Daily Papers

Critic-free reinforcement learning methods, particularly group policies, have attracted considerable attention for their efficiency in complex tasks. However, these methods rely heavily on multiple sampling and comparisons within the policy to estimate advantage, which may cause the policy to fall into local optimum and increase computational cost. To address these issues, we propose PVPO, an efficient reinforcement learning method enhanced by an advantage reference anchor and data pre-sampling. Specifically, we use the reference model to rollout in advance and employ the calculated reward score as a reference anchor. Our approach effectively corrects the cumulative bias introduced by intra-group comparisons and significantly reduces reliance on the number of rollouts during training. Meanwhile, the reference model can assess sample difficulty during data pre-sampling, enabling effective selection of high-gain data to improve training efficiency. Moreover, PVPO is orthogonal to other advanced critic-free RL algorithms, making it compatible with and complementary to these methods. Experiments conducted on nine datasets across two domains demonstrate that PVPO achieves State-Of-The-Art (SOTA) performance. Our approach not only demonstrates robust generalization across multiple tasks, but also exhibits scalable performance across models of varying scales.

Fairness in recommender systems (RSs) is commonly categorised into group fairness and individual fairness. However, there is no established scientific understanding of the relationship between the two fairness types, as prior work on both types has used different evaluation measures or evaluation objectives for each fairness type, thereby not allowing for a proper comparison of the two. As a result, it is currently not known how increasing one type of fairness may affect the other. To fill this gap, we study the relationship of group and individual fairness through a comprehensive comparison of evaluation measures that can be used for both fairness types. Our experiments with 8 runs across 3 datasets show that recommendations that are highly fair for groups can be very unfair for individuals. Our finding is novel and useful for RS practitioners aiming to improve the fairness of their systems. Our code is available at: https://github.com/theresiavr/stairway-to-fairness.

Scientific research relies on accurate information retrieval from literature to support analytical decisions. In this work, we introduce a new task, INformation reTRieval through literAture reVIEW (IntraView), which aims to automate fine-grained information retrieval faithfully grounded in the provided content in response to research-driven queries, and propose IntrAgent, an LLM-based agent that addresses this challenging task. In particular, IntrAgent is designed to mimic human behaviors when reading literature for information retrieval -- identifying relevant sections and then iteratively extracting key details to refine the retrieved information. It follows a two-stage pipeline: a Section Ranking stage that prioritizes relevant literature sections through structural-knowledge-enabled reasoning, and an Iterative Reading stage that continuously extracts details and synthesizes them into concise, contextually grounded answers. To support rigorous evaluation, we introduce IntraBench, a new benchmark consisting of 315 test instances built from expert-authored questions paired with literature spanning five STEM domains. Across seven backbone LLMs, IntrAgent achieves on average 13.2% higher cross-domain accuracy than state-of-the-art RAG and research-agent baselines.

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing is the de facto tool for assessing effectiveness differences between Information Retrieval systems. Researchers use statistical tests to check whether those differences will generalise to online settings or are just due to the samples observed in the laboratory. Much work has been devoted to studying which test is the most reliable when comparing a pair of systems, but most of the IR real-world experiments involve more than two. In the multiple comparisons scenario, testing several systems simultaneously may inflate the errors committed by the tests. In this paper, we use a new approach to assess the reliability of multiple comparison procedures using simulated and real TREC data. Experiments show that Wilcoxon plus the Benjamini-Hochberg correction yields Type I error rates according to the significance level for typical sample sizes while being the best test in terms of statistical power.

In critical decision-making scenarios, optimizing accuracy can lead to a biased classifier, hence past work recommends enforcing group-based fairness metrics in addition to maximizing accuracy. However, doing so exposes the classifier to another kind of bias called infra-marginality. This refers to individual-level bias where some individuals/subgroups can be worse off than under simply optimizing for accuracy. For instance, a classifier implementing race-based parity may significantly disadvantage women of the advantaged race. To quantify this bias, we propose a general notion of eta-infra-marginality that can be used to evaluate the extent of this bias. We prove theoretically that, unlike other fairness metrics, infra-marginality does not have a trade-off with accuracy: high accuracy directly leads to low infra-marginality. This observation is confirmed through empirical analysis on multiple simulated and real-world datasets. Further, we find that maximizing group fairness often increases infra-marginality, suggesting the consideration of both group-level fairness and individual-level infra-marginality. However, measuring infra-marginality requires knowledge of the true distribution of individual-level outcomes correctly and explicitly. We propose a practical method to measure infra-marginality, and a simple algorithm to maximize group-wise accuracy and avoid infra-marginality.

Global comparisons of wellbeing increasingly rely on survey questions that ask respondents to evaluate their lives, most commonly in the form of "life satisfaction" and "Cantril ladder" items. These measures underpin international rankings such as the World Happiness Report and inform policy initiatives worldwide, yet their comparability has not been established with contemporary global data. Using the Gallup World Poll, Global Flourishing Study, and World Values Survey, I show that the two question formats yield divergent distributions, rankings, and response patterns that vary across countries and surveys, defying simple explanations. To explore differences in respondents' cognitive interpretations, I compare regression coefficients from the Global Flourishing Study, analyzing how each question wording relates to life circumstances. While international rankings of wellbeing are unstable, the scientific study of the determinants of life evaluations appears more robust. Together, the findings underscore the need for a renewed research agenda on critical limitations to cross-country comparability of wellbeing.

Today, comprehensive evaluation of large-scale machine learning models is possible thanks to the open datasets produced using crowdsourcing, such as SQuAD, MS COCO, ImageNet, SuperGLUE, etc. These datasets capture objective responses, assuming the single correct answer, which does not allow to capture the subjective human perception. In turn, pairwise comparison tasks, in which one has to choose between only two options, allow taking peoples' preferences into account for very challenging artificial intelligence tasks, such as information retrieval and recommender system evaluation. Unfortunately, the available datasets are either small or proprietary, slowing down progress in gathering better feedback from human users. In this paper, we present IMDB-WIKI-SbS, a new large-scale dataset for evaluating pairwise comparisons. It contains 9,150 images appearing in 250,249 pairs annotated on a crowdsourcing platform. Our dataset has balanced distributions of age and gender using the well-known IMDB-WIKI dataset as ground truth. We describe how our dataset is built and then compare several baseline methods, indicating its suitability for model evaluation.

Pairwise re-ranking models predict which of two documents is more relevant to a query and then aggregate a final ranking from such preferences. This is often more effective than pointwise re-ranking models that directly predict a relevance value for each document. However, the high inference overhead of pairwise models limits their practical application: usually, for a set of k documents to be re-ranked, preferences for all k^2-k comparison pairs excluding self-comparisons are aggregated. We investigate whether the efficiency of pairwise re-ranking can be improved by sampling from all pairs. In an exploratory study, we evaluate three sampling methods and five preference aggregation methods. The best combination allows for an order of magnitude fewer comparisons at an acceptable loss of retrieval effectiveness, while competitive effectiveness is already achieved with about one third of the comparisons.

With the advent of highly capable instruction-tuned neural language models, benchmarking in natural language processing (NLP) is increasingly shifting towards pairwise comparison leaderboards, such as LMSYS Arena, from traditional global pointwise scores (e.g., GLUE, BIG-bench, SWE-bench). This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of both global scores and pairwise comparisons to aid decision-making in selecting appropriate model evaluation strategies. Through computational experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets using standard global metrics and the popular Bradley-Terry model for pairwise comparisons, we found that while global scores provide more reliable overall rankings, they can underestimate strong models with rare, significant errors or low confidence. Conversely, pairwise comparisons are particularly effective for identifying strong contenders among models with lower global scores, especially where quality metrics are hard to define (e.g., text generation), though they require more comparisons to converge if ties are frequent. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/HSPyroblast/srw-ranking under a permissive license.

Individual user fairness is commonly understood as treating similar users similarly. In Recommender Systems (RSs), several evaluation measures exist for quantifying individual user fairness. These measures evaluate fairness via either: (i) the disparity in RS effectiveness scores regardless of user similarity, or (ii) the disparity in items recommended to similar users regardless of item relevance. Both disparity in recommendation effectiveness and user similarity are very important in fairness, yet no existing individual user fairness measure simultaneously accounts for both. In brief, current user fairness evaluation measures implement a largely incomplete definition of fairness. To fill this gap, we present Pairwise User unFairness (PUF), a novel evaluation measure of individual user fairness that considers both effectiveness disparity and user similarity. PUF is the only measure that can express this important distinction. We empirically validate that PUF does this consistently across 4 datasets and 7 rankers, and robustly when varying user similarity or effectiveness. In contrast, all other measures are either almost insensitive to effectiveness disparity or completely insensitive to user similarity. We contribute the first RS evaluation measure to reliably capture both user similarity and effectiveness in individual user fairness. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/PUF-individual-user-fairness-recsys.

Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted the mathematically convenient perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). However, we contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm assessments (e.g., referring to girls as ``terrorists'' may be less harmful than referring to Muslim people as such). Thus, in contrast to most fairness work, we study fairness through the perspective of treating people differently -- when it is contextually appropriate to. We first introduce an important distinction between descriptive (fact-based), normative (value-based), and correlation (association-based) benchmarks. This distinction is significant because each category requires separate interpretation and mitigation tailored to its specific characteristics. Then, we present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions that enables us to assess difference awareness. Finally, we show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension to fairness where existing bias mitigation strategies may backfire.

We study the ranking of individuals, teams, or objects, based on pairwise comparisons between them, using the Bradley-Terry model. Estimates of rankings within this model are commonly made using a simple iterative algorithm first introduced by Zermelo almost a century ago. Here we describe an alternative and similarly simple iteration that provably returns identical results but does so much faster -- over a hundred times faster in some cases. We demonstrate this algorithm with applications to a range of example data sets and derive a number of results regarding its convergence.

Comparative settings (e.g. pairwise choice, listwise ranking) have been adopted by a wide range of subjective studies for image quality assessment (IQA), as it inherently standardizes the evaluation criteria across different observers and offer more clear-cut responses. In this work, we extend the edge of emerging large multi-modality models (LMMs) to further advance visual quality comparison into open-ended settings, that 1) can respond to open-range questions on quality comparison; 2) can provide detailed reasonings beyond direct answers. To this end, we propose the Co-Instruct. To train this first-of-its-kind open-source open-ended visual quality comparer, we collect the Co-Instruct-562K dataset, from two sources: (a) LMM-merged single image quality description, (b) GPT-4V "teacher" responses on unlabeled data. Furthermore, to better evaluate this setting, we propose the MICBench, the first benchmark on multi-image comparison for LMMs. We demonstrate that Co-Instruct not only achieves 30% higher superior accuracy than state-of-the-art open-source LMMs, but also outperforms GPT-4V (its teacher), on both existing related benchmarks and the proposed MICBench. Our model is published at https://huggingface.co/q-future/co-instruct.

We study the problem of online prediction, in which at each time step t, an individual x_t arrives, whose label we must predict. Each individual is associated with various groups, defined based on their features such as age, sex, race etc., which may intersect. Our goal is to make predictions that have regret guarantees not just overall but also simultaneously on each sub-sequence comprised of the members of any single group. Previous work such as [Blum & Lykouris] and [Lee et al] provide attractive regret guarantees for these problems; however, these are computationally intractable on large model classes. We show that a simple modification of the sleeping experts technique of [Blum & Lykouris] yields an efficient reduction to the well-understood problem of obtaining diminishing external regret absent group considerations. Our approach gives similar regret guarantees compared to [Blum & Lykouris]; however, we run in time linear in the number of groups, and are oracle-efficient in the hypothesis class. This in particular implies that our algorithm is efficient whenever the number of groups is polynomially bounded and the external-regret problem can be solved efficiently, an improvement on [Blum & Lykouris]'s stronger condition that the model class must be small. Our approach can handle online linear regression and online combinatorial optimization problems like online shortest paths. Beyond providing theoretical regret bounds, we evaluate this algorithm with an extensive set of experiments on synthetic data and on two real data sets -- Medical costs and the Adult income dataset, both instantiated with intersecting groups defined in terms of race, sex, and other demographic characteristics. We find that uniformly across groups, our algorithm gives substantial error improvements compared to running a standard online linear regression algorithm with no groupwise regret guarantees.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design Comparison-Native framework for Paper Evaluation (CNPE), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8\% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview{Code}.

