we introduce TRUE: a comprehensive survey and assessment of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks, manually annotated for factual consistency. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations, yielding clearer quality measures. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results. We recommend those methods as a starting point for model and metric developers, and hope TRUE will foster progress towards even better evaluation methods.

With ChatGPT-like large language models (LLM) prevailing in the community, how to evaluate the ability of LLMs is an open question. Existing evaluation methods suffer from following shortcomings: (1) constrained evaluation abilities, (2) vulnerable benchmarks, (3) unobjective metrics. We suggest that task-based evaluation, where LLM agents complete tasks in a simulated environment, is a one-for-all solution to solve above problems. We present AgentSims, an easy-to-use infrastructure for researchers from all disciplines to test the specific capacities they are interested in. Researchers can build their evaluation tasks by adding agents and buildings on an interactive GUI or deploy and test new support mechanisms, i.e. memory, planning and tool-use systems, by a few lines of codes. Our demo is available at https://agentsims.com .

AI-generated counterspeech offers a promising and scalable strategy to curb online toxicity through direct replies that promote civil discourse. However, current counterspeech is one-size-fits-all, lacking adaptation to the moderation context and the users involved. We propose and evaluate multiple strategies for generating tailored counterspeech that is adapted to the moderation context and personalized for the moderated user. We instruct an LLaMA2-13B model to generate counterspeech, experimenting with various configurations based on different contextual information and fine-tuning strategies. We identify the configurations that generate persuasive counterspeech through a combination of quantitative indicators and human evaluations collected via a pre-registered mixed-design crowdsourcing experiment. Results show that contextualized counterspeech can significantly outperform state-of-the-art generic counterspeech in adequacy and persuasiveness, without compromising other characteristics. Our findings also reveal a poor correlation between quantitative indicators and human evaluations, suggesting that these methods assess different aspects and highlighting the need for nuanced evaluation methodologies. The effectiveness of contextualized AI-generated counterspeech and the divergence between human and algorithmic evaluations underscore the importance of increased human-AI collaboration in content moderation.

Disagreements are common in online discussions. Disagreement may foster collaboration and improve the quality of a discussion under some conditions. Although there exist methods for recognizing disagreement, a deeper understanding of factors that influence disagreement is lacking in the literature. We investigate a hypothesis that differences in personal values are indicative of disagreement in online discussions. We show how state-of-the-art models can be used for estimating values in online discussions and how the estimated values can be aggregated into value profiles. We evaluate the estimated value profiles based on human-annotated agreement labels. We find that the dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases. We also find that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance.

In recent years, instruction fine-tuning (IFT) on large language models (LLMs) has garnered considerable attention to enhance model performance on unseen tasks. Attempts have been made on automatic construction and effective selection for IFT data. However, we posit that previous methods have not fully harnessed the potential of LLMs for enhancing data quality. The responses within IFT data could be further enhanced by leveraging the capabilities of LLMs themselves. In this paper, we propose CoEvol, an LLM-based multi-agent cooperation framework for the improvement of responses to instructions. To effectively refine the responses, we develop an iterative framework following a debate-advise-edit-judge paradigm. A two-stage multi-agent debate strategy is further devised to ensure the diversity and reliability of editing suggestions within the framework. Empirically, models equipped with CoEvol outperform competitive baselines evaluated by MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing instruction-following capabilities for LLMs.

We introduce GODEL (Grounded Open Dialogue Language Model), a large pre-trained language model for dialog. In contrast with earlier models such as DialoGPT, GODEL leverages a new phase of grounded pre-training designed to better support adapting GODEL to a wide range of downstream dialog tasks that require information external to the current conversation (e.g., a database or document) to produce good responses. Experiments against an array of benchmarks that encompass task-oriented dialog, conversational QA, and grounded open-domain dialog show that GODEL outperforms state-of-the-art pre-trained dialog models in few-shot fine-tuning setups, in terms of both human and automatic evaluation. A novel feature of our evaluation methodology is the introduction of a notion of utility that assesses the usefulness of responses (extrinsic evaluation) in addition to their communicative features (intrinsic evaluation). We show that extrinsic evaluation offers improved inter-annotator agreement and correlation with automated metrics. Code and data processing scripts are publicly available.

