Daily Papers

Automated text evaluation has long been a central issue in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Recently, the field has shifted toward using Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators-a trend known as the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. While promising and easily adaptable across tasks, this approach has seen limited exploration in multilingual contexts. Existing multilingual studies often rely on proprietary models or require extensive training data for fine-tuning, raising concerns about cost, time, and efficiency. In this paper, we propose Checklist Engineering based LLM-as-a-Judge (CE-Judge), a training-free framework that uses checklist intuition for multilingual evaluation with an open-source model. Experiments across multiple languages and three benchmark datasets, under both pointwise and pairwise settings, show that our method generally surpasses the baselines and performs on par with the GPT-4o model.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human bias that undermines the assessment of reliability and imposes scalability constraints. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without necessitating any human annotation. Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency (pair-wise preference stability) and global logical consistency (transitivity across a full set of preferences). We curate a dataset of 650 questions by combining structured benchmark problems with real-world user queries. Our experiments demonstrate both the stability of our metrics and their high correlation with supervised benchmarks like LLMBar and RewardBench2, confirming Sage's reliability as an evaluation suite for the robustness and accuracy of LLM-as-a-Judge. Based on Sage, we reveal that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant reliability problems when acting as judges in both scoring and pairwise settings; even the top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5, fail to maintain consistent preferences in nearly a quarter of difficult cases. We attribute this to a new phenomenon called situational preference, which explains why explicit rubrics or criteria can help the model judge consistently across answer pairs. Our further analysis shows that finetuned LLM-as-a-Judge is a feasible method to boost performance, and the panel-based judge as well as deep reasoning can enhance the judging consistency. We also find substantial inconsistency in human judgments, which indicates that human annotation may not be a reliable gold standard.

Evaluation of multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs) is challenging due to a variety of factors -- the lack of benchmarks with sufficient linguistic diversity, contamination of popular benchmarks into LLM pre-training data and the lack of local, cultural nuances in translated benchmarks. In this work, we study human and LLM-based evaluation in a multilingual, multi-cultural setting. We evaluate 30 models across 10 Indic languages by conducting 90K human evaluations and 30K LLM-based evaluations and find that models such as GPT-4o and Llama-3 70B consistently perform best for most Indic languages. We build leaderboards for two evaluation settings - pairwise comparison and direct assessment and analyse the agreement between humans and LLMs. We find that humans and LLMs agree fairly well in the pairwise setting but the agreement drops for direct assessment evaluation especially for languages such as Bengali and Odia. We also check for various biases in human and LLM-based evaluation and find evidence of self-bias in the GPT-based evaluator. Our work presents a significant step towards scaling up multilingual evaluation of LLMs.

User intentions are typically formalized as evaluation rewards to be maximized when fine-tuning language models (LMs). Existing alignment methods, such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), are mainly tailored for pairwise preference data where rewards are implicitly defined rather than explicitly given. In this paper, we introduce a general framework for LM alignment, leveraging Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE) to bridge the gap in handling reward datasets explicitly annotated with scalar evaluations. Our framework comprises two parallel algorithms, NCA and InfoNCA, both enabling the direct extraction of an LM policy from reward data as well as preference data. Notably, we show that the DPO loss is a special case of our proposed InfoNCA objective under pairwise preference settings, thereby integrating and extending current alignment theories. By contrasting NCA and InfoNCA, we show that InfoNCA and DPO adjust relative likelihood across different responses to a single instruction, while NCA optimizes absolute likelihood for each response. We apply our methods to align a 7B language model with a GPT-4 annotated reward dataset. Experimental results suggest that InfoNCA surpasses the DPO baseline in GPT-4 evaluations, while NCA enjoys better training stability with competitive performance.

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

Current dialogue research primarily studies pairwise (two-party) conversations, and does not address the everyday setting where more than two speakers converse together. In this work, we both collect and evaluate multi-party conversations to study this more general case. We use the LIGHT environment to construct grounded conversations, where each participant has an assigned character to role-play. We thus evaluate the ability of language models to act as one or more characters in such conversations. Models require two skills that pairwise-trained models appear to lack: (1) being able to decide when to talk; (2) producing coherent utterances grounded on multiple characters. We compare models trained on our new dataset to existing pairwise-trained dialogue models, as well as large language models with few-shot prompting. We find that our new dataset, MultiLIGHT, which we will publicly release, can help bring significant improvements in the group setting.

Hallucination in large language models (LLMs) can be detected by assessing the uncertainty of model outputs, typically measured using entropy. Semantic entropy (SE) enhances traditional entropy estimation by quantifying uncertainty at the semantic cluster level. However, as modern LLMs generate longer one-sentence responses, SE becomes less effective because it overlooks two crucial factors: intra-cluster similarity (the spread within a cluster) and inter-cluster similarity (the distance between clusters). To address these limitations, we propose a simple black-box uncertainty quantification method inspired by nearest neighbor estimates of entropy. Our approach can also be easily extended to white-box settings by incorporating token probabilities. Additionally, we provide theoretical results showing that our method generalizes semantic entropy. Extensive empirical results demonstrate its effectiveness compared to semantic entropy across two recent LLMs (Phi3 and Llama3) and three common text generation tasks: question answering, text summarization, and machine translation. Our code is available at https://github.com/BigML-CS-UCLA/SNNE.

