While advancements in NLP have significantly improved the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on tasks requiring vertical thinking, their lateral thinking capabilities remain under-explored and challenging to measure due to the complexity of assessing creative thought processes and the scarcity of relevant data. To address these challenges, we introduce SPLAT, a benchmark leveraging Situation Puzzles to evaluate and elicit LAteral Thinking of LLMs. This benchmark, containing 975 graded situation puzzles across three difficulty levels, employs a new multi-turn player-judge framework instead of the traditional model-based evaluation, which often necessitates a stronger evaluation model. This framework simulates an interactive game where the model (player) asks the evaluation model (judge) questions about an incomplete story to infer the full scenario. The judge answers based on a detailed reference scenario or evaluates if the player's predictions align with the reference one.

We present AITutor-EvalKit, an application that uses language technology to evaluate the pedagogical quality of AI tutors, provides software for demonstration and evaluation, as well as model inspection and data visualization. This tool is aimed at education stakeholders as well as *ACL community at large, as it supports learning and can also be used to collect user feedback and annotations.

Automatic evaluation of generative tasks using large language models faces challenges due to ambiguous criteria. Although automatic checklist generation is a potentially promising approach, its usefulness remains underexplored. We investigate whether checklists should be used for all questions or selectively, generate them using six methods, evaluate their effectiveness across eight model sizes, and identify checklist items that correlate with human evaluations. Through experiments on pairwise comparison and direct scoring tasks, we find that selective checklist use tends to improve evaluation performance in pairwise settings, while its benefits are less consistent in direct scoring. Our analysis also shows that even checklist items with low correlation to human scores often reflect human-written criteria, indicating potential inconsistencies in human evaluation. These findings highlight the need to more clearly define objective evaluation criteria to guide both human and automatic evaluations. \footnote{Our code is available at~https://github.com/momo0817/checklist-effectiveness-study

Evaluation is important for multimodal generation tasks. With the rapid progress of MLLMs, there is growing interest in applying MLLMs to build general evaluation systems. However, existing work overlooks two aspects: (1) the development of evaluation capabilities for text-to-image (T2I) generation task, and (2) the incorporation of large-scale human evaluation data. In this paper, we introduce Minos-Corpus, a large-scale multimodal evaluation dataset that combines evaluation data from both human and GPT. The corpus contains evaluation data across both image-to-text(I2T) and T2I generation tasks. Based on this corpus, we propose Data Selection and Balance, Mix-SFT training methods, and apply DPO to develop Minos, a multimodal evaluation model built upon a 7B backbone. Minos achieves state-of-the-art (SoTA) performance among all open-source evaluation models of similar scale on the average of evaluation performance on all tasks, and outperforms all open-source and closed-source models on evaluation of T2I generation task. Extensive experiments demonstrate the importance of leveraging high-quality human evaluation data and jointly training on evaluation data from both I2T and T2I generation tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly deployed in critical applications, raising urgent needs for robust safety benchmarking. We propose Jailbreak Distillation (JBDistill), a novel benchmark construction framework that "distills" jailbreak attacks into high-quality and easily-updatable safety benchmarks. JBDistill utilizes a small set of development models and existing jailbreak attack algorithms to create a candidate prompt pool, then employs prompt selection algorithms to identify an effective subset of prompts as safety benchmarks. JBDistill addresses challenges in existing safety evaluation: the use of consistent evaluation prompts across models ensures fair comparisons and reproducibility. It requires minimal human effort to rerun the JBDistill pipeline and produce updated benchmarks, alleviating concerns on saturation and contamination. Extensive experiments demonstrate our benchmarks generalize robustly to 13 diverse evaluation models held out from benchmark construction, including proprietary, specialized, and newer-generation LLMs, significantly outperforming existing safety benchmarks in effectiveness while maintaining high separability and diversity. Our framework thus provides an effective, sustainable, and adaptable solution for streamlining safety evaluation.

While advancements in NLP have significantly improved the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on tasks requiring vertical thinking, their lateral thinking capabilities remain under-explored and challenging to measure due to the complexity of assessing creative thought processes and the scarcity of relevant data. To address these challenges, we introduce SPLAT, a benchmark leveraging Situation Puzzles to evaluate and elicit LAteral Thinking of LLMs. This benchmark, containing 975 graded situation puzzles across three difficulty levels, employs a new multi-turn player-judge framework instead of the traditional model-based evaluation, which often necessitates a stronger evaluation model. This framework simulates an interactive game where the model (player) asks the evaluation model (judge) questions about an incomplete story to infer the full scenario. The judge answers based on a detailed reference scenario or evaluates if the player's predictions align with the reference one.

Effective prompt engineering remains a central challenge in fully harnessing the capabilities of LLMs. While well-designed prompts can dramatically enhance performance, crafting them typically demands expert intuition and a nuanced understanding of the task. Moreover, the most impactful prompts often hinge on subtle semantic cues, ones that may elude human perception but are crucial for guiding LLM behavior. In this paper, we introduce PRL (Prompts from Reinforcement Learning), a novel RL-based approach for automatic prompt generation. Unlike previous methods, PRL can produce novel few-shot examples that were not seen during training. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance across a range of benchmarks, including text classification, simplification, and summarization. On the classification task, it surpasses prior methods by 2.58% over APE and 1.00% over EvoPrompt. Additionally, it improves the average ROUGE scores on the summarization task by 4.32 over APE and by 2.12 over EvoPrompt and the SARI score on simplification by 6.93 over APE and by 6.01 over EvoPrompt. Our code is available at https://github.com/Batorskq/prl .

With the proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in the medical domain, there is increasing demand for improved evaluation techniques to assess their capabilities. However, traditional metrics like F1 and ROUGE, which rely on token overlaps to measure quality, significantly overlook the importance of medical terminology. While human evaluation tends to be more reliable, it can be very costly and may as well suffer from inaccuracies due to limits in human expertise and motivation. Although there are some evaluation methods based on LLMs, their usability in the medical field is limited due to their proprietary nature or lack of expertise. To tackle these challenges, we present AutoMedEval, an open-sourced automatic evaluation model with 13B parameters specifically engineered to measure the question-answering proficiency of medical LLMs. The overarching objective of AutoMedEval is to assess the quality of responses produced by diverse models, aspiring to significantly reduce the dependence on human evaluation. Specifically, we propose a hierarchical training method involving curriculum instruction tuning and an iterative knowledge introspection mechanism, enabling AutoMedEval to acquire professional medical assessment capabilities with limited instructional data. Human evaluations indicate that AutoMedEval surpasses other baselines in terms of correlation with human judgments.