Human Evaluation

$N$-gram novelty is widely used to evaluate language models' ability to generate text outside of their training data. More recently, it has also been adopted as a metric for measuring textual creativity. However, theoretical work on creativity suggests that this approach may be inadequate, as it does not account for creativity's dual nature: novelty (how original the text is) and appropriateness (how sensical and pragmatic it is). We investigate the relationship between this notion of creativity and $n$-gram novelty through 7542 expert writer annotations ($n=26$) of novelty, pragmaticality, and sensicality via \emph{close reading} of human and AI-generated text. We find that while $n$-gram novelty is positively associated with expert writer-judged creativity, $\approx 91\%$ of top-quartile expressions by $n$-gram novelty are not judged as creative, cautioning against relying on $n$-gram novelty alone. Furthermore, unlike human-written text, higher $n$-gram novelty in open-source LLMs correlates with lower pragmaticality. In an exploratory study with frontier close-source models, we additionally confirm that they are less likely to produce creative expressions than humans. Using our dataset, we test whether zero-shot, few-shot, and finetuned models are able to identify creative expressions (a positive aspect of writing) and non-pragmatic ones (a negative aspect). Overall, frontier LLMs exhibit performance much higher than random but leave room for improvement, especially struggling to identify non-pragmatic expressions. We further find that LLM-as-a-Judge novelty scores from the best-performing model were predictive of expert writer preferences.

Evaluating user-facing AI applications remains a central challenge, especially in open-ended domains such as travel planning, clinical note generation, or dialogue. The gold standard is user feedback (e.g., thumbs up/down) or behavioral signals (e.g., retention), but these are often scarce in prototypes and research projects, or too-slow to use for system optimization. We present **AutoMetrics**, a framework for synthesizing evaluation metrics under low-data constraints. AutoMetrics combines retrieval from **MetricBank**, a collection of 48 metrics we curate, with automatically generated LLM-as-a-Judge criteria informed by lightweight human feedback. These metrics are composed via regression to maximize correlation with human signal. AutoMetrics takes you from expensive measures to interpretable automatic metrics. Across 5 diverse tasks, AutoMetrics improves Kendall correlation with human ratings by up to 33.4% over LLM-as-a-Judge while requiring fewer than 100 feedback points. We show that AutoMetrics can be used as a proxy reward to equal effect as a verifiable reward. We release the full AutoMetrics toolkit and MetricBank to accelerate adaptive evaluation of LLM applications.

Comparing human and model performance offers a valuable perspective for understanding the strengths and limitations of embedding models, highlighting wherethey succeed and where they fail to capture meaning and nuance. However, such comparisons are rarely made, as human performance on embedding tasks is difficult to measure. To fill this gap, we introduce HUME: Human Evaluation Framework for Text Embeddings. While frameworks like MTEB provide broad model evaluation, they lack reliable estimates of human performance, limiting the interpretability of model scores. We measure human performance across 16 MTEB datasets spanning reranking, classification, clustering, and semantic textual similarity across linguistically diverse high- and low-resource languages. Humans achieve an average performance of 77.6% compared to 80.1% for the best embedding model, though with substantial variation: models reach high performance on some datasets while struggling on notably low-resource languages. Our human annotation also reveals multiple notable dataset issues. We also benchmark nine LLMs as annotators, finding they fall short of human performance (76.1% vs. 81.2%) despite offering scalability advantages. We provide human performance baselines, insights into task difficulty patterns, and an extensible evaluation framework that enables a more meaningful interpretation of the model and informs the development of both models and benchmarks.