Understanding how people of various demographics think, feel, and express themselves (collectively called group expression) is essential for social science and underlies the assessment of bias in Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs can effectively summarize group expression when provided with empirical examples, coming up with generalizable theories of how a group's expression manifests in real-world text is challenging. In this paper, we define a new task called Group Theorization, in which a system must write theories that differentiate expression across demographic groups. We make available a large dataset on this task, Splits!, constructed by splitting Reddit posts by neutral topics (e.g. sports, cooking, and movies) and by demographics (e.g. occupation, religion, and race). Finally, we suggest a simple evaluation framework for assessing how effectively a method can generate 'better' theories about group expression, backed by human validation. We publicly release the raw corpora and evaluation scripts for Splits! to help researchers assess how methods infer--and potentially misrepresent--group differences in expression. We make Splits! and our evaluation module available at https://github.com/eyloncaplan/splits.

Ranking and scoring are ubiquitous. We consider the setting in which an institution, called a ranker, evaluates a set of individuals based on demographic, behavioral or other characteristics. The final output is a ranking that represents the relative quality of the individuals. While automatic and therefore seemingly objective, rankers can, and often do, discriminate against individuals and systematically disadvantage members of protected groups. This warrants a careful study of the fairness of a ranking scheme. In this paper we propose fairness measures for ranked outputs. We develop a data generation procedure that allows us to systematically control the degree of unfairness in the output, and study the behavior of our measures on these datasets. We then apply our proposed measures to several real datasets, and demonstrate cases of unfairness. Finally, we show preliminary results of incorporating our ranked fairness measures into an optimization framework, and show potential for improving fairness of ranked outputs while maintaining accuracy.

Existing studies on fairness are largely Western-focused, making them inadequate for culturally diverse countries such as India. To address this gap, we introduce INDIC-BIAS, a comprehensive India-centric benchmark designed to evaluate fairness of LLMs across 85 identity groups encompassing diverse castes, religions, regions, and tribes. We first consult domain experts to curate over 1,800 socio-cultural topics spanning behaviors and situations, where biases and stereotypes are likely to emerge. Grounded in these topics, we generate and manually validate 20,000 real-world scenario templates to probe LLMs for fairness. We structure these templates into three evaluation tasks: plausibility, judgment, and generation. Our evaluation of 14 popular LLMs on these tasks reveals strong negative biases against marginalized identities, with models frequently reinforcing common stereotypes. Additionally, we find that models struggle to mitigate bias even when explicitly asked to rationalize their decision. Our evaluation provides evidence of both allocative and representational harms that current LLMs could cause towards Indian identities, calling for a more cautious usage in practical applications. We release INDIC-BIAS as an open-source benchmark to advance research on benchmarking and mitigating biases and stereotypes in the Indian context.

Finding relevant literature underpins the practice of evidence-based medicine. From 2014 to 2016, TREC conducted a clinical decision support track, wherein participants were tasked with finding articles relevant to clinical questions posed by physicians. In total, 87 teams have participated over the past three years, generating 395 runs. During this period, each team has trialled a variety of methods. While there was significant overlap in the methods employed by different teams, the results were varied. Due to the diversity of the platforms used, the results arising from the different techniques are not directly comparable, reducing the ability to build on previous work. By using a stable platform, we have been able to compare different document and query processing techniques, allowing us to experiment with different search parameters. We have used our system to reproduce leading teams runs, and compare the results obtained. By benchmarking our indexing and search techniques, we can statistically test a variety of hypotheses, paving the way for further research.

As large-language models have been increasingly used as automatic raters for evaluating free-form content, including document summarization, dialog, and story generation, work has been dedicated to evaluating such models by measuring their correlations with human judgment. For sample-level performance, methods which operate by using pairwise comparisons between machine-generated text perform well but often lack the ability to assign absolute scores to individual summaries, an ability crucial for use cases that require thresholding. In this work, we propose a direct-scoring method which uses synthetic summaries to act as pairwise machine rankings at test time. We show that our method performs comparably to state-of-the-art pairwise evaluators in terms of axis-averaged sample-level correlations on the SummEval (+0.03), TopicalChat (-0.03), and HANNA (+0.05) meta-evaluation benchmarks, and release the synthetic in-context summaries as data to facilitate future work.

Urban assessments often compress diverse needs into single scores, which can obscure minority perspectives. We present a community-centered study in Montreal (n=35; wheelchair users, seniors, LGBTQIA2+ residents, and immigrants). Participants rated 20 streets (accessibility, inclusivity, aesthetics, practicality) and ranked 7 images on 12 interview-elicited criteria. Disagreement patterns were systematic in our sample: wheelchair users diverged most on accessibility and practicality; LGBTQIA2+ participants emphasized inclusion and liveliness; seniors prioritized security. Group discussion reduced information gaps but not value conflicts; ratings conveyed intensity, while rankings forced trade-offs. We then formalize negotiative alignment, a transparent, budget-aware bargaining procedure, and pilot it with role-played stakeholder agents plus a neutral mediator. Relative to the best base design under the same public rubric, the negotiated package increased total utility (21.10 to 24.55), raised the worst-group utility (3.20 to 3.90), improved twentieth percentile satisfaction (0.86 to 1.00; min-max normalized within the scenario), and reduced inequality (Gini 0.036 to 0.025). Treating disagreement as signal and reporting worst-group outcomes alongside totals may help planners and AI practitioners surface trade-offs and preserve minority priorities while maintaining efficiency.

Despite recent advances in text-to-3D generative methods, there is a notable absence of reliable evaluation metrics. Existing metrics usually focus on a single criterion each, such as how well the asset aligned with the input text. These metrics lack the flexibility to generalize to different evaluation criteria and might not align well with human preferences. Conducting user preference studies is an alternative that offers both adaptability and human-aligned results. User studies, however, can be very expensive to scale. This paper presents an automatic, versatile, and human-aligned evaluation metric for text-to-3D generative models. To this end, we first develop a prompt generator using GPT-4V to generate evaluating prompts, which serve as input to compare text-to-3D models. We further design a method instructing GPT-4V to compare two 3D assets according to user-defined criteria. Finally, we use these pairwise comparison results to assign these models Elo ratings. Experimental results suggest our metric strongly align with human preference across different evaluation criteria.

This paper presents an eight-week observational comparison of 68 single-file HTML generations collected across 17 public experiments in the "HTML AI Battle" project between December 10, 2025 and February 4, 2026. Four reasoning model families, GPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude, were compared under a fixed public-interface protocol with no custom instructions, no personality tuning, and no repair prompts. Each output was evaluated from a rendered browser video using human scores and a Gemini LLM-as-a-judge layer for prompt adherence, functional correctness, and UI quality, then packaged into a standardized social-media protocol spanning X (Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube. The tracker was also used for two supervised predictive analyses: an experiment-level model for 24-hour X impressions and a generation-level model for HTML verbosity. Under this protocol, Claude was the strongest and most consistent family, leading mean performance and winning 9/17 prompts under the primary human weighted score. Longer measured reasoning time was not associated with higher quality overall. Gemini as a judge was significantly more lenient than the human evaluator on functional correctness and overall performance, while stable self-favoring bias remained unresolved. The exploratory X-impressions model remained weak under post-screen cross-validation (MAE = 46,874, R^2 = -0.377), whereas the HTML-lines model performed better, with a model-family-only baseline outperforming prompt-aware alternatives (MAE = 135.2, R^2 = 0.576). Overall, selected pre-publication technical/audio variables were not sufficient to predict 24-hour X reach, while code verbosity was driven much more by model family than by prompt wording. The comparisons remain observational and are limited by public-interface drift, access-path differences, and one primary human scorer.

Normalised citation counts are routinely used to assess the average impact of research groups or nations. There is controversy over whether confidence intervals for them are theoretically valid or practically useful. In response, this article introduces the concept of a group's underlying research capability to produce impactful research. It then investigates whether confidence intervals could delimit the underlying capability of a group in practice. From 123120 confidence interval comparisons for the average citation impact of the national outputs of ten countries within 36 individual large monodisciplinary journals, moderately fewer than 95% of subsequent indicator values fall within 95% confidence intervals from prior years, with the percentage declining over time. This is consistent with confidence intervals effectively delimiting the research capability of a group, although it does not prove that this is the cause of the results. The results are unaffected by whether internationally collaborative articles are included.

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than 400 models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only 100 anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman ρgeq 0.9 for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

The pervasive influence of social biases in language data has sparked the need for benchmark datasets that capture and evaluate these biases in Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing efforts predominantly focus on English language and the Western context, leaving a void for a reliable dataset that encapsulates India's unique socio-cultural nuances. To bridge this gap, we introduce IndiBias, a comprehensive benchmarking dataset designed specifically for evaluating social biases in the Indian context. We filter and translate the existing CrowS-Pairs dataset to create a benchmark dataset suited to the Indian context in Hindi language. Additionally, we leverage LLMs including ChatGPT and InstructGPT to augment our dataset with diverse societal biases and stereotypes prevalent in India. The included bias dimensions encompass gender, religion, caste, age, region, physical appearance, and occupation. We also build a resource to address intersectional biases along three intersectional dimensions. Our dataset contains 800 sentence pairs and 300 tuples for bias measurement across different demographics. The dataset is available in English and Hindi, providing a size comparable to existing benchmark datasets. Furthermore, using IndiBias we compare ten different language models on multiple bias measurement metrics. We observed that the language models exhibit more bias across a majority of the intersectional groups.

Fairness is an emerging and challenging topic in recommender systems. In recent years, various ways of evaluating and therefore improving fairness have emerged. In this study, we examine existing evaluation measures of fairness in recommender systems. Specifically, we focus solely on exposure-based fairness measures of individual items that aim to quantify the disparity in how individual items are recommended to users, separate from item relevance to users. We gather all such measures and we critically analyse their theoretical properties. We identify a series of limitations in each of them, which collectively may render the affected measures hard or impossible to interpret, to compute, or to use for comparing recommendations. We resolve these limitations by redefining or correcting the affected measures, or we argue why certain limitations cannot be resolved. We further perform a comprehensive empirical analysis of both the original and our corrected versions of these fairness measures, using real-world and synthetic datasets. Our analysis provides novel insights into the relationship between measures based on different fairness concepts, and different levels of measure sensitivity and strictness. We conclude with practical suggestions of which fairness measures should be used and when. Our code is publicly available. To our knowledge, this is the first critical comparison of individual item fairness measures in recommender systems.

This study investigates GPT-4's assessment of its performance in healthcare applications. A simple prompting technique was used to prompt the LLM with questions taken from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questionnaire and it was tasked to evaluate its confidence score before posing the question and after asking the question. The questionnaire was categorized into two groups-questions with feedback (WF) and questions with no feedback(NF) post-question. The model was asked to provide absolute and relative confidence scores before and after each question. The experimental findings were analyzed using statistical tools to study the variability of confidence in WF and NF groups. Additionally, a sequential analysis was conducted to observe the performance variation for the WF and NF groups. Results indicate that feedback influences relative confidence but doesn't consistently increase or decrease it. Understanding the performance of LLM is paramount in exploring its utility in sensitive areas like healthcare. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the reliability of AI, particularly of LLMs like GPT-4, within healthcare, offering insights into how feedback mechanisms might be optimized to enhance AI-assisted medical education and decision support.

Speech models may be affected by performance imbalance in different population subgroups, raising concerns about fair treatment across these groups. Prior attempts to mitigate unfairness either focus on user-defined subgroups, potentially overlooking other affected subgroups, or do not explicitly improve the internal representation at the subgroup level. This paper proposes the first adoption of contrastive learning to mitigate speech model bias in underperforming subgroups. We employ a three-level learning technique that guides the model in focusing on different scopes for the contrastive loss, i.e., task, subgroup, and the errors within subgroups. The experiments on two spoken language understanding datasets and two languages demonstrate that our approach improves internal subgroup representations, thus reducing model bias and enhancing performance.

This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (FFB), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. Ensuring fairness in machine learning is critical for ethical and legal compliance. However, there exist challenges in comparing and developing of fairness methods due to inconsistencies in experimental settings, lack of accessible algorithmic implementations, and limited extensibility of current fairness packages and tools. To address these issues, we introduce an open-source, standardized benchmark for evaluating in-processing group fairness methods and provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness. This work offers the following key contributions: the provision of flexible, extensible, minimalistic, and research-oriented open-source code; the establishment of unified fairness method benchmarking pipelines; and extensive benchmarking, which yields key insights from 45,079 experiments. We believe our work will significantly facilitate the growth and development of the fairness research community. The benchmark, including code and running logs, is available at https://github.com/ahxt/fair_fairness_benchmark

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.