Automatically generated questions often suffer from problems such as unclear expression or factual inaccuracies, requiring a reliable and comprehensive evaluation of their quality. Human evaluation is frequently used in the field of question generation (QG) and is one of the most accurate evaluation methods. It also serves as the standard for automatic metrics. However, there is a lack of unified evaluation criteria, which hampers the development of both QG technologies and automatic evaluation methods. To address this, we propose QGEval, a multi-dimensional Evaluation benchmark for Question Generation, which evaluates both generated questions and existing automatic metrics across 7 dimensions: fluency, clarity, conciseness, relevance, consistency, answerability, and answer consistency. We demonstrate the appropriateness of these dimensions by examining their correlations and distinctions. Analysis with QGEval reveals that 1) most QG models perform unsatisfactorily in terms of answerability and answer consistency, and 2) existing metrics fail to align well with human assessments when evaluating generated questions across the 7 dimensions. We expect this work to foster the development of both QG technologies and automatic metrics for QG.

As LLM-as-a-Judge emerges as a new paradigm for assessing large language models (LLMs), concerns have been raised regarding the alignment, bias, and stability of LLM evaluators. While substantial work has focused on alignment and bias, little research has concentrated on the stability of LLM evaluators. In this paper, we conduct extensive experiments involving 9 widely used LLM evaluators across 2 different evaluation settings to investigate the uncertainty in model-based LLM evaluations. We pinpoint that LLM evaluators exhibit varying uncertainty based on model families and sizes. With careful comparative analyses, we find that employing special prompting strategies, whether during inference or post-training, can alleviate evaluation uncertainty to some extent. By utilizing uncertainty to enhance LLM's reliability and detection capability in Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) data, we further fine-tune an uncertainty-aware LLM evaluator named ConfiLM using a human-annotated fine-tuning set and assess ConfiLM's OOD evaluation ability on a manually designed test set sourced from the 2024 Olympics. Experimental results demonstrate that incorporating uncertainty as additional information during the fine-tuning phase can largely improve the model's evaluation performance in OOD scenarios. The code and data are released at: https://github.com/hasakiXie123/LLM-Evaluator-Uncertainty.

Reliable evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is impeded by two key challenges: objective metrics often fail to reflect human perception of natural language, and exhaustive human labeling is prohibitively expensive. Here, we propose a sample-efficient human evaluation method for LLMs based on the principle of MAximum Discrepancy (MAD) Competition. Our method automatically and adaptively selects a compact set of input instructions that maximize semantic discrepancy between pairs of LLM responses. Human evaluators then perform three-alternative forced choices on these paired responses, which are aggregated into a global ranking using Elo rating. We apply our approach to compare eight widely used LLMs across four tasks: scientific knowledge understanding, mathematical reasoning, creative and functional writing, and code generation and explanation. Experimental results show that our sample-efficient evaluation method recovers "gold-standard" model rankings with a handful of MAD-selected instructions, reveals respective strengths and weaknesses of each LLM, and offers nuanced insights to guide future LLM development. Code is available at https://github.com/weiji-Feng/MAD-Eval .

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies. However, existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics, which fail to automatically evaluate the justification production and uncover the nuanced limitations of LLMs in fact-checking. In this work, we introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities. Leveraging importance sampling principles and multi-agent collaboration, FACT-AUDIT generates adaptive and scalable datasets, performs iterative model-centric evaluations, and updates assessments based on model-specific responses. By incorporating justification production alongside verdict prediction, this framework provides a comprehensive and evolving audit of LLMs' factual reasoning capabilities, to investigate their trustworthiness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FACT-AUDIT effectively differentiates among state-of-the-art LLMs, providing valuable insights into model strengths and limitations in model-centric fact-checking analysis.

Critical thinking is essential for rational decision-making and problem-solving. This skill hinges on the ability to provide precise and reasoned critiques and is a hallmark of human intelligence. In the era of large language models (LLMs), this study explores the ability of LLMs to deliver accurate critiques across various tasks. We are interested in this topic as a capable critic model could not only serve as a reliable evaluator, but also as a source of supervised signals for model tuning. Particularly, if a model can self-critique, it has the potential for autonomous self-improvement. To examine this, we introduce a unified evaluation framework for assessing the critique abilities of LLMs. We develop a benchmark called CriticBench, which comprises 3K high-quality natural language queries and corresponding model responses; and annotate the correctness of these responses. The benchmark cover tasks such as math problem-solving, code completion, and question answering. We evaluate multiple LLMs on the collected dataset and our analysis reveals several noteworthy insights: (1) Critique is generally challenging for most LLMs, and this capability often emerges only when models are sufficiently large. (2) In particular, self-critique is especially difficult. Even top-performing LLMs struggle to achieve satisfactory performance. (3) Models tend to have lower critique accuracy on problems where they are most uncertain. To this end, we introduce a simple yet effective baseline named self-check, which leverages self-critique to improve task performance for various models. We hope this study serves as an initial exploration into understanding the critique abilities of LLMs, and aims to inform future research, including the development of more proficient critic models and the application of critiques across diverse tasks.

Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. Recent work has focused on using LLMs to improve review efficiency or generate insightful review content. However, unchecked deficient reviews from both human experts and AI systems threaten to systematically undermine the peer review ecosystem and compromise academic integrity. To address this critical issue, we introduce ReviewGuard, an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews. ReviewGuard employs a comprehensive four-stage LLM-driven framework that: (1) collects ICLR and NeurIPS papers with their corresponding reviews from OpenReview; (2) annotates review types using GPT-4.1 with human validation; (3) addresses class imbalance and data scarcity through LLM-driven synthetic data augmentation, producing a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews; and (4) fine-tunes both encoder-based models and open source LLMs. We perform comprehensive feature analysis of the structure and quality of the review text. Compared to sufficient reviews, deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment. AI-generated text detection reveals that, since ChatGPT's emergence, AI-generated reviews have increased dramatically. In the evaluation of deficient review detection models, mixed training with synthetic and real review data provides substantial enhancements to recall and F1 scores on the binary task. This study presents the first LLM-driven system for detecting deficient peer reviews, providing evidence to inform AI governance in peer review while offering valuable insights into human-AI collaboration to maintain academic integrity.

Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know what opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), which source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines.

Retrieval models are often evaluated on partially-annotated datasets. Each query is mapped to a few relevant texts and the remaining corpus is assumed to be irrelevant. As a result, models that successfully retrieve false negatives are punished in evaluation. Unfortunately, completely annotating all texts for every query is not resource efficient. In this work, we show that using partially-annotated datasets in evaluation can paint a distorted picture. We curate D-MERIT, a passage retrieval evaluation set from Wikipedia, aspiring to contain all relevant passages for each query. Queries describe a group (e.g., ``journals about linguistics'') and relevant passages are evidence that entities belong to the group (e.g., a passage indicating that Language is a journal about linguistics). We show that evaluating on a dataset containing annotations for only a subset of the relevant passages might result in misleading ranking of the retrieval systems and that as more relevant texts are included in the evaluation set, the rankings converge. We propose our dataset as a resource for evaluation and our study as a recommendation for balance between resource-efficiency and reliable evaluation when annotating evaluation sets for text retrieval.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to evaluate text outputs of other LLMs, thereby influencing leaderboards and development decisions. However, concerns persist over the accuracy of these assessments and the potential for misleading conclusions. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of LLMs as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities in other LLMs: factual accuracy, instruction following, coherence in long-form writing, and reasoning proficiency. By introducing targeted perturbations in answers generated by LLMs, that clearly impact one of these key capabilities, we test whether an Evaluator LLM can detect these quality drops. By creating a total of 2400 perturbed answers covering 22 perturbation categories, we conduct a comprehensive study using different evaluation strategies on five prominent LLMs commonly used as evaluators in the literature. Our findings reveal significant shortcomings in current Evaluator LLMs, which failed to identify quality drops in over 50\% of cases on average. Single-answer and pairwise evaluations demonstrated notable limitations, whereas reference-based evaluations showed comparatively better performance. These results underscore the unreliable nature of current Evaluator LLMs and advocate for cautious implementation in practical applications. Code and data are available at https://github.com/AI4Bharat/FBI.

By simply composing prompts, developers can prototype novel generative applications with Large Language Models (LLMs). To refine prototypes into products, however, developers must iteratively revise prompts by evaluating outputs to diagnose weaknesses. Formative interviews (N=8) revealed that developers invest significant effort in manually evaluating outputs as they assess context-specific and subjective criteria. We present EvalLM, an interactive system for iteratively refining prompts by evaluating multiple outputs on user-defined criteria. By describing criteria in natural language, users can employ the system's LLM-based evaluator to get an overview of where prompts excel or fail, and improve these based on the evaluator's feedback. A comparative study (N=12) showed that EvalLM, when compared to manual evaluation, helped participants compose more diverse criteria, examine twice as many outputs, and reach satisfactory prompts with 59% fewer revisions. Beyond prompts, our work can be extended to augment model evaluation and alignment in specific application contexts.