Recent years have seen rigorous proofs of quantum advantages in machine learning, particularly when data is labeled by cryptographic or inherently quantum functions. These results typically rely on the infeasibility of classical polynomial-sized circuits to evaluate the true labeling function. While broad in scope, these results however reveal little about advantages stemming from the actual learning process itself. This motivates the study of the so-called identification task, where the goal is to ``just'' identify the labeling function behind a dataset, making the learning step the only possible source of advantage. The identification task also has natural applications, which we discuss. Yet, such identification advantages remain poorly understood. So far they have only been proven in cryptographic settings by leveraging random-generatability, the ability to efficiently generate labeled data. However, for quantum functions this property is conjectured not to hold, leaving identification advantages unexplored. In this work, we provide the first proofs of identification learning advantages for quantum functions under complexity-theoretic assumptions. Our main result relies on a new proof strategy, allowing us to show that for a broad class of quantum identification tasks there exists an exponential quantum advantage unless BQP is in a low level of the polynomial hierarchy. Along the way we prove a number of more technical results including the aforementioned conjecture that quantum functions are not random generatable (subject to plausible complexity-theoretic assumptions), which shows a new proof strategy was necessary. These findings suggest that for many quantum-related learning tasks, the entire learning process—not just final evaluation—gains significant advantages from quantum computation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate feature engineering in tabular learning. Given task-specific information, LLMs can propose diverse feature transformation operations to enhance downstream model performance. However, current approaches typically assign the LLM as a black-box optimizer, responsible for both proposing and selecting operations based solely on its internal heuristics, which often lack calibrated estimations of operation utility and consequently lead to repeated exploration of low-yield operations without a principled strategy for prioritizing promising directions. In this paper, we propose a human–LLM collaborative feature engineering framework for tabular learning. We begin by decoupling the transformation operation proposal and selection processes, where LLMs are used solely to generate operation candidates, while the selection is guided by explicitly modeling the utility and uncertainty of each proposed operation. Since accurate utility estimation can be difficult especially in the early rounds of feature engineering, we design a mechanism within the framework that selectively elicits and incorporates human expert preference feedback—comparing which operations are more promising—into the selection process to help identify more effective operations. Our evaluations on both the synthetic study and the real user study demonstrate that the proposed framework improves feature engineering performance across a variety of tabular datasets and reduces users’ cognitive load during the feature engineering process.

Single-view 3D human reconstruction has achieved remarkable progress through the adoption of multi-view diffusion models, yet the recovered 3D humans often exhibit unnatural poses. This phenomenon becomes pronounced when reconstructing 3D humans with dynamic or challenging poses, which we attribute to the limited scale of available 3D human datasets with diverse poses. To address this limitation, we introduce DrPose, a Direct Reward fine-tuning algorithm on Poses, which enables post-training of a multi-view diffusion model on diverse poses without requiring expensive 3D human assets. DrPose trains a model using only human poses paired with single-view images, employing a direct reward fine-tuning to maximize PoseScore, which is our proposed differentiable reward that quantifies consistency between a generated multi-view latent image and a ground-truth human pose. This optimization is conducted on DrPose15K, a novel dataset that was constructed from an existing human motion dataset and a pose-conditioned video generative model. Constructed from abundant human pose sequence data, DrPose15K exhibits a broader pose distribution compared to existing 3D human datasets. We validate our approach through evaluation on conventional benchmark datasets, in-the-wild images, and a newly constructed benchmark, with a particular focus on assessing performance on challenging human poses. Our results demonstrate consistent qualitative and quantitative improvements across all benchmarks.

The evaluation of large language models faces significant challenges. Technical benchmarks often lack real-world relevance, while existing human preference evaluations suffer from unrepresentative sampling, superficial assessment depth, and single-metric reductionism. To address these issues, we introduce HUMAINE, a framework for multidimensional, demographically aware measurement of human-AI interaction. We collected multi-turn, naturalistic conversations from 23,404 participants that were stratified across 22 demographic groups, both in the US and UK, to evaluate 28 state-of-the-art models across five human-centric dimensions. We use a hierarchical Bayesian Bradley-Terry-Davidson (BTD) model, with post-stratification to census data, and our analysis reveals three key insights. $\textbf{(1)}$ We establish a clear performance hierarchy where $\texttt{google/gemini-2.5-pro}$ ranks first overall, with a 95.6\% posterior probability of being the top-ranked model. $\textbf{(2)}$ We uncover significant preference heterogeneity, with user age emerging as the primary demographic axis of disagreement; a model's perceived rank can shift substantially across age groups, exposing failures in generalisation that unrepresentative samples typically mask. $\textbf{(3)}$ We quantify the vast difference in discriminative power across evaluation dimensions, with ambiguous qualities like Trust, Ethics and Safety showing a 65\% tie rate, in stark contrast to the decisive 10\% tie rate for Overall Winner. Our work emphasises the need for a more multidimensional, demographically aware perspective in LLM evaluation. We release our complete dataset, interactive leaderboard, and open-source framework.