A core goal of computational social science is to discover interpretable differences in how language varies across outcomes of interest, such as political affiliation or instructional quality. Recent LLM-based hypothesis generation methods describe such differences in natural language, but select for globally discriminative patterns without accounting for covariates that shape the data based on researchers' domain knowledge. When covariates are ignored, selected patterns can reflect confounds rather than differences of substantive interest. We introduce conditional hypothesis generation, a framework that incorporates researcher-specified covariates to steer hypothesis discovery toward differences that hold within relevant subgroups. Two challenges arise: the target subgroup may be underrepresented (stratum imbalance), and the direction of a difference may reverse across subgroups (sign reversal). We propose two econometrics-inspired methods: one introduces feature--covariate interactions to detect sign reversals, and the other applies within-stratum demeaning and inverse-frequency reweighting to equalize underrepresented strata. Synthetic experiments show each method outperforms global baselines in its targeted setting, and expert evaluation on two real-world datasets confirms that covariate-aware generation surfaces more useful hypotheses within relevant subgroups.

Stereotype benchmark datasets are crucial to detect and mitigate social stereotypes about groups of people in NLP models. However, existing datasets are limited in size and coverage, and are largely restricted to stereotypes prevalent in the Western society. This is especially problematic as language technologies gain hold across the globe. To address this gap, we present SeeGULL, a broad-coverage stereotype dataset, built by utilizing generative capabilities of large language models such as PaLM, and GPT-3, and leveraging a globally diverse rater pool to validate the prevalence of those stereotypes in society. SeeGULL is in English, and contains stereotypes about identity groups spanning 178 countries across 8 different geo-political regions across 6 continents, as well as state-level identities within the US and India. We also include fine-grained offensiveness scores for different stereotypes and demonstrate their global disparities. Furthermore, we include comparative annotations about the same groups by annotators living in the region vs. those that are based in North America, and demonstrate that within-region stereotypes about groups differ from those prevalent in North America. CONTENT WARNING: This paper contains stereotype examples that may be offensive.

Ranking passages by prompting a large language model (LLM) can achieve promising performance in modern information retrieval (IR) systems. A common approach is to sort the ranking list by prompting LLMs for pairwise comparison. However, sorting-based methods require consistent comparisons to correctly sort the passages, which we show that LLMs often violate. We identify two kinds of intrinsic inconsistency in LLM-based pairwise comparisons: order inconsistency which leads to conflicting results when switching the passage order, and transitive inconsistency which leads to non-transitive triads among all preference pairs. In this paper, we propose LLM-RankFusion, an LLM-based ranking framework that mitigates these inconsistencies and produces a robust ranking list. LLM-RankFusion mitigates order inconsistency using in-context learning (ICL) to demonstrate order-agnostic comparisons and calibration to estimate the underlying preference probability between two passages. We then address transitive inconsistency by aggregating the ranking results from multiple rankers. In our experiments, we empirically show that LLM-RankFusion can significantly reduce inconsistent pairwise comparison results, and improve the ranking quality by making the final ranking list more robust.

We consider the problem of subset selection where one is given multiple rankings of items and the goal is to select the highest ``quality'' subset. Score functions from the multiwinner voting literature have been used to aggregate rankings into quality scores for subsets. We study this setting of subset selection problems when, in addition, rankings may contain systemic or unconscious biases toward a group of items. For a general model of input rankings and biases, we show that requiring the selected subset to satisfy group fairness constraints can improve the quality of the selection with respect to unbiased rankings. Importantly, we show that for fairness constraints to be effective, different multiwinner score functions may require a drastically different number of rankings: While for some functions, fairness constraints need an exponential number of rankings to recover a close-to-optimal solution, for others, this dependency is only polynomial. This result relies on a novel notion of ``smoothness'' of submodular functions in this setting that quantifies how well a function can ``correctly'' assess the quality of items in the presence of bias. The results in this paper can be used to guide the choice of multiwinner score functions for the subset selection setting considered here; we additionally provide a tool to empirically enable this.

This paper presents the RMIT--ADM+S participation in the SIGIR 2025 LiveRAG Challenge. Our Generation-Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GRAG) approach relies on generating a hypothetical answer that is used in the retrieval phase, alongside the original question. GRAG also incorporates a pointwise large language model (LLM)-based re-ranking step prior to final answer generation. We describe the system architecture and the rationale behind our design choices. In particular, a systematic evaluation using the Grid of Points (GoP) framework and N-way ANOVA enabled comparison across multiple configurations, including query variant generation, question decomposition, rank fusion strategies, and prompting techniques for answer generation. Our system achieved a Relevance score of 1.199 and a Faithfulness score of 0.477 on the private leaderboard, placing among the top four finalists in the LiveRAG 2025 Challenge.

Perception of toxicity evolves over time and often differs between geographies and cultural backgrounds. Similarly, black-box commercially available APIs for detecting toxicity, such as the Perspective API, are not static, but frequently retrained to address any unattended weaknesses and biases. We evaluate the implications of these changes on the reproducibility of findings that compare the relative merits of models and methods that aim to curb toxicity. Our findings suggest that research that relied on inherited automatic toxicity scores to compare models and techniques may have resulted in inaccurate findings. Rescoring all models from HELM, a widely respected living benchmark, for toxicity with the recent version of the API led to a different ranking of widely used foundation models. We suggest caution in applying apples-to-apples comparisons between studies and lay recommendations for a more structured approach to evaluating toxicity over time. Code and data are available at https://github.com/for-ai/black-box-api-challenges.

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.

We present a benchmark suite of four datasets for evaluating the fairness of pre-trained language models and the techniques used to fine-tune them for downstream tasks. Our benchmarks cover four jurisdictions (European Council, USA, Switzerland, and China), five languages (English, German, French, Italian and Chinese) and fairness across five attributes (gender, age, region, language, and legal area). In our experiments, we evaluate pre-trained language models using several group-robust fine-tuning techniques and show that performance group disparities are vibrant in many cases, while none of these techniques guarantee fairness, nor consistently mitigate group disparities. Furthermore, we provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of our results, highlighting open challenges in the development of robustness methods in legal NLP.

Transfer learning is crucial for medical imaging, yet the selection of source datasets - which can impact the generalizability of algorithms, and thus patient outcomes - often relies on researchers' intuition rather than systematic principles. This study investigates these decisions through a task-based survey with machine learning practitioners. Unlike prior work that benchmarks models and experimental setups, we take a human-centered HCI perspective on how practitioners select source datasets. Our findings indicate that choices are task-dependent and influenced by community practices, dataset properties, and computational (data embedding), or perceived visual or semantic similarity. However, similarity ratings and expected performance are not always aligned, challenging a traditional "more similar is better" view. Participants often used ambiguous terminology, which suggests a need for clearer definitions and HCI tools to make them explicit and usable. By clarifying these heuristics, this work provides practical insights for more systematic source selection in transfer learning.

Quantile regression is a fundamental problem in statistical learning motivated by a need to quantify uncertainty in predictions, or to model a diverse population without being overly reductive. For instance, epidemiological forecasts, cost estimates, and revenue predictions all benefit from being able to quantify the range of possible values accurately. As such, many models have been developed for this problem over many years of research in statistics, machine learning, and related fields. Rather than proposing yet another (new) algorithm for quantile regression we adopt a meta viewpoint: we investigate methods for aggregating any number of conditional quantile models, in order to improve accuracy and robustness. We consider weighted ensembles where weights may vary over not only individual models, but also over quantile levels, and feature values. All of the models we consider in this paper can be fit using modern deep learning toolkits, and hence are widely accessible (from an implementation point of view) and scalable. To improve the accuracy of the predicted quantiles (or equivalently, prediction intervals), we develop tools for ensuring that quantiles remain monotonically ordered, and apply conformal calibration methods. These can be used without any modification of the original library of base models. We also review some basic theory surrounding quantile aggregation and related scoring rules, and contribute a few new results to this literature (for example, the fact that post sorting or post isotonic regression can only improve the weighted interval score). Finally, we provide an extensive suite of empirical comparisons across 34 data sets from two different benchmark repositories.

As generative large language models (LLMs) grow more performant and prevalent, we must develop comprehensive enough tools to measure and improve their fairness. Different prompt-based datasets can be used to measure social bias across multiple text domains and demographic axes, meaning that testing LLMs on more datasets can potentially help us characterize their biases more fully, and better ensure equal and equitable treatment of marginalized demographic groups. In this work, our focus is two-fold: (1) Benchmarking: a comparison of 6 different prompt-based bias and toxicity metrics across 12 demographic axes and 5 families of generative LLMs. Out of those 6 metrics, AdvPromptSet and HolisticBiasR are novel datasets proposed in the paper. The comparison of those benchmarks gives us insights about the bias and toxicity of the compared models. Therefore, we explore the frequency of demographic terms in common LLM pre-training corpora and how this may relate to model biases. (2) Mitigation: we conduct a comprehensive study of how well 3 bias/toxicity mitigation techniques perform across our suite of measurements. ROBBIE aims to provide insights for practitioners while deploying a model, emphasizing the need to not only measure potential harms, but also understand how they arise by characterizing the data, mitigate harms once found, and balance any trade-offs. We open-source our analysis code in hopes of encouraging broader measurements of bias in future LLMs.

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

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.

Machine learning models often perform poorly on subgroups that are underrepresented in the training data. Yet, little is understood on the variation in mechanisms that cause subpopulation shifts, and how algorithms generalize across such diverse shifts at scale. In this work, we provide a fine-grained analysis of subpopulation shift. We first propose a unified framework that dissects and explains common shifts in subgroups. We then establish a comprehensive benchmark of 20 state-of-the-art algorithms evaluated on 12 real-world datasets in vision, language, and healthcare domains. With results obtained from training over 10,000 models, we reveal intriguing observations for future progress in this space. First, existing algorithms only improve subgroup robustness over certain types of shifts but not others. Moreover, while current algorithms rely on group-annotated validation data for model selection, we find that a simple selection criterion based on worst-class accuracy is surprisingly effective even without any group information. Finally, unlike existing works that solely aim to improve worst-group accuracy (WGA), we demonstrate the fundamental tradeoff between WGA and other important metrics, highlighting the need to carefully choose testing metrics. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/YyzHarry/SubpopBench.

Several studies have compared the in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) performance of models in computer vision and NLP. They report a frequent positive correlation and some surprisingly never even observe an inverse correlation indicative of a necessary trade-off. The possibility of inverse patterns is important to determine whether ID performance can serve as a proxy for OOD generalization capabilities. This paper shows with multiple datasets that inverse correlations between ID and OOD performance do happen in real-world data - not only in theoretical worst-case settings. We also explain theoretically how these cases can arise even in a minimal linear setting, and why past studies could miss such cases due to a biased selection of models. Our observations lead to recommendations that contradict those found in much of the current literature. - High OOD performance sometimes requires trading off ID performance. - Focusing on ID performance alone may not lead to optimal OOD performance. It may produce diminishing (eventually negative) returns in OOD performance. - In these cases, studies on OOD generalization that use ID performance for model selection (a common recommended practice) will necessarily miss the best-performing models, making these studies blind to a whole range of phenomena.

Creating test collections for offline retrieval evaluation requires human effort to judge documents' relevance. This expensive activity motivated much work in developing methods for constructing benchmarks with fewer assessment costs. In this respect, adjudication methods actively decide both which documents and the order in which experts review them, in order to better exploit the assessment budget or to lower it. Researchers evaluate the quality of those methods by measuring the correlation between the known gold ranking of systems under the full collection and the observed ranking of systems under the lower-cost one. This traditional analysis ignores whether and how the low-cost judgements impact on the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to the full collection. We fill this void by proposing a novel methodology to evaluate how the low-cost adjudication methods preserve the pairwise significant differences between systems as the full collection. In other terms, while traditional approaches look for stability in answering the question "is system A better than system B?", our proposed approach looks for stability in answering the question "is system A significantly better than system B?", which is the ultimate questions researchers need to answer to guarantee the generalisability of their results. Among other results, we found that the best methods in terms of ranking of systems correlation do not always match those preserving statistical significance.