Game-theoretic interactions between agents with Large Language Models (LLMs) have revealed many emergent capabilities, yet the linguistic diversity of these interactions has not been sufficiently quantified. In this paper, we present the Conversational Robustness Evaluation Score: CORE, a metric to quantify the effectiveness of language use within multi-agent systems across different game-theoretic interactions. CORE integrates measures of cluster entropy, lexical repetition, and semantic similarity, providing a direct lens of dialog quality. We apply CORE to pairwise LLM dialogs across competitive, cooperative, and neutral settings, further grounding our analysis in Zipf's and Heaps' Laws to characterize word frequency distributions and vocabulary growth. Our findings show that cooperative settings exhibit both steeper Zipf distributions and higher Heap exponents, indicating more repetition alongside greater vocabulary expansion. In contrast, competitive interactions display lower Zipf and Heaps exponents, reflecting less repetition and more constrained vocabularies. These results provide new insights into how social incentives influence language adaptation, and highlight CORE as a robust diagnostic for measuring linguistic robustness in multi-agent LLM systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/psyonp/core.

Contrastive Learning (CL), a leading paradigm in Self-Supervised Learning (SSL), typically relies on pairs of data views generated through augmentation. While multiple augmentations per instance (more than two) improve generalization in supervised learning, current CL methods handle additional views suboptimally by simply aggregating different pairwise objectives. This approach suffers from four critical limitations: (L1) it utilizes multiple optimization terms per data point resulting to conflicting objectives, (L2) it fails to model all interactions across views and data points, (L3) it inherits fundamental limitations (e.g. alignment-uniformity coupling) from pairwise CL losses, and (L4) it prevents fully realizing the benefits of increased view multiplicity observed in supervised settings. We address these limitations through two novel loss functions: MV-InfoNCE, which extends InfoNCE to incorporate all possible view interactions simultaneously in one term per data point, and MV-DHEL, which decouples alignment from uniformity across views while scaling interaction complexity with view multiplicity. Both approaches are theoretically grounded - we prove they asymptotically optimize for alignment of all views and uniformity, providing principled extensions to multi-view contrastive learning. Our empirical results on ImageNet1K and three other datasets demonstrate that our methods consistently outperform existing multi-view approaches and effectively scale with increasing view multiplicity. We also apply our objectives to multimodal data and show that, in contrast to other contrastive objectives, they can scale beyond just two modalities. Most significantly, ablation studies reveal that MV-DHEL with five or more views effectively mitigates dimensionality collapse by fully utilizing the embedding space, thereby delivering multi-view benefits observed in supervised learning.

Literature-Based Discovery (LBD) aims to discover new scientific knowledge by mining papers and generating hypotheses. Standard LBD is limited to predicting pairwise relations between discrete concepts (e.g., drug-disease links), and ignores critical contexts like experimental settings (e.g., a specific patient population where a drug is evaluated) and background motivations (e.g., to find drugs without specific side effects). We address these limitations with a novel formulation of contextualized-LBD (C-LBD): generating scientific hypotheses in natural language, while grounding them in a context that controls the hypothesis search space. We present a modeling framework using retrieval of ``inspirations'' from past scientific papers. Our evaluations reveal that GPT-4 tends to generate ideas with overall low technical depth and novelty, while our inspiration prompting approaches partially mitigate this issue. Our work represents a first step toward building language models that generate new ideas derived from scientific literature.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a simple alternative to reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) for aligning language models, but its reliance on hard pairwise labels makes it brittle under noise; our experiments show performance degrading by up to 93 percent in noisy settings. We introduce Anchored Direct Preference Optimization (ADPO), a unified framework that addresses this fragility through reference anchoring. By minimizing KL(q || softmax((l - l_ref) / tau_anc)), where l_ref are reference policy log probabilities, ADPO provides three key advantages: (1) it unifies major learning paradigms, including supervised fine-tuning, knowledge distillation, maximum-entropy reinforcement learning, and DPO, as special cases through different choices of target distribution q, anchor policy pi_ref, and temperature tau_anc; (2) it induces an implicit trust region governed by the softmax Fisher metric with curvature scaling as 1 / tau_anc^2, providing geometric regularization absent in standard methods; and (3) it enables flexible anchor strategies tailored to different learning contexts. Empirically, ADPO consistently outperforms standard DPO by 12 to 93 percent across twelve noisy scenarios, with listwise variants achieving top performance in eleven of twelve cases. In offline distillation, ADPO reduces student-teacher KL by 4 to 49 times while achieving superior returns (for example, 279.3 vs -309.0 for knowledge distillation on HalfCheetah). We further uncover a task-dependent tradeoff: dynamic anchors excel at online exploration in noisy environments (plus 5 to 11 percent), while fixed anchors enable stable offline distillation. Our work establishes anchoring as a general principle for robust policy optimization, with clear practical guidance for anchor selection across diverse learning scenarios.

Pointing serves as a fundamental and intuitive mechanism for grounding language within visual contexts, with applications spanning robotics, assistive technologies, and interactive AI systems. While recent multimodal models have started to support pointing capabilities, existing benchmarks typically focus only on referential object localization tasks. We introduce PointArena, a comprehensive platform for evaluating multimodal pointing across diverse reasoning scenarios. PointArena comprises three components: (1) Point-Bench, a curated dataset containing approximately 1,000 pointing tasks across five reasoning categories; (2) Point-Battle, an interactive, web-based arena facilitating blind, pairwise model comparisons, which has already gathered over 4,500 anonymized votes; and (3) Point-Act, a real-world robotic manipulation system allowing users to directly evaluate multimodal model pointing capabilities in practical settings. We conducted extensive evaluations of both state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary multimodal models. Results indicate that Molmo-72B consistently outperforms other models, though proprietary models increasingly demonstrate comparable performance. Additionally, we find that supervised training specifically targeting pointing tasks significantly enhances model performance. Across our multi-stage evaluation pipeline, we also observe strong correlations, underscoring the critical role of precise pointing capabilities in enabling multimodal models to effectively bridge abstract reasoning with concrete, real-world actions. Project page: https://pointarena.github.io/