Community-driven Text-to-SQL evaluation platforms play a pivotal role in tracking the state of the art of Text-to-SQL performance. The reliability of the evaluation process is critical for driving progress in the field. Current evaluation methods are largely test-based, which involves comparing the execution results of a generated SQL query and a human-labeled ground-truth on a static test database. Such an evaluation is optimistic, as two queries can coincidentally produce the same output on the test database while actually being different. In this work, we propose a new alternative evaluation pipeline, called *SpotIt*, where a formal bounded equivalence verification engine actively searches for a database that differentiates the generated and ground-truth SQL queries. We develop techniques to extend existing verifiers to support a richer SQL subset relevant to Text-to-SQL. A performance evaluation of ten Text-to-SQL methods on the high-profile BIRD dataset suggests that test-based methods can often overlook differences between the generated query and the ground-truth. Further analysis of the verification results reveals a more complex picture of the current Text-to-SQL evaluation.

Reliable certification of Large Language Models (LLMs)—verifying that failure rates are below a safety threshold—is critical yet challenging. While "LLM-as-a-Judge" offers scalability, judge imperfections, noise, and bias can invalidate statistical guarantees. We introduce a "Noisy but Valid" hypothesis testing framework to address this. By leveraging a small human-labelled calibration set to estimate the judge's True Positive and False Positive Rates (TPR/FPR), we derive a variance-corrected critical threshold applied to a large judge-labelled dataset. Crucially, our framework theoretically guarantees finite-sample Type-I error control (validity) despite calibration uncertainty. This distinguishes our work from Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI), positioning our method as a diagnostic tool that explicitly models judge behavior rather than a black-box estimator. Our contributions include: (1) Theoretical Guarantees: We derive the exact conditions under which noisy testing yields higher statistical power than direct evaluation; (2) Empirical Validation: Experiments on Jigsaw Comment, Hate Speech and SafeRLHF confirm our theory; (3) The Oracle Gap: We reveal a significant performance gap between practical methods and the theoretical "Oracle" (perfectly known judge parameters), quantifying the cost of estimation. Specifically, we provide the first systematic treatment of the imperfect-judge setting, yielding interpretable diagnostics of judge reliability and clarifying how evaluation power depends on judge quality, dataset size, and certification levels. Together, these results sharpen understanding of statistical evaluation with LLM judges, and highlight trade-offs among competing inferential tools.

Recent advancements in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated remarkable multimodal perception capabilities, garnering significant attention. While numerous evaluation studies have emerged, assessing LVLMs both holistically and on specialized tasks, fine-grained image tasks—fundamental to computer vision—remain largely unexplored. To fill this gap, we introduce a comprehensive fine-grained evaluation benchmark, i.e., FG-BMK, comprising 1.01 million questions and 0.28 million images. Our evaluation systematically examines LVLMs from both human-oriented and machine-oriented perspectives, focusing on their semantic recognition and fine-grained feature representation capabilities. Through extensive experiments on twelve representative LVLMs/VLMs, we uncover key findings regarding the influence of training paradigms, modality alignment, perturbation susceptibility, and fine-grained category reasoning on task performance. This work provides critical insights into the limitations of current LVLMs and offers guidance for future data construction and model design in the development of more advanced LVLMs. Our code is open-source and available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/FG-BMK-7B51.

Long-Form Question Answering (LFQA) involves generating comprehensive, paragraph-level responses to open-ended questions, which poses a significant challenge for evaluation due to the richness of information and flexible response format. Existing LFQA-evaluation benchmarks often lack reference answers and are limited in size and topic coverage, reducing their reliability. To address this gap, we introduce LFQA-E, a well-constructed, multilingual, and reference-based benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate automatic metrics for LFQA. LFQA-E comprises 1,625 questions and 7,649 pairwise comparisons across 15 topics, drawn from diverse sources such as online queries and examination questions, thereby enabling a comprehensive assessment of evaluation metrics. We examine five categories of metrics, encompassing 17 specific methods, using LFQA-E. The results demonstrate that none of the existing automatic metrics perform comparably to human judgments, highlighting their inability to capture the dense information in long-form responses. Furthermore, we present a detailed analysis of the failure cases and the generalization capacity of these metrics, offering insights to guide the future development of LFQA evaluation methods.