RLHF has emerged as a predominant approach for aligning artificial intelligence systems with human preferences, demonstrating exceptional and measurable efficacy in instruction following tasks; however, it exhibits insufficient compliance capabilities when confronted with complex multi-instruction tasks. Conventional approaches rely heavily on human annotation or more sophisticated large language models, thereby introducing substantial resource expenditure or potential bias concerns. Meanwhile, alternative synthetic methods that augment standard preference datasets often compromise the model's semantic quality. Our research identifies a critical oversight in existing techniques, which predominantly focus on comparing responses while neglecting valuable latent signals embedded within prompt inputs, and which only focus on preference disparities at the intra-sample level, while neglecting to account for the inter-sample level preference differentials that exist among preference data. To leverage these previously neglected indicators, we propose a novel Multi-level Aware Preference Learning (MAPL) framework, capable of enhancing multi-instruction capabilities. Specifically, for any given response in original preference data pairs, we construct varied prompts with a preference relation under different conditions, in order to learn intra-sample level preference disparities. Furthermore, for any given original preference pair, we synthesize multi-instruction preference pairs to capture preference discrepancies at the inter-sample level. Building on the two datasets constructed above, we consequently devise two sophisticated training objective functions. Subsequently, our framework integrates seamlessly into both Reward Modeling and Direct Preference Optimization paradigms. Through rigorous evaluation across multiple benchmarks, we empirically validate the efficacy of our framework.

Relevance and fairness are two major objectives of recommender systems (RSs). Recent work proposes measures of RS fairness that are either independent from relevance (fairness-only) or conditioned on relevance (joint measures). While fairness-only measures have been studied extensively, we look into whether joint measures can be trusted. We collect all joint evaluation measures of RS relevance and fairness, and ask: How much do they agree with each other? To what extent do they agree with relevance/fairness measures? How sensitive are they to changes in rank position, or to increasingly fair and relevant recommendations? We empirically study for the first time the behaviour of these measures across 4 real-world datasets and 4 recommenders. We find that most of these measures: i) correlate weakly with one another and even contradict each other at times; ii) are less sensitive to rank position changes than relevance- and fairness-only measures, meaning that they are less granular than traditional RS measures; and iii) tend to compress scores at the low end of their range, meaning that they are not very expressive. We counter the above limitations with a set of guidelines on the appropriate usage of such measures, i.e., they should be used with caution due to their tendency to contradict each other and of having a very small empirical range.

Dataset summarisation is a fruitful approach to dataset inspection. However, when applied to a single dataset the discovery of visual concepts is restricted to those most prominent. We argue that a comparative approach can expand upon this paradigm to enable richer forms of dataset inspection that go beyond the most prominent concepts. To enable dataset comparison we present a module that learns concept-level prototypes across datasets. We leverage self-supervised learning to discover these prototypes without supervision, and we demonstrate the benefits of our approach in two case-studies. Our findings show that dataset comparison extends dataset inspection and we hope to encourage more works in this direction. Code and usage instructions available at https://github.com/Nanne/ProtoSim

The effect of underrepresentation on the performance of minority groups is known to be a serious problem in supervised learning settings; however, it has been underexplored so far in the context of self-supervised learning (SSL). In this paper, we demonstrate that contrastive learning (CL), a popular variant of SSL, tends to collapse representations of minority groups with certain majority groups. We refer to this phenomenon as representation harm and demonstrate it on image and text datasets using the corresponding popular CL methods. Furthermore, our causal mediation analysis of allocation harm on a downstream classification task reveals that representation harm is partly responsible for it, thus emphasizing the importance of studying and mitigating representation harm. Finally, we provide a theoretical explanation for representation harm using a stochastic block model that leads to a representational neural collapse in a contrastive learning setting.

In Machine Learning, a benchmark refers to an ensemble of datasets associated with one or multiple metrics together with a way to aggregate different systems performances. They are instrumental in (i) assessing the progress of new methods along different axes and (ii) selecting the best systems for practical use. This is particularly the case for NLP with the development of large pre-trained models (e.g. GPT, BERT) that are expected to generalize well on a variety of tasks. While the community mainly focused on developing new datasets and metrics, there has been little interest in the aggregation procedure, which is often reduced to a simple average over various performance measures. However, this procedure can be problematic when the metrics are on a different scale, which may lead to spurious conclusions. This paper proposes a new procedure to rank systems based on their performance across different tasks. Motivated by the social choice theory, the final system ordering is obtained through aggregating the rankings induced by each task and is theoretically grounded. We conduct extensive numerical experiments (on over 270k scores) to assess the soundness of our approach both on synthetic and real scores (e.g. GLUE, EXTREM, SEVAL, TAC, FLICKR). In particular, we show that our method yields different conclusions on state-of-the-art systems than the mean-aggregation procedure while being both more reliable and robust.

The evaluation of recommender system fairness has become increasingly important, especially with recent legislation that emphasises the development of fair and responsible artificial intelligence. This has led to the emergence of various fairness evaluation measures, which quantify fairness based on different definitions. However, many of such measures are simply proposed and used without further analysis on their robustness. As a result, there is insufficient understanding and awareness of the measures' limitations. Among other issues, it is not known what kind of model outputs produce the (un)fairest score, how the measure scores are empirically distributed, and whether there are cases where the measures cannot be computed (e.g., due to division by zero). These issues cause difficulty in interpreting the measure scores and confusion on which measure(s) should be used for a specific case. This thesis presents a series of papers that assess and overcome various theoretical, empirical, and conceptual limitations of existing recommender system fairness evaluation measures. We investigate a wide range of offline evaluation measures for different fairness notions, divided based on the evaluation subjects (users and items) and for different evaluation granularities (groups of subjects and individual subjects). Firstly, we perform theoretical and empirical analysis on the measures, exposing flaws that limit their interpretability, expressiveness, or applicability. Secondly, we contribute novel evaluation approaches and measures that overcome these limitations. Finally, considering the measures' limitations, we recommend guidelines for the appropriate measure usage, thereby allowing for more precise selection of fairness evaluation measures in practical scenarios. Overall, this thesis contributes to advancing the state-of-the-art offline evaluation of fairness in recommender systems.

We consider identification of average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) within the difference-in-differences (DiD) framework in the presence of endogenous sample selection. First, we establish that the usual DiD estimand fails to recover meaningful treatment effects, even if selection and treatment assignment are independent. Next, we partially identify the ATT for individuals who are always observed post-treatment regardless of their treatment status, and derive bounds on this parameter under different sets of assumptions about the relationship between sample selection and treatment assignment. Extensions to the repeated cross-section and two-by-two comparisons in the staggered adoption case are explored. Furthermore, we provide identification results for the ATT of three additional empirically relevant latent groups by incorporating outcome mean dominance assumptions which have intuitive appeal in applications. Finally, two empirical illustrations demonstrate the approach's usefulness by revisiting (i) the effect of a job training program on earnings(Calonico & Smith, 2017) and (ii) the effect of a working-from-home policy on employee performance (Bloom, Liang, Roberts, & Ying, 2015).

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.

LLMs are increasingly powerful and widely used to assist users in a variety of tasks. This use risks the introduction of LLM biases to consequential decisions such as job hiring, human performance evaluation, and criminal sentencing. Bias in NLP systems along the lines of gender and ethnicity has been widely studied, especially for specific stereotypes (e.g., Asians are good at math). In this paper, we investigate bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty, measuring subtler correlated decisions that LLMs make between social groups and unrelated positive and negative attributes. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the ``what is beautiful is good'' bias found in people in experimental psychology. We introduce a template-generated dataset of sentence completion tasks that asks the model to select the most appropriate attribute to complete an evaluative statement about a person described as a member of a specific social group. We also reverse the completion task to select the social group based on an attribute. We report the correlations that we find for 4 cutting-edge LLMs. This dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress in more generalized biases and the templating technique can be used to expand the benchmark with minimal additional human annotation.

Unintended bias in Machine Learning can manifest as systemic differences in performance for different demographic groups, potentially compounding existing challenges to fairness in society at large. In this paper, we introduce a suite of threshold-agnostic metrics that provide a nuanced view of this unintended bias, by considering the various ways that a classifier's score distribution can vary across designated groups. We also introduce a large new test set of online comments with crowd-sourced annotations for identity references. We use this to show how our metrics can be used to find new and potentially subtle unintended bias in existing public models.

Fairness or equity in machine learning is profoundly important for societal well-being, but limited public datasets hinder its progress, especially in the area of medicine. It is undeniable that fairness in medicine is one of the most important areas for fairness learning's applications. Currently, no large-scale public medical datasets with 3D imaging data for fairness learning are available, while 3D imaging data in modern clinics are standard tests for disease diagnosis. In addition, existing medical fairness datasets are actually repurposed datasets, and therefore they typically have limited demographic identity attributes with at most three identity attributes of age, gender, and race for fairness modeling. To address this gap, we introduce our Eye Fairness dataset with 30,000 subjects (Harvard-EF) covering three major eye diseases including age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma affecting 380 million patients globally. Our Harvard-EF dataset includes both 2D fundus photos and 3D optical coherence tomography scans with six demographic identity attributes including age, gender, race, ethnicity, preferred language, and marital status. We also propose a fair identity scaling (FIS) approach combining group and individual scaling together to improve model fairness. Our FIS approach is compared with various state-of-the-art fairness learning methods with superior performance in the racial, gender, and ethnicity fairness tasks with 2D and 3D imaging data, which demonstrate the utilities of our Harvard-EF dataset for fairness learning. To facilitate fairness comparisons between different models, we propose performance-scaled disparity measures, which can be used to compare model fairness accounting for overall performance levels. The dataset and code are publicly accessible via https://ophai.hms.harvard.edu/datasets/harvard-ef30k.

We present a generic framework for creating differentially private versions of any hypothesis test in a black-box way. We analyze the resulting tests analytically and experimentally. Most crucially, we show good practical performance for small data sets, showing that at epsilon = 1 we only need 5-6 times as much data as in the fully public setting. We compare our work to the one existing framework of this type, as well as to several individually-designed private hypothesis tests. Our framework is higher power than other generic solutions and at least competitive with (and often better than) individually-designed tests.

Social scientists are now using large language models to create "silicon samples" - synthetic datasets intended to stand in for human respondents, aimed at revolutionising human subjects research. However, there are many analytic choices which must be made to produce these samples. Though many of these choices are defensible, their impact on sample quality is poorly understood. I map out these analytic choices and demonstrate how a very small number of decisions can dramatically change the correspondence between silicon samples and human data. Configurations (N = 252) varied substantially in their capacity to estimate (i) rank ordering of participants, (ii) response distributions, and (iii) between-scale correlations. Most critically, configurations were not consistent in quality: those that performed well on one dimension often performed poorly on another, implying that there is no "one-size-fits-all" configuration that optimises the accuracy of these samples. I call for greater attention to the threat of analytic flexibility in using silicon samples.

The development of state-of-the-art systems in different applied areas of machine learning (ML) is driven by benchmarks, which have shaped the paradigm of evaluating generalisation capabilities from multiple perspectives. Although the paradigm is shifting towards more fine-grained evaluation across diverse tasks, the delicate question of how to aggregate the performances has received particular interest in the community. In general, benchmarks follow the unspoken utilitarian principles, where the systems are ranked based on their mean average score over task-specific metrics. Such aggregation procedure has been viewed as a sub-optimal evaluation protocol, which may have created the illusion of progress. This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields and identify the best-performing systems in research and development case studies. The Vote'n'Rank's procedures are more robust than the mean average while being able to handle missing performance scores and determine conditions under which the system becomes the winner.

We introduce CompareBench, a benchmark for evaluating visual comparison reasoning in vision-language models (VLMs), a fundamental yet understudied skill. CompareBench consists of 1000 QA pairs across four tasks: quantity (600), temporal (100), geometric (200), and spatial (100). It is derived from two auxiliary datasets that we constructed: TallyBench (2000 counting images with QA) and HistCaps (515 historical images with bilingual captions). We evaluate both closed-source APIs (OpenAI, Gemini, Claude) and open-source models (Qwen2.5-VL and Qwen3-VL series). Results show clear scaling trends but also reveal critical limitations: even the strongest models consistently fail at temporal ordering and spatial relations, and they often make mistakes in basic counting and geometric comparisons that are trivial for humans. These findings demonstrate that visual comparison remains a systematic blind spot for current VLMs. By providing controlled, diverse, and diagnostic evaluation, CompareBench establishes a foundation for advancing more reliable multimodal reasoning.