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), the Elo rating system, originally designed for ranking players in dynamic games such as chess, is increasingly being used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) through "A vs B" paired comparisons. However, while popular, the system's suitability for assessing entities with constant skill levels, such as LLMs, remains relatively unexplored. We study two fundamental axioms that evaluation methods should adhere to: reliability and transitivity. We conduct extensive evaluation of Elo behaviour, illustrating that individual Elo computations exhibit volatility and delving into the impact of varying the Elo rating system's hyperparameters. We show that these axioms are not always satisfied raising questions about the reliability of current comparative evaluations of LLMs. If the current use of Elo scores is intended to substitute the costly head-to-head comparison of LLMs, it is crucial to ensure the ranking is as robust as possible. Guided by the axioms, our findings offer concrete guidelines for enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluation methods, suggesting a need for reassessment of existing comparative approaches.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, raising important questions about their biases in LLM-as-a-judge settings. We present a comprehensive benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets. Through investigation of bandwagon, authority, position, and distraction biases, we uncover four key findings: (1) despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, LRMs remain susceptible to the above biases; (2) LRMs demonstrate better robustness than LLMs specifically on fact-related datasets; (3) LRMs exhibit notable position bias, preferring options in later positions; and (4) we identify a novel "superficial reflection bias" where phrases mimicking reasoning (e.g., "wait, let me think...") significantly influence model judgments. To address these biases, we design and evaluate three mitigation strategies: specialized system prompts that reduce judging biases by up to 19\% in preference alignment datasets and 14\% in fact-related datasets, in-context learning that provides up to 27\% improvement on preference tasks but shows inconsistent results on factual tasks, and a self-reflection mechanism that reduces biases by up to 10\% in preference datasets and 16\% in fact-related datasets, with self-reflection proving particularly effective for LRMs. Our work provides crucial insights for developing more reliable LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, especially as LRMs become increasingly deployed as automated judges.

The surge in scientific submissions has placed increasing strain on the traditional peer-review process, prompting the exploration of large language models (LLMs) for automated review generation. While LLMs demonstrate competence in producing structured and coherent feedback, their capacity for critical reasoning, contextual grounding, and quality sensitivity remains limited. To systematically evaluate these aspects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates semantic similarity analysis and structured knowledge graph metrics to assess LLM-generated reviews against human-written counterparts. We construct a large-scale benchmark of 1,683 papers and 6,495 expert reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS in multiple years, and generate reviews using five LLMs. Our findings show that LLMs perform well in descriptive and affirmational content, capturing the main contributions and methodologies of the original work, with GPT-4o highlighted as an illustrative example, generating 15.74% more entities than human reviewers in the strengths section of good papers in ICLR 2025. However, they consistently underperform in identifying weaknesses, raising substantive questions, and adjusting feedback based on paper quality. GPT-4o produces 59.42% fewer entities than real reviewers in the weaknesses and increases node count by only 5.7% from good to weak papers, compared to 50% in human reviews. Similar trends are observed across all conferences, years, and models, providing empirical foundations for understanding the merits and defects of LLM-generated reviews and informing the development of future LLM-assisted reviewing tools. Data, code, and more detailed results are publicly available at https://github.com/RichardLRC/Peer-Review.

To keep pace with the increasing pace of large language models (LLM) development, model output evaluation has transitioned away from time-consuming human evaluation to automatic evaluation, where LLMs themselves are tasked with assessing and critiquing other model outputs. LLM-as-judge models are a class of generative evaluators that excel in evaluating relatively simple domains, like chat quality, but struggle in reasoning intensive domains where model responses contain more substantive and challenging content. To remedy existing judge shortcomings, we explore training judges with reinforcement learning (RL). We make three key contributions: (1) We propose the Equivalent Initial State Group Relative Policy Optimization (EIS-GRPO) algorithm, which allows us to train our judge to be robust to positional biases that arise in more complex evaluation settings. (2) We introduce ReasoningJudgeBench, a benchmark that evaluates judges in diverse reasoning settings not covered by prior work. (3) We train Judge for Reasoning (J4R), a 7B judge trained with EIS-GRPO that outperforms GPT-4o and the next best small judge by 6.7% and 9%, matching or exceeding the performance of larger GRPO-trained judges on both JudgeBench and ReasoningJudgeBench.

The emergence of pre-trained AI systems with powerful capabilities across a diverse and ever-increasing set of complex domains has raised a critical challenge for AI safety as tasks can become too complicated for humans to judge directly. Irving et al. [2018] proposed a debate method in this direction with the goal of pitting the power of such AI models against each other until the problem of identifying (mis)-alignment is broken down into a manageable subtask. While the promise of this approach is clear, the original framework was based on the assumption that the honest strategy is able to simulate deterministic AI systems for an exponential number of steps, limiting its applicability. In this paper, we show how to address these challenges by designing a new set of debate protocols where the honest strategy can always succeed using a simulation of a polynomial number of steps, whilst being able to verify the alignment of stochastic AI systems, even when the dishonest strategy is allowed to use exponentially many simulation steps.