Transferability estimation metrics are used to find a high-performing pre-trained model for a given target task without fine-tuning models and without access to the source dataset. Despite the growing interest in developing such metrics, the benchmarks used to measure their progress have gone largely unexamined. In this work, we empirically show the shortcomings of widely used benchmark setups to evaluate transferability estimation metrics. We argue that the benchmarks on which these metrics are evaluated are fundamentally flawed. We empirically demonstrate that their unrealistic model spaces and static performance hierarchies artificially inflate the perceived performance of existing metrics, to the point where simple, dataset-agnostic heuristics can outperform sophisticated methods. Our analysis reveals a critical disconnect between current evaluation protocols and the complexities of real-world model selection. To address this, we provide concrete recommendations for constructing more robust and realistic benchmarks to guide future research in a more meaningful direction.

The tendency of users to anthropomorphise large language models (LLMs) is of growing societal interest. Here, we present AnthroBench: a novel empirical method and tool for evaluating anthropomorphic LLM behaviours in realistic settings. Our work introduces three key advances; first, we develop a multi-turn evaluation of 14 distinct anthropomorphic behaviours, moving beyond single-turn assessment. Second, we present a scalable, automated approach by leveraging simulations of user interactions, enabling efficient and reproducible assessment. Third, we conduct an interactive, large-scale human subject study (N=1101) to empirically validate that the model behaviours we measure predict real users’ anthropomorphic perceptions. We find that all evaluated LLMs exhibit similar behaviours, primarily characterised by relationship-building (e.g., empathy and validation) and first-person pronoun use. Crucially, we observe that the majority of these anthropomorphic behaviors only first occur after multiple turns, underscoring the necessity of multi-turn evaluations for understanding complex social phenomena in human-AI interaction. Our work provides a robust empirical foundation for investigating how design choices influence anthropomorphic model behaviours and for progressing the ethical debate on the desirability of these behaviours.

The growing volume of academic papers has made it increasingly difficult for researchers to efficiently extract key information. While large language models (LLMs) based agents are capable of automating question answering (QA) workflows for scientific papers, there still lacks a comprehensive and realistic benchmark to evaluate their capabilities. Moreover, training an interactive agent for this task is hindered by the shortage of high-quality interaction trajectories. In this work, we propose M4PQA, a human-annotated comprehensive paper QA dataset in the field of artificial intelligence, with 13,948 papers and 1,246 questions, that encompasses multi-task, multi-modal and instance-level evaluation. Furthermore, we propose ExTrActor, an automated framework for instruction data synthesis. With three LLM-based agents, ExTrActor can perform example generation and trajectory collection without human intervention. Evaluations of multiple open-source and proprietary models show that most models underperform on M4PQA, demonstrating its quality. Extensive experiments confirm that ExTrActor consistently improves the multi-turn tool-use capability of small models, enabling them to achieve performance comparable to larger ones.

The pursuit of human-like conversational agents has long been guided by the Turing test. For modern speech-to-speech (S2S) systems, a critical yet unanswered question is whether they can converse like humans. To tackle this, we conduct the first Turing test for S2S systems, collecting 2,968 human judgments on dialogues between 9 state-of-the-art S2S systems and 28 human participants. Our results deliver a clear finding: no existing evaluated S2S system passes the test, revealing a significant gap in human-likeness. To diagnose this failure, we develop a fine-grained taxonomy of 18 human-likeness dimensions and crowd-annotate our collected dialogues accordingly. Our analysis shows that the bottleneck is not semantic understanding but stems from paralinguistic features, emotional expressivity, and conversational persona. Furthermore, we find that off-the-shelf AI models perform unreliably as Turing test judges. In response, we propose an interpretable model that leverages the fine-grained human-likeness ratings and delivers accurate and transparent human-vs-machine discrimination, offering a powerful tool for automatic human-likeness evaluation. Our work establishes the first human-likeness evaluation for S2S systems and moves beyond binary outcomes to enable detailed diagnostic insights, paving the way for human-like improvements in conversational AI systems.

Human mobility generation aims to synthesize plausible trajectory data, which is widely used in urban system research. While Large Language Model-based methods excel at generating routine trajectories, they struggle to capture deviated mobility during large-scale societal events. This limitation stems from two critical gaps: (1) the absence of event-annotated mobility datasets for design and evaluation, and (2) the inability of current frameworks to reconcile competitions between users' habitual patterns and event-imposed constraints when making trajectory decisions. This work addresses these gaps with a twofold contribution. First, we construct the first event-annotated mobility dataset covering three major events: Typhoon Hagibis, COVID-19, and the Tokyo 2021 Olympics. Second, we propose ELLMob, a self-aligned LLM framework that first extracts competing rationales between habitual patterns and event constraints, based on Fuzzy-Trace Theory, and then iteratively aligns them to generate trajectories that are both habitually grounded and event-responsive. Extensive experiments show that ELLMob wins state-of-the-art baselines across all events, demonstrating its effectiveness.