Text summarization models have typically focused on optimizing aspects of quality such as fluency, relevance, and coherence, particularly in the context of news articles. However, summarization models are increasingly being used to summarize diverse sources of text, such as social media data, that encompass a wide demographic user base. It is thus crucial to assess not only the quality of the generated summaries, but also the extent to which they can fairly represent the opinions of diverse social groups. Position bias, a long-known issue in news summarization, has received limited attention in the context of social multi-document summarization. We deeply investigate this phenomenon by analyzing the effect of group ordering in input documents when summarizing tweets from three distinct linguistic communities: African-American English, Hispanic-aligned Language, and White-aligned Language. Our empirical analysis shows that although the textual quality of the summaries remains consistent regardless of the input document order, in terms of fairness, the results vary significantly depending on how the dialect groups are presented in the input data. Our results suggest that position bias manifests differently in social multi-document summarization, severely impacting the fairness of summarization models.

University rankings are increasingly adopted for academic comparison and success quantification, even to establish performance-based criteria for funding assignment. However, rankings are not neutral tools, and their use frequently overlooks disparities in the starting conditions of institutions. In this research, we detect and measure structural biases that affect in inhomogeneous ways the ranking outcomes of universities from diversified territorial and educational contexts. Moreover, we develop a fairer rating system based on a fully data-driven debiasing strategy that returns an equity-oriented redefinition of the achieved scores. The key idea consists in partitioning universities in similarity groups, determined from multifaceted data using complex network analysis, and referring the performance of each institution to an expectation based on its peers. Significant evidence of territorial biases emerges for official rankings concerning both the OECD and Italian university systems, hence debiasing provides relevant insights suggesting the design of fairer strategies for performance-based funding allocations.

Recent advancements in generative models, particularly large language models (LLMs) and diffusion models, have been driven by extensive pretraining on large datasets followed by post-training. However, current post-training methods such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and direct alignment from preference methods (DAP) primarily utilize single-sample comparisons. These approaches often fail to capture critical characteristics such as generative diversity and bias, which are more accurately assessed through multiple samples. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel approach that extends post-training to include multi-sample comparisons. To achieve this, we propose Multi-sample Direct Preference Optimization (mDPO) and Multi-sample Identity Preference Optimization (mIPO). These methods improve traditional DAP methods by focusing on group-wise characteristics. Empirically, we demonstrate that multi-sample comparison is more effective in optimizing collective characteristics~(e.g., diversity and bias) for generative models than single-sample comparison. Additionally, our findings suggest that multi-sample comparisons provide a more robust optimization framework, particularly for dataset with label noise.

Dataset Distillation aims to compress a large dataset into a small synthetic one while maintaining predictive performance. We show that as different demographic groups exhibit distinct predictive patterns, the distillation process struggles to simultaneously preserve informative signals for all subgroups, regardless of whether group sizes are mildly or severely imbalanced. Consequently, models trained on distilled data can experience substantial performance drops for certain subgroups, leading to fairness gaps. Crucially, these gaps do not disappear by merely correcting group imbalance, since they stem from fundamental mismatches in subgroup predictive patterns rather than from sample-size disparities alone. We therefore formally analyze the interaction between these two sources of bias and cast the solution as identifying a group-imbalance-agnostic barycenter of the predictive information that induces similar representations across all subgroups. By distilling toward this shared aggregate representation, we show that group fairness concerns can be reduced. Our approach is compatible with existing distillation methods, and empirical results show that it substantially reduces bias introduced by dataset distillation.

Large Language Models have shown strong potential as rerankers to enhance the overall performance of RAG systems. However, existing reranking paradigms are constrained by a core theoretical and practical dilemma: Pointwise methods, while simple and highly flexible, evaluate documents independently, making them prone to the Ranking Myopia Trap, overlooking the relative importance between documents. In contrast, Listwise methods can perceive the global ranking context, but suffer from inherent List Rigidity, leading to severe scalability and flexibility issues when handling large candidate sets. To address these challenges, we propose Groupwise, a novel reranking paradigm. In this approach, the query and a group of candidate documents are jointly fed into the model, which performs within-group comparisons to assign individual relevance scores to each document. This design retains the flexibility of Pointwise methods while enabling the comparative capability of Listwise methods. We further adopt GRPO for model training, equipped with a heterogeneous reward function that integrates ranking metrics with a distributional reward aimed at aligning score distributions across groups. To overcome the bottleneck caused by the scarcity of high quality labeled data, we further propose an innovative pipeline for synthesizing high quality retrieval and ranking data. The resulting data can be leveraged not only for training the reranker but also for training the retriever. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our approach. On two reasoning intensive retrieval benchmarks, BRIGHT and R2MED.

Despite recent advancements in vision-language models, their performance remains suboptimal on images from non-western cultures due to underrepresentation in training datasets. Various benchmarks have been proposed to test models' cultural inclusivity, but they have limited coverage of cultures and do not adequately assess cultural diversity across universal as well as culture-specific local concepts. To address these limitations, we introduce the GlobalRG benchmark, comprising two challenging tasks: retrieval across universals and cultural visual grounding. The former task entails retrieving culturally diverse images for universal concepts from 50 countries, while the latter aims at grounding culture-specific concepts within images from 15 countries. Our evaluation across a wide range of models reveals that the performance varies significantly across cultures -- underscoring the necessity for enhancing multicultural understanding in vision-language models.

As machine learning-enabled Text-to-Image (TTI) systems are becoming increasingly prevalent and seeing growing adoption as commercial services, characterizing the social biases they exhibit is a necessary first step to lowering their risk of discriminatory outcomes. This evaluation, however, is made more difficult by the synthetic nature of these systems' outputs; since artificial depictions of fictive humans have no inherent gender or ethnicity nor do they belong to socially-constructed groups, we need to look beyond common categorizations of diversity or representation. To address this need, we propose a new method for exploring and quantifying social biases in TTI systems by directly comparing collections of generated images designed to showcase a system's variation across social attributes -- gender and ethnicity -- and target attributes for bias evaluation -- professions and gender-coded adjectives. Our approach allows us to (i) identify specific bias trends through visualization tools, (ii) provide targeted scores to directly compare models in terms of diversity and representation, and (iii) jointly model interdependent social variables to support a multidimensional analysis. We use this approach to analyze over 96,000 images generated by 3 popular TTI systems (DALL-E 2, Stable Diffusion v 1.4 and v 2) and find that all three significantly over-represent the portion of their latent space associated with whiteness and masculinity across target attributes; among the systems studied, DALL-E 2 shows the least diversity, followed by Stable Diffusion v2 then v1.4.

This paper introduces a novel double stimulus subjective assessment methodology for the evaluation of high quality images to address the limitations of existing protocols in detecting subtle perceptual differences. The In-place Double Stimulus Quality Scale (IDSQS) allows subjects to alternately view a reference and a distorted image at the same spatial location, facilitating a more intuitive detection of differences in quality, especially at high to visually lossless quality levels. A large-scale crowdsourcing study employing this methodology was conducted, generating a comprehensive public dataset to evaluate perceived image quality across several compression algorithms and distortion levels. An additional contribution is the modeling of quality scores using a Beta distribution, allowing for the assessment of variability and subject consistency. Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the IDSQS methodology in achieving high correlation with more precise subjective evaluation benchmarks. The dataset, subjective data, and graphical user interface developed for this study are publicly available at https://github.com/shimamohammadi/IDSQS

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the prevailing paradigm for grounding Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the mechanisms governing how models integrate groups of conflicting retrieved evidence remain opaque. Does an LLM answer a certain way because the evidence is factually strong, because of a prior belief, or merely because it is repeated frequently? To answer this, we introduce GroupQA, a curated dataset of 1,635 controversial questions paired with 15,058 diversely-sourced evidence documents, annotated for stance and qualitative strength. Through controlled experiments, we characterize group-level evidence aggregation dynamics: Paraphrasing an argument can be more persuasive than providing distinct independent support; Models favor evidence presented first rather than last, and Larger models are increasingly resistant to adapt to presented evidence. Additionally, we find that LLM explanations to group-based answers are unfaithful. Together, we show that LLMs behave consistently as vulnerable heuristic followers, with direct implications for improving RAG system design.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) typically treats retrieval and generation as separate systems. We ask whether an attention-based encoder-decoder can instead retrieve directly from its own internal representations. We introduce INTRA (INTrinsic Retrieval via Attention), a framework where decoder attention queries score pre-encoded evidence chunks that are then directly reused as context for generation. By construction, INTRA unifies retrieval and generation, eliminating the retriever-generator mismatch typical of RAG pipelines. This design also amortizes context encoding by reusing precomputed encoder states across queries. On question-answering benchmarks, INTRA outperforms strong engineered retrieval pipelines on both evidence recall and end-to-end answer quality. Our results demonstrate that attention-based models already possess a retrieval mechanism that can be elicited, rather than added as an external module.

Recent failures such as Google Gemini generating people of color in Nazi-era uniforms illustrate how AI outputs can be factually plausible yet socially harmful. AI models are increasingly evaluated for "fairness," yet existing benchmarks often conflate two fundamentally different dimensions: factual correctness and normative fairness. A model may generate responses that are factually accurate but socially unfair, or conversely, appear fair while distorting factual reality. We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation. We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments. Our queries are constructed from 19 statistics and are grounded in cognitive psychology, drawing on representativeness bias, attribution bias, and ingroup-outgroup bias to explain why models often misalign fact and fairness. Experiments across ten frontier models reveal different levels of fact-fair trade-offs. By reframing fairness evaluation, we provide both a new theoretical lens and a practical benchmark to advance the responsible model assessments. Our test suite is publicly available at https://github.com/uclanlp/Fact-or-Fair.

Patient education materials for solid-organ transplantation vary substantially across U.S. centers, yet no systematic method exists to quantify this heterogeneity at scale. We introduce a framework that grounds the same patient questions in different centers' handbooks using retrieval-augmented language models and compares the resulting answers using a five-label consistency taxonomy. Applied to 102 handbooks from 23 centers and 1,115 benchmark questions, the framework quantifies heterogeneity across four dimensions: question, topic, organ, and center. We find that 20.8% of non-absent pairwise comparisons exhibit clinically meaningful divergence, concentrated in condition monitoring and lifestyle topics. Coverage gaps are even more prominent: 96.2% of question-handbook pairs miss relevant content, with reproductive health at 95.1% absence. Center-level divergence profiles are stable and interpretable, where heterogeneity reflects systematic institutional differences, likely due to patient diversity. These findings expose an information gap in transplant patient education materials, with document-grounded medical question answering highlighting opportunities for content improvement.

Social biases in LLMs are usually measured via bias benchmark datasets. Current benchmarks have limitations in scope, grounding, quality, and human effort required. Previous work has shown success with a community-sourced, rather than crowd-sourced, approach to benchmark development. However, this work still required considerable effort from annotators with relevant lived experience. This paper explores whether an LLM (specifically, GPT-3.5-Turbo) can assist with the task of developing a bias benchmark dataset from responses to an open-ended community survey. We also extend the previous work to a new community and set of biases: the Jewish community and antisemitism. Our analysis shows that GPT-3.5-Turbo has poor performance on this annotation task and produces unacceptable quality issues in its output. Thus, we conclude that GPT-3.5-Turbo is not an appropriate substitute for human annotation in sensitive tasks related to social biases, and that its use actually negates many of the benefits of community-sourcing bias benchmarks.

Medical systematic reviews typically require assessing all the documents retrieved by a search. The reason is two-fold: the task aims for ``total recall''; and documents retrieved using Boolean search are an unordered set, and thus it is unclear how an assessor could examine only a subset. Screening prioritisation is the process of ranking the (unordered) set of retrieved documents, allowing assessors to begin the downstream processes of the systematic review creation earlier, leading to earlier completion of the review, or even avoiding screening documents ranked least relevant. Screening prioritisation requires highly effective ranking methods. Pre-trained language models are state-of-the-art on many IR tasks but have yet to be applied to systematic review screening prioritisation. In this paper, we apply several pre-trained language models to the systematic review document ranking task, both directly and fine-tuned. An empirical analysis compares how effective neural methods compare to traditional methods for this task. We also investigate different types of document representations for neural methods and their impact on ranking performance. Our results show that BERT-based rankers outperform the current state-of-the-art screening prioritisation methods. However, BERT rankers and existing methods can actually be complementary, and thus, further improvements may be achieved if used in conjunction.

The past two decades have witnessed the rapid development of personalized recommendation techniques. Despite significant progress made in both research and practice of recommender systems, to date, there is a lack of a widely-recognized benchmarking standard in this field. Many existing studies perform model evaluations and comparisons in an ad-hoc manner, for example, by employing their own private data splits or using different experimental settings. Such conventions not only increase the difficulty in reproducing existing studies, but also lead to inconsistent experimental results among them. This largely limits the credibility and practical value of research results in this field. To tackle these issues, we present an initiative project (namely BARS) aiming for open benchmarking for recommender systems. In comparison to some earlier attempts towards this goal, we take a further step by setting up a standardized benchmarking pipeline for reproducible research, which integrates all the details about datasets, source code, hyper-parameter settings, running logs, and evaluation results. The benchmark is designed with comprehensiveness and sustainability in mind. It covers both matching and ranking tasks, and also enables researchers to easily follow and contribute to the research in this field. This project will not only reduce the redundant efforts of researchers to re-implement or re-run existing baselines, but also drive more solid and reproducible research on recommender systems. We would like to call upon everyone to use the BARS benchmark for future evaluation, and contribute to the project through the portal at: https://openbenchmark.github.io/BARS.

Peer-evaluation based measures of group research quality such as the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which do not employ bibliometric analyses, cannot directly avail of such methods to normalize research impact across disciplines. This is seen as a conspicuous flaw of such exercises and calls have been made to find a remedy. Here a simple, systematic solution is proposed based upon a mathematical model for the relationship between research quality and group quantity. This model manifests both the Matthew effect and a phenomenon akin to the Ringelmann effect and reveals the existence of two critical masses for each academic discipline: a lower value, below which groups are vulnerable, and an upper value beyond which the dependency of quality on quantity reduces and plateaus appear when the critical masses are large. A possible normalization procedure is then to pitch these plateaus at similar levels. We examine the consequences of this procedure at RAE for a multitude of academic disciplines, corresponding to a range of critical masses.

The profusion of user generated content caused by the rise of social media platforms has enabled a surge in research relating to fields such as information retrieval, recommender systems, data mining and machine learning. However, the lack of comprehensive baseline data sets to allow a thorough evaluative comparison has become an important issue. In this paper we present a large data set of news items from well-known aggregators such as Google News and Yahoo! News, and their respective social feedback on multiple platforms: Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn. The data collected relates to a period of 8 months, between November 2015 and July 2016, accounting for about 100,000 news items on four different topics: economy, microsoft, obama and palestine. This data set is tailored for evaluative comparisons in predictive analytics tasks, although allowing for tasks in other research areas such as topic detection and tracking, sentiment analysis in short text, first story detection or news recommendation.

We are born with the ability to learn concepts by comparing diverse observations. This helps us to understand the new world in a compositional manner and facilitates extrapolation, as objects naturally consist of multiple concepts. In this work, we argue that the cognitive mechanism of comparison, fundamental to human learning, is also vital for machines to recover true concepts underlying the data. This offers correctness guarantees for the field of concept learning, which, despite its impressive empirical successes, still lacks general theoretical support. Specifically, we aim to develop a theoretical framework for the identifiability of concepts with multiple classes of observations. We show that with sufficient diversity across classes, hidden concepts can be identified without assuming specific concept types, functional relations, or parametric generative models. Interestingly, even when conditions are not globally satisfied, we can still provide alternative guarantees for as many concepts as possible based on local comparisons, thereby extending the applicability of our theory to more flexible scenarios. Moreover, the hidden structure between classes and concepts can also be identified nonparametrically. We validate our theoretical results in both synthetic and real-world settings.

Machine learning models are often personalized with categorical attributes that are protected, sensitive, self-reported, or costly to acquire. In this work, we show models that are personalized with group attributes can reduce performance at a group level. We propose formal conditions to ensure the "fair use" of group attributes in prediction tasks by training one additional model -- i.e., collective preference guarantees to ensure that each group who provides personal data will receive a tailored gain in performance in return. We present sufficient conditions to ensure fair use in empirical risk minimization and characterize failure modes that lead to fair use violations due to standard practices in model development and deployment. We present a comprehensive empirical study of fair use in clinical prediction tasks. Our results demonstrate the prevalence of fair use violations in practice and illustrate simple interventions to mitigate their harm.

With an increasing number of replication studies performed in psychological science, the question of how to evaluate the outcome of a replication attempt deserves careful consideration. Bayesian approaches allow to incorporate uncertainty and prior information into the analysis of the replication attempt by their design. The Replication Bayes Factor, introduced by Verhagen & Wagenmakers (2014), provides quantitative, relative evidence in favor or against a successful replication. In previous work by Verhagen & Wagenmakers (2014) it was limited to the case of t-tests. In this paper, the Replication Bayes Factor is extended to F-tests in multi-group, fixed-effect ANOVA designs. Simulations and examples are presented to facilitate the understanding and to demonstrate the usefulness of this approach. Finally, the Replication Bayes Factor is compared to other Bayesian and frequentist approaches and discussed in the context of replication attempts. R code to calculate Replication Bayes factors and to reproduce the examples in the paper is available at https://osf.io/jv39h/.

The paper analyzes the accuracy of publicly available object-recognition systems on a geographically diverse dataset. This dataset contains household items and was designed to have a more representative geographical coverage than commonly used image datasets in object recognition. We find that the systems perform relatively poorly on household items that commonly occur in countries with a low household income. Qualitative analyses suggest the drop in performance is primarily due to appearance differences within an object class (e.g., dish soap) and due to items appearing in a different context (e.g., toothbrushes appearing outside of bathrooms). The results of our study suggest that further work is needed to make object-recognition systems work equally well for people across different countries and income levels.

When multiple large language models interact in a shared conversation, do they develop differentiated social roles or converge toward uniform behavior? We present a controlled experimental platform that orchestrates simultaneous multi-agent discussions among 7 heterogeneous LLMs on a unified inference backend, systematically varying group composition, naming conventions, and prompt structure across 12 experimental series (208 runs, 13,786 coded messages). Each message is independently coded on six behavioral flags by two LLM judges from distinct model families (Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6), achieving mean Cohen's kappa = 0.78 with conservative intersection-based adjudication. Human validation on 609 randomly stratified messages confirmed coding reliability (mean kappa = 0.73 vs. Gemini). We find that (1) heterogeneous groups exhibit significantly richer behavioral differentiation than homogeneous groups (cosine similarity 0.56 vs. 0.85; p < 10^-5, r = 0.70); (2) groups spontaneously exhibit compensatory response patterns when an agent crashes; (3) revealing real model names significantly increases behavioral convergence (cosine 0.56 to 0.77, p = 0.001); and (4) removing all prompt scaffolding converges profiles to homogeneous-level similarity (p < 0.001). Critically, these behaviors are absent when agents operate in isolation, confirming that behavioral diversity is a structured, reproducible phenomenon driven by the interaction of architectural heterogeneity, group context, and prompt-level scaffolding.

Human evaluation is the foundation upon which the evaluation of both summarization systems and automatic metrics rests. However, existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale, and an in-depth analysis of human evaluation is lacking. Therefore, we address the shortcomings of existing summarization evaluation along the following axes: (1) We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units and allows for a high inter-annotator agreement. (2) We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems on three datasets. (3) We conduct a comparative study of four human evaluation protocols, underscoring potential confounding factors in evaluation setups. (4) We evaluate 50 automatic metrics and their variants using the collected human annotations across evaluation protocols and demonstrate how our benchmark leads to more statistically stable and significant results. The metrics we benchmarked include recent methods based on large language models (LLMs), GPTScore and G-Eval. Furthermore, our findings have important implications for evaluating LLMs, as we show that LLMs adjusted by human feedback (e.g., GPT-3.5) may overfit unconstrained human evaluation, which is affected by the annotators' prior, input-agnostic preferences, calling for more robust, targeted evaluation methods.

While research on applications and evaluations of explanation methods continues to expand, fairness of the explanation methods concerning disparities in their performance across subgroups remains an often overlooked aspect. In this paper, we address this gap by showing that, across three tasks and five language models, widely used post-hoc feature attribution methods exhibit significant gender disparity with respect to their faithfulness, robustness, and complexity. These disparities persist even when the models are pre-trained or fine-tuned on particularly unbiased datasets, indicating that the disparities we observe are not merely consequences of biased training data. Our results highlight the importance of addressing disparities in explanations when developing and applying explainability methods, as these can lead to biased outcomes against certain subgroups, with particularly critical implications in high-stakes contexts. Furthermore, our findings underscore the importance of incorporating the fairness of explanations, alongside overall model fairness and explainability, as a requirement in regulatory frameworks.

Despite excellent average-case performance of many image classifiers, their performance can substantially deteriorate on semantically coherent subgroups of the data that were under-represented in the training data. These systematic errors can impact both fairness for demographic minority groups as well as robustness and safety under domain shift. A major challenge is to identify such subgroups with subpar performance when the subgroups are not annotated and their occurrence is very rare. We leverage recent advances in text-to-image models and search in the space of textual descriptions of subgroups ("prompts") for subgroups where the target model has low performance on the prompt-conditioned synthesized data. To tackle the exponentially growing number of subgroups, we employ combinatorial testing. We denote this procedure as PromptAttack as it can be interpreted as an adversarial attack in a prompt space. We study subgroup coverage and identifiability with PromptAttack in a controlled setting and find that it identifies systematic errors with high accuracy. Thereupon, we apply PromptAttack to ImageNet classifiers and identify novel systematic errors on rare subgroups.

Personalized treatment effect estimates are often of interest in high-stakes applications -- thus, before deploying a model estimating such effects in practice, one needs to be sure that the best candidate from the ever-growing machine learning toolbox for this task was chosen. Unfortunately, due to the absence of counterfactual information in practice, it is usually not possible to rely on standard validation metrics for doing so, leading to a well-known model selection dilemma in the treatment effect estimation literature. While some solutions have recently been investigated, systematic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria is still lacking. In this paper, instead of attempting to declare a global `winner', we therefore empirically investigate success- and failure modes of different selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them, and provide interesting insights into the relative (dis)advantages of different criteria alongside desiderata for the design of further illuminating empirical studies in this context.

Priorities in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) convey the relevance preference of one criterion over another, which is usually reflected by imposing the non-negativity and unit-sum constraints. The processing of such priorities is different than other unconstrained data, but this point is often neglected by researchers, which results in fallacious statistical analysis. This article studies three prevalent fallacies in group MCDM along with solutions based on compositional data analysis to avoid misusing statistical operations. First, we use a compositional approach to aggregate the priorities of a group of DMs and show that the outcome of the compositional analysis is identical to the normalized geometric mean, meaning that the arithmetic mean should be avoided. Furthermore, a new aggregation method is developed, which is a robust surrogate for the geometric mean. We also discuss the errors in computing measures of dispersion, including standard deviation and distance functions. Discussing the fallacies in computing the standard deviation, we provide a probabilistic criteria ranking by developing proper Bayesian tests, where we calculate the extent to which a criterion is more important than another. Finally, we explain the errors in computing the distance between priorities, and a clustering algorithm is specially tailored based on proper distance metrics.

This study investigates the consistency of feedback ratings generated by OpenAI's GPT-4, a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence language model, across multiple iterations, time spans and stylistic variations. The model rated responses to tasks within the Higher Education (HE) subject domain of macroeconomics in terms of their content and style. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to learn more about the interrater reliability, consistency of the ratings across iterations and the correlation between ratings in terms of content and style. The results revealed a high interrater reliability with ICC scores ranging between 0.94 and 0.99 for different timespans, suggesting that GPT-4 is capable of generating consistent ratings across repetitions with a clear prompt. Style and content ratings show a high correlation of 0.87. When applying a non-adequate style the average content ratings remained constant, while style ratings decreased, which indicates that the large language model (LLM) effectively distinguishes between these two criteria during evaluation. The prompt used in this study is furthermore presented and explained. Further research is necessary to assess the robustness and reliability of AI models in various use cases.

Evaluation benchmarks are the cornerstone of measuring capabilities of large language models (LLMs), as well as driving progress in said capabilities. Originally designed to make claims about capabilities (or lack thereof) in fully pretrained models, evaluation benchmarks are now also extensively used to decide between various training choices. Despite this widespread usage, we rarely quantify the variance in our evaluation benchmarks, which dictates whether differences in performance are meaningful. Here, we define and measure a range of metrics geared towards measuring variance in evaluation benchmarks, including seed variance across initialisations, and monotonicity during training. By studying a large number of models -- both openly available and pretrained from scratch -- we provide empirical estimates for a variety of variance metrics, with considerations and recommendations for practitioners. We also evaluate the utility and tradeoffs of continuous versus discrete performance measures and explore options for better understanding and reducing this variance. We find that simple changes, such as framing choice tasks (like MMLU) as completion tasks, can often reduce variance for smaller scale (sim7B) models, while more involved methods inspired from human testing literature (such as item analysis and item response theory) struggle to meaningfully reduce variance. Overall, our work provides insights into variance in evaluation benchmarks, suggests LM-specific techniques to reduce variance, and more generally encourages practitioners to carefully factor in variance when comparing models.