We present SEED ($\textbf{Se}$mantic $\textbf{E}$valuation for Visual Brain $\textbf{D}$ecoding), a novel metric for evaluating the semantic decoding performance of visual brain decoding models. It integrates three complementary metrics, each capturing a different aspect of semantic similarity between images inspired by neuroscientific findings. Using carefully crowd-sourced human evaluation data, we demonstrate that SEED achieves the highest alignment with human evaluation, outperforming other widely used metrics. Through the evaluation of existing visual brain decoding models with SEED, we further reveal that crucial information is often lost in translation, even in the state-of-the-art models that achieve near-perfect scores on existing metrics. This finding highlights the limitations of current evaluation practices and provides guidance for future improvements in decoding models. Finally, to facilitate further research, we open-source the human evaluation data, encouraging the development of more advanced evaluation methods for brain decoding.

Existing video generation models predominantly emphasize appearance fidelity while exhibiting limited ability to synthesize complex human motions, such as whole-body movements, long-range dynamics, and fine-grained human–environment interactions. This often leads to unrealistic or physically implausible movements with inadequate structural coherence. To conquer these challenges, we propose MoSA, which decouples the process of human video generation into two components, i.e., structure generation and appearance generation. MoSA first employs a 3D structure transformer to generate a human motion sequence from the text prompt. The remaining video appearance is then synthesized under the guidance of this structural sequence. We achieve fine-grained control over the sparse human structures by introducing Human-Aware Dynamic Control modules with a dense tracking constraint during training. The modeling of human–environment interactions is improved through the proposed contact constraint. Those two components work comprehensively to ensure the structural and appearance fidelity across the generated videos. This paper also contributes a large-scale human video dataset, which features more complex and diverse motions than existing human video datasets. We conduct comprehensive comparisons between MoSA and a variety of approaches, including general video generation models, human video generation models, and human animation models. Experiments demonstrate that MoSA substantially outperforms existing approaches across the majority of evaluation metrics.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems approach and surpass expert human performance across a broad range of tasks, obtaining high-quality human supervision for evaluation and training becomes increasingly challenging. Our focus is on tasks that require deep knowledge and skills of multiple domains. Unfortunately, even the best human experts are knowledgeable only in a single narrow area, and will not be able to evaluate the correctness of advanced AI systems on such superhuman tasks. However, based on their narrow expertise, humans may provide a weak signal, i.e., a *complementary label* indicating an option that is incorrect. For example, a cardiologist could state that ``this is not related to cardiology,'' even if they cannot identify the true disease. Based on this weak signal, we propose a scalable oversight framework that enables us to evaluate frontier AI systems without the need to prepare the ground truth. We derive an *unbiased* estimator of top-1 accuracy from complementary labels and quantify how many complementary labels are needed to match the variance of ordinary labels. We further introduce two estimators to combine scarce ordinary labels with abundant complementary labels. We provide finite-sample deviation guarantees for both complementary-only and the mixed estimators. Empirically, we show that we can evaluate the output of large language models without the ground truth, if we have complementary labels. We further show that we can train an AI system with such weak signals: we show how we can design an agentic AI system automatically that can perform better by these partitioned human supervision.

Intelligent embodied agents not only need to accomplish preset tasks, but also learn to align with individual human needs and preferences. Extracting reward signals from human language preferences allows an embodied agent to adapt through reinforcement learning. However, human language preferences are unconstrained, diverse, and dynamic, making constructing learnable reward from them a major challenge. We present ROSETTA, a framework that uses foundation models to ground and disambiguate unconstrained natural language preference, construct multi-stage reward functions, and implement them with code generation. Unlike prior works requiring extensive offline training to get general reward models or fine-grained correction on a single task, ROSETTA allows agents to adapt online to preference that evolves and is diverse in language and content. We test ROSETTA on both short-horizon and long-horizon manipulation tasks and conduct extensive human evaluation, finding that ROSETTA outperforms SOTA baselines and achieves 87% average success rate and 86% human satisfaction across 116 preferences.