Test-time scaling evaluates reasoning LLMs by sampling multiple outputs per prompt, but ranking models in this regime remains underexplored. We formalize dense benchmark ranking under test-time scaling and introduce Scorio, a library that implements statistical ranking methods such as paired-comparison models, item response theory (IRT) models, voting rules, and graph- and spectral-based methods. Across 20 reasoning models on four Olympiad-style math benchmarks (AIME'24, AIME'25, HMMT'25, and BrUMO'25; up to N=80 trials), most full-trial rankings agree closely with the Bayesian gold standard Bayes_{U}@80 (mean Kendall's τ_b = 0.93--0.95), and 19--34 methods recover exactly the same ordering. In the single-trial regime, the best methods reach τ_b approx 0.86. Using greedy decoding as an empirical prior (Bayes_{R_0}@N) reduces variance at N=1 by 16--52%, but can bias rankings when greedy and stochastic sampling disagree. These results identify reliable ranking methods for both high- and low-budget test-time scaling. We release Scorio as an open-source library at https://github.com/mohsenhariri/scorio.

We have compared three common visualisations for hierarchical quantitative data, treemaps, icicle plots and sunburst charts as well as a semicircular variant of sunburst charts we call the sundown chart. In a pilot study, we found that the sunburst chart was least preferred. In a controlled study with 12 participants, we compared treemaps, icicle plots and sundown charts. Treemap was the least preferred and had a slower performance on a basic navigation task and slower performance and accuracy in hierarchy understanding tasks. The icicle plot and sundown chart had similar performance with slight user preference for the icicle plot.

Human preference judgments are pivotal in guiding large language models (LLMs) to produce outputs that align with human values. Human evaluations are also used in summarization tasks to compare outputs from various systems, complementing existing automatic metrics. Despite their significance, however, there has been limited research probing these pairwise or k-wise comparisons. The collective impact and relative importance of factors such as output length, informativeness, fluency, and factual consistency are still not well understood. It is also unclear if there are other hidden factors influencing human judgments. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth examination of a collection of pairwise human judgments released by OpenAI. Utilizing the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model, we reveal the inherent preferences embedded in these human judgments. We find that the most favored factors vary across tasks and genres, whereas the least favored factors tend to be consistent, e.g., outputs are too brief, contain excessive off-focus content or hallucinated facts. Our findings have implications on the construction of balanced datasets in human preference evaluations, which is a crucial step in shaping the behaviors of future LLMs.

In this paper, we propose a novel method for a sentence-level answer-selection task that is a fundamental problem in natural language processing. First, we explore the effect of additional information by adopting a pretrained language model to compute the vector representation of the input text and by applying transfer learning from a large-scale corpus. Second, we enhance the compare-aggregate model by proposing a novel latent clustering method to compute additional information within the target corpus and by changing the objective function from listwise to pointwise. To evaluate the performance of the proposed approaches, experiments are performed with the WikiQA and TREC-QA datasets. The empirical results demonstrate the superiority of our proposed approach, which achieve state-of-the-art performance for both datasets.

In contemporary society, widespread social media usage is evident in people's daily lives. Nevertheless, disparities in emotional expressions between the real world and online platforms can manifest. We comprehensively analyzed Persian community on X to explore this phenomenon. An innovative pipeline was designed to measure the similarity between emotions in the real world compared to social media. Accordingly, recent tweets and images of participants were gathered and analyzed using Transformers-based text and image sentiment analysis modules. Each participant's friends also provided insights into the their real-world emotions. A distance criterion was used to compare real-world feelings with virtual experiences. Our study encompassed N=105 participants, 393 friends who contributed their perspectives, over 8,300 collected tweets, and 2,000 media images. Results indicated a 28.67% similarity between images and real-world emotions, while tweets exhibited a 75.88% alignment with real-world feelings. Additionally, the statistical significance confirmed that the observed disparities in sentiment proportions.

Measuring diversity accurately is important for many scientific fields, including machine learning (ML), ecology, and chemistry. The Vendi Score was introduced as a generic similarity-based diversity metric that extends the Hill number of order q=1 by leveraging ideas from quantum statistical mechanics. Contrary to many diversity metrics in ecology, the Vendi Score accounts for similarity and does not require knowledge of the prevalence of the categories in the collection to be evaluated for diversity. However, the Vendi Score treats each item in a given collection with a level of sensitivity proportional to the item's prevalence. This is undesirable in settings where there is a significant imbalance in item prevalence. In this paper, we extend the other Hill numbers using similarity to provide flexibility in allocating sensitivity to rare or common items. This leads to a family of diversity metrics -- Vendi scores with different levels of sensitivity -- that can be used in a variety of applications. We study the properties of the scores in a synthetic controlled setting where the ground truth diversity is known. We then test their utility in improving molecular simulations via Vendi Sampling. Finally, we use the Vendi scores to better understand the behavior of image generative models in terms of memorization, duplication, diversity, and sample quality.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

Language models contain ranking-based knowledge and are powerful solvers of in-context ranking tasks. For instance, they may have parametric knowledge about the ordering of countries by size or may be able to rank reviews by sentiment. Recent work focuses on pairwise, pointwise, and listwise prompting techniques to elicit a language model's ranking knowledge. However, we find that even with careful calibration and constrained decoding, prompting-based techniques may not always be self-consistent in the rankings they produce. This motivates us to explore an alternative approach that is inspired by an unsupervised probing method called Contrast-Consistent Search (CCS). The idea is to train a probing model guided by a logical constraint: a model's representation of a statement and its negation must be mapped to contrastive true-false poles consistently across multiple statements. We hypothesize that similar constraints apply to ranking tasks where all items are related via consistent pairwise or listwise comparisons. To this end, we extend the binary CCS method to Contrast-Consistent Ranking (CCR) by adapting existing ranking methods such as the Max-Margin Loss, Triplet Loss, and Ordinal Regression objective. Our results confirm that, for the same language model, CCR probing outperforms prompting and even performs on a par with prompting much larger language models.

Offline evaluation of search systems depends on test collections. These benchmarks provide the researchers with a corpus of documents, topics and relevance judgements indicating which documents are relevant for each topic. While test collections are an integral part of Information Retrieval (IR) research, their creation involves significant efforts in manual annotation. Large language models (LLMs) are gaining much attention as tools for automatic relevance assessment. Recent research has shown that LLM-based assessments yield high systems ranking correlation with human-made judgements. These correlations are helpful in large-scale experiments but less informative if we want to focus on top-performing systems. Moreover, these correlations ignore whether and how LLM-based judgements impact the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to human assessments. In this work, we look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve ranking differences among top-performing systems and also how they preserve pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements. Our results show that LLM-based judgements are unfair at ranking top-performing systems. Moreover, we observe an exceedingly high rate of false positives regarding statistical differences. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of the reliability of using LLMs-based judgements for IR evaluation. We hope this will serve as a basis for other researchers to develop more reliable models for automatic relevance assessment.

Existing public face datasets are strongly biased toward Caucasian faces, and other races (e.g., Latino) are significantly underrepresented. This can lead to inconsistent model accuracy, limit the applicability of face analytic systems to non-White race groups, and adversely affect research findings based on such skewed data. To mitigate the race bias in these datasets, we construct a novel face image dataset, containing 108,501 images, with an emphasis of balanced race composition in the dataset. We define 7 race groups: White, Black, Indian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Middle East, and Latino. Images were collected from the YFCC-100M Flickr dataset and labeled with race, gender, and age groups. Evaluations were performed on existing face attribute datasets as well as novel image datasets to measure generalization performance. We find that the model trained from our dataset is substantially more accurate on novel datasets and the accuracy is consistent between race and gender groups.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in linguistic capabilities, robust multilingual evaluation has become essential for promoting equitable technological progress. This position paper examines over 2,000 multilingual (non-English) benchmarks from 148 countries, published between 2021 and 2024, to evaluate past, present, and future practices in multilingual benchmarking. Our findings reveal that, despite significant investments amounting to tens of millions of dollars, English remains significantly overrepresented in these benchmarks. Additionally, most benchmarks rely on original language content rather than translations, with the majority sourced from high-resource countries such as China, India, Germany, the UK, and the USA. Furthermore, a comparison of benchmark performance with human judgments highlights notable disparities. STEM-related tasks exhibit strong correlations with human evaluations (0.70 to 0.85), while traditional NLP tasks like question answering (e.g., XQuAD) show much weaker correlations (0.11 to 0.30). Moreover, translating English benchmarks into other languages proves insufficient, as localized benchmarks demonstrate significantly higher alignment with local human judgments (0.68) than their translated counterparts (0.47). This underscores the importance of creating culturally and linguistically tailored benchmarks rather than relying solely on translations. Through this comprehensive analysis, we highlight six key limitations in current multilingual evaluation practices, propose the guiding principles accordingly for effective multilingual benchmarking, and outline five critical research directions to drive progress in the field. Finally, we call for a global collaborative effort to develop human-aligned benchmarks that prioritize real-world applications.

Evaluation efforts such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR and FIRE, alongside public leaderboard such as MS MARCO, are intended to encourage research and track our progress, addressing big questions in our field. However, the goal is not simply to identify which run is "best", achieving the top score. The goal is to move the field forward by developing new robust techniques, that work in many different settings, and are adopted in research and practice. This paper uses the MS MARCO and TREC Deep Learning Track as our case study, comparing it to the case of TREC ad hoc ranking in the 1990s. We show how the design of the evaluation effort can encourage or discourage certain outcomes, and raising questions about internal and external validity of results. We provide some analysis of certain pitfalls, and a statement of best practices for avoiding such pitfalls. We summarize the progress of the effort so far, and describe our desired end state of "robust usefulness", along with steps that might be required to get us there.

Existing cultural commonsense benchmarks treat nations as monolithic, assuming uniform practices within national boundaries. But does cultural commonsense hold uniformly within a nation, or does it vary at the sub-national level? We introduce Indica, the first benchmark designed to test LLMs' ability to address this question, focusing on India - a nation of 28 states, 8 union territories, and 22 official languages. We collect human-annotated answers from five Indian regions (North, South, East, West, and Central) across 515 questions spanning 8 domains of everyday life, yielding 1,630 region-specific question-answer pairs. Strikingly, only 39.4% of questions elicit agreement across all five regions, demonstrating that cultural commonsense in India is predominantly regional, not national. We evaluate eight state-of-the-art LLMs and find two critical gaps: models achieve only 13.4%-20.9% accuracy on region-specific questions, and they exhibit geographic bias, over-selecting Central and North India as the "default" (selected 30-40% more often than expected) while under-representing East and West. Beyond India, our methodology provides a generalizable framework for evaluating cultural commonsense in any culturally heterogeneous nation, from question design grounded in anthropological taxonomy, to regional data collection, to bias measurement.

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.

The paper presents analysis of time evolution within am Internet political forum, characterized by large political differences and high levels of emotions. The study compares samples of discussions gathered at three periods separated by important events. We focus on statistical aspects related to emotional content of communication and changes brought by technologies that increase or decrease the direct one-to-one discussions. We discuss implications of user interface aspects on promoting communication across a political divide.

Evaluating LLMs is challenging, as benchmark scores often fail to capture models' real-world usefulness. Instead, users often rely on ``vibe-testing'': informal experience-based evaluation, such as comparing models on coding tasks related to their own workflow. While prevalent, vibe-testing is often too ad hoc and unstructured to analyze or reproduce at scale. In this work, we study how vibe-testing works in practice and then formalize it to support systematic analysis. We first analyze two empirical resources: (1) a survey of user evaluation practices, and (2) a collection of in-the-wild model comparison reports from blogs and social media. Based on these resources, we formalize vibe-testing as a two-part process: users personalize both what they test and how they judge responses. We then introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation pipeline that follows this formulation by generating personalized prompts and comparing model outputs using user-aware subjective criteria. In experiments on coding benchmarks, we find that combining personalized prompts and user-aware evaluation can change which model is preferred, reflecting the role of vibe-testing in practice. These findings suggest that formalized vibe-testing can serve as a useful approach for bridging benchmark scores and real-world experience.

We present a new approach for mitigating unfairness in learned classifiers. In particular, we focus on binary classification tasks over individuals from two populations, where, as our criterion for fairness, we wish to achieve similar false positive rates in both populations, and similar false negative rates in both populations. As a proof of concept, we implement our approach and empirically evaluate its ability to achieve both fairness and accuracy, using datasets from the fields of criminal risk assessment, credit, lending, and college admissions.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have been widely adopted in various applications; however, they exhibit significant gender biases. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate gender bias at the demographic group level, neglecting individual fairness, which emphasizes equal treatment of similar individuals. This research gap limits the detection of discriminatory behaviors, as individual fairness offers a more granular examination of biases that group fairness may overlook. For the first time, this paper introduces the GenderBias-VL benchmark to evaluate occupation-related gender bias in LVLMs using counterfactual visual questions under individual fairness criteria. To construct this benchmark, we first utilize text-to-image diffusion models to generate occupation images and their gender counterfactuals. Subsequently, we generate corresponding textual occupation options by identifying stereotyped occupation pairs with high semantic similarity but opposite gender proportions in real-world statistics. This method enables the creation of large-scale visual question counterfactuals to expose biases in LVLMs, applicable in both multimodal and unimodal contexts through modifying gender attributes in specific modalities. Overall, our GenderBias-VL benchmark comprises 34,581 visual question counterfactual pairs, covering 177 occupations. Using our benchmark, we extensively evaluate 15 commonly used open-source LVLMs (\eg, LLaVA) and state-of-the-art commercial APIs, including GPT-4o and Gemini-Pro. Our findings reveal widespread gender biases in existing LVLMs. Our benchmark offers: (1) a comprehensive dataset for occupation-related gender bias evaluation; (2) an up-to-date leaderboard on LVLM biases; and (3) a nuanced understanding of the biases presented by these models. The dataset and code are available at the \href{https://genderbiasvl.github.io/{website}.}

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.

The alignment problem in the context of large language models must consider the plurality of human values in our world. Whilst there are many resonant and overlapping values amongst the world's cultures, there are also many conflicting, yet equally valid, values. It is important to observe which cultural values a model exhibits, particularly when there is a value conflict between input prompts and generated outputs. We discuss how the co-creation of language and cultural value impacts large language models (LLMs). We explore the constitution of the training data for GPT-3 and compare that to the world's language and internet access demographics, as well as to reported statistical profiles of dominant values in some Nation-states. We stress tested GPT-3 with a range of value-rich texts representing several languages and nations; including some with values orthogonal to dominant US public opinion as reported by the World Values Survey. We observed when values embedded in the input text were mutated in the generated outputs and noted when these conflicting values were more aligned with reported dominant US values. Our discussion of these results uses a moral value pluralism (MVP) lens to better understand these value mutations. Finally, we provide recommendations for how our work may contribute to other current work in the field.

While Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) offers a powerful framework for LLM post-training, its effectiveness in open-ended domains like Machine Translation hinges on accurate intra-group ranking. We identify that standard Scalar Quality Metrics (SQM) fall short in this context; by evaluating candidates in isolation, they lack the comparative context necessary to distinguish fine-grained linguistic nuances. To address this, we introduce the Group Quality Metric (GQM) paradigm and instantiate it via the Group Relative Reward Model (GRRM). Unlike traditional independent scorers, GRRM processes the entire candidate group jointly, leveraging comparative analysis to rigorously resolve relative quality and adaptive granularity. Empirical evaluations confirm that GRRM achieves competitive ranking accuracy among all baselines. Building on this foundation, we integrate GRRM into the GRPO training loop to optimize the translation policy. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework not only improves general translation quality but also unlocks reasoning capabilities comparable to state-of-the-art reasoning models. We release codes, datasets, and model checkpoints at https://github.com/NJUNLP/GRRM.

Efficiently ranking relevant items from large candidate pools is a cornerstone of modern information retrieval systems -- such as web search, recommendation, and retrieval-augmented generation. Listwise rerankers, which improve relevance by jointly considering multiple candidates, are often limited in practice: either by model input size constraints, or by degraded quality when processing large sets. We propose a model-agnostic method for fast reranking large sets that exceed a model input limits. The method first partitions candidate items into overlapping blocks, each of which is ranked independently in parallel. Implicit pairwise comparisons are then derived from these local rankings. Finally, these comparisons are aggregated to construct a global ranking using algorithms such as Winrate or PageRank. Experiments on TREC DL-2019 show that our method achieves an nDCG@10 of 70.88 compared to the 57.68 for full-context listwise approach using gpt-4.1-mini as long-context model, while reducing latency from 21 to 8 seconds. The implementation of the algorithm and the experiments is available in the repository: https://github.com/V3RGANz/jointrank

We study retrieving a set of documents that covers various perspectives on a complex and contentious question (e.g., will ChatGPT do more harm than good?). We curate a Benchmark for Retrieval Diversity for Subjective questions (BERDS), where each example consists of a question and diverse perspectives associated with the question, sourced from survey questions and debate websites. On this data, retrievers paired with a corpus are evaluated to surface a document set that contains diverse perspectives. Our framing diverges from most retrieval tasks in that document relevancy cannot be decided by simple string matches to references. Instead, we build a language model based automatic evaluator that decides whether each retrieved document contains a perspective. This allows us to evaluate the performance of three different types of corpus (Wikipedia, web snapshot, and corpus constructed on the fly with retrieved pages from the search engine) paired with retrievers. Retrieving diverse documents remains challenging, with the outputs from existing retrievers covering all perspectives on only 33.74% of the examples. We further study the impact of query expansion and diversity-focused reranking approaches and analyze retriever sycophancy. Together, we lay the foundation for future studies in retrieval diversity handling complex queries.

The peer review process is crucial for ensuring the quality and reliability of scholarly work, yet assigning suitable reviewers remains a significant challenge. Traditional manual methods are labor-intensive and often ineffective, leading to nonconstructive or biased reviews. This paper introduces the exHarmony (eHarmony but for connecting experts to manuscripts) benchmark, designed to address these challenges by re-imagining the Reviewer Assignment Problem (RAP) as a retrieval task. Utilizing the extensive data from OpenAlex, we propose a novel approach that considers a host of signals from the authors, most similar experts, and the citation relations as potential indicators for a suitable reviewer for a manuscript. This approach allows us to develop a standard benchmark dataset for evaluating the reviewer assignment problem without needing explicit labels. We benchmark various methods, including traditional lexical matching, static neural embeddings, and contextualized neural embeddings, and introduce evaluation metrics that assess both relevance and diversity in the context of RAP. Our results indicate that while traditional methods perform reasonably well, contextualized embeddings trained on scholarly literature show the best performance. The findings underscore the importance of further research to enhance the diversity and effectiveness of reviewer assignments.

In regression and causal inference, controlled subgroup selection aims to identify, with inferential guarantees, a subgroup (defined as a subset of the covariate space) on which the average response or treatment effect is above a given threshold. E.g., in a clinical trial, it may be of interest to find a subgroup with a positive average treatment effect. However, existing methods either lack inferential guarantees, heavily restrict the search for the subgroup, or sacrifice efficiency by naive data splitting. We propose a novel framework called chiseling that allows the analyst to interactively refine and test a candidate subgroup by iteratively shrinking it. The sole restriction is that the shrinkage direction only depends on the points outside the current subgroup, but otherwise the analyst may leverage any prior information or machine learning algorithm. Despite this flexibility, chiseling controls the probability that the discovered subgroup is null (e.g., has a non-positive average treatment effect) under minimal assumptions: for example, in randomized experiments, this inferential validity guarantee holds under only bounded moment conditions. When applied to a variety of simulated datasets and a real survey experiment, chiseling identifies substantially better subgroups than existing methods with inferential guarantees.

This study evaluates the performance of OpenAI's o1-preview model in higher-order cognitive domains, including critical thinking, systematic thinking, computational thinking, data literacy, creative thinking, logical reasoning, and scientific reasoning. Using established benchmarks, we compared the o1-preview models's performance to human participants from diverse educational levels. o1-preview achieved a mean score of 24.33 on the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (EWCTET), surpassing undergraduate (13.8) and postgraduate (18.39) participants (z = 1.60 and 0.90, respectively). In systematic thinking, it scored 46.1, SD = 4.12 on the Lake Urmia Vignette, significantly outperforming the human mean (20.08, SD = 8.13, z = 3.20). For data literacy, o1-preview scored 8.60, SD = 0.70 on Merk et al.'s "Use Data" dimension, compared to the human post-test mean of 4.17, SD = 2.02 (z = 2.19). On creative thinking tasks, the model achieved originality scores of 2.98, SD = 0.73, higher than the human mean of 1.74 (z = 0.71). In logical reasoning (LogiQA), it outperformed humans with average 90%, SD = 10% accuracy versus 86%, SD = 6.5% (z = 0.62). For scientific reasoning, it achieved near-perfect performance (mean = 0.99, SD = 0.12) on the TOSLS,, exceeding the highest human scores of 0.85, SD = 0.13 (z = 1.78). While o1-preview excelled in structured tasks, it showed limitations in problem-solving and adaptive reasoning. These results demonstrate the potential of AI to complement education in structured assessments but highlight the need for ethical oversight and refinement for broader applications.

We introduce CARTE 1 (Culturally Anchored Regional-Territorial Evaluation), a multiplechoice benchmark for evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to perform fine-grained reasoning over geographically grounded and regionally differentiated knowledge within France. While prior benchmarks focus on national-level cultural understanding, they largely overlook intra-country variation and the need to distinguish between closely related regional contexts. CARTE addresses this gap by introducing 2,431 questions spanning the 13 metropolitan regions of France and covering 14 thematic domains, including culture, language, demographics, economy, environment, and mobility. We further introduce CARTE-LV, a subset targeting Linguistic Variation across French regions, enabling focused evaluation of language-related differences. We evaluate 27 LLMs ranging from 1B to 12B parameters under few-shot settings. Our experiments reveal performance disparities across regions and model scales, suggesting systematic gaps in pretraining coverage and limited robustness to intra-national variation.

There is a broad consensus that news media outlets incorporate ideological biases in their news articles. However, prior studies on measuring the discrepancies among media outlets and further dissecting the origins of thematic differences suffer from small sample sizes and limited scope and granularity. In this study, we use a large dataset of 1.8 million news headlines from major U.S. media outlets spanning from 2014 to 2022 to thoroughly track and dissect the fine-grained thematic discrepancy in U.S. news media. We employ multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to quantify the fine-grained thematic discrepancy related to four prominent topics - domestic politics, economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs in order to derive a more holistic analysis. Additionally, we compare the most frequent n-grams in media headlines to provide further qualitative insights into our analysis. Our findings indicate that on domestic politics and social issues, the discrepancy can be attributed to a certain degree of media bias. Meanwhile, the discrepancy in reporting foreign affairs is largely attributed to the diversity in individual journalistic styles. Finally, U.S. media outlets show consistency and high similarity in their coverage of economic issues.

Personalized summarization models cater to individuals' subjective understanding of saliency, as represented by their reading history and current topics of attention. Existing personalized text summarizers are primarily evaluated based on accuracy measures such as BLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR. However, a recent study argued that accuracy measures are inadequate for evaluating the degree of personalization of these models and proposed EGISES, the first metric to evaluate personalized text summaries. It was suggested that accuracy is a separate aspect and should be evaluated standalone. In this paper, we challenge the necessity of an accuracy leaderboard, suggesting that relying on accuracy-based aggregated results might lead to misleading conclusions. To support this, we delve deeper into EGISES, demonstrating both theoretically and empirically that it measures the degree of responsiveness, a necessary but not sufficient condition for degree-of-personalization. We subsequently propose PerSEval, a novel measure that satisfies the required sufficiency condition. Based on the benchmarking of ten SOTA summarization models on the PENS dataset, we empirically establish that -- (i) PerSEval is reliable w.r.t human-judgment correlation (Pearson's r = 0.73; Spearman's rho = 0.62; Kendall's tau = 0.42), (ii) PerSEval has high rank-stability, (iii) PerSEval as a rank-measure is not entailed by EGISES-based ranking, and (iv) PerSEval can be a standalone rank-measure without the need of any aggregated ranking.