Evaluating natural language generation systems is challenging due to the diversity of valid outputs. While human evaluation is the gold standard, it suffers from inconsistencies, lack of standardisation, and demographic biases, limiting reproducibility. LLM-based evaluators offer a scalable alternative but are highly sensitive to prompt design, where small variations can lead to significant discrepancies. In this work, we propose an inversion learning method that learns effective reverse mappings from model outputs back to their input instructions, enabling the automatic generation of highly effective, model-specific evaluation prompts. Our method requires only a single evaluation sample and eliminates the need for time-consuming manual prompt engineering, thereby improving both efficiency and robustness. Our work contributes toward a new direction for more robust and efficient LLM-based evaluation.

Despite the recent advances in Large Language Models, benchmarks for evaluating legal writing remain scarce due to the inherent complexity of assessing open-ended responses in this domain. One of the key challenges in evaluating language models on domain-specific tasks is finding test datasets that are public, frequently updated, and contain comprehensive evaluation guidelines. The Brazilian Bar Examination meets these requirements. We introduce oab-bench, a benchmark comprising 105 questions across seven areas of law from recent editions of the exam. The benchmark includes comprehensive evaluation guidelines and reference materials used by human examiners to ensure consistent grading. We evaluate the performance of four LLMs on oab-bench, finding that Claude-3.5 Sonnet achieves the best results with an average score of 7.93 out of 10, passing all 21 exams. We also investigated whether LLMs can serve as reliable automated judges for evaluating legal writing. Our experiments show that frontier models like OpenAI's o1 achieve a strong correlation with human scores when evaluating approved exams, suggesting their potential as reliable automated evaluators despite the inherently subjective nature of legal writing assessment. The source code and the benchmark -- containing questions, evaluation guidelines, model-generated responses, and their respective automated evaluations -- are publicly available.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of large language models (LLMs) for medical applications, ensuring the reliability and accuracy of these models in clinical settings is paramount. Existing benchmarks often focus on fixed-format tasks like multiple-choice QA, which fail to capture the complexity of real-world clinical diagnostics. Moreover, traditional evaluation metrics and LLM-based evaluators struggle with misalignment, often providing oversimplified assessments that do not adequately reflect human judgment. To address these challenges, we introduce HDCEval, a Hierarchical Divide-and-Conquer Evaluation framework tailored for fine-grained alignment in medical evaluation. HDCEval is built on a set of fine-grained medical evaluation guidelines developed in collaboration with professional doctors, encompassing Patient Question Relevance, Medical Knowledge Correctness, and Expression. The framework decomposes complex evaluation tasks into specialized subtasks, each evaluated by expert models trained through Attribute-Driven Token Optimization (ADTO) on a meticulously curated preference dataset. This hierarchical approach ensures that each aspect of the evaluation is handled with expert precision, leading to a significant improvement in alignment with human evaluators.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques are used to provide transparency to complex, opaque predictive models. However, these techniques are often designed for image and text data, and it is unclear how fit-for-purpose they are when applied to tabular data. As XAI techniques are rarely evaluated in settings with tabular data, the applicability of existing evaluation criteria and methods are also unclear and needs (re-)examination. For example, some works suggest that evaluation methods may unduly influence the evaluation results when using tabular data. This lack of clarity on evaluation procedures can lead to reduced transparency and ineffective use of XAI techniques in real world settings. In this study, we examine literature on XAI evaluation to derive guidelines on functionally-grounded assessment of local, post hoc XAI techniques. We identify 20 evaluation criteria and associated evaluation methods, and derive guidelines on when and how each criterion should be evaluated. We also identify key research gaps to be addressed by future work. Our study contributes to the body of knowledge on XAI evaluation through in-depth examination of functionally-grounded XAI evaluation protocols, and has laid the groundwork for future research on XAI evaluation.

Human evaluation serves as the gold standard for assessing the quality of Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems. Nevertheless, the evaluation guideline, as a pivotal element ensuring reliable and reproducible human assessment, has received limited attention.Our investigation revealed that only 29.84% of recent papers involving human evaluation at top conferences release their evaluation guidelines, with vulnerabilities identified in 77.09% of these guidelines. Unreliable evaluation guidelines can yield inaccurate assessment outcomes, potentially impeding the advancement of NLG in the right direction. To address these challenges, we take an initial step towards reliable evaluation guidelines and propose the first human evaluation guideline dataset by collecting annotations of guidelines extracted from existing papers as well as generated via Large Language Models (LLMs). We then introduce a taxonomy of eight vulnerabilities and formulate a principle for composing evaluation guidelines. Furthermore, a method for detecting guideline vulnerabilities has been explored using LLMs, and we offer a set of recommendations to enhance reliability in human evaluation. The annotated human evaluation guideline dataset and code for the vulnerability detection method are publicly available online.

Especially with the utilization of photoplethysmography (PPG) signal, these devices have demonstrated significant potential in providing real-time insights into an individual's health status. PPG, due to its non-invasive nature and ease of integration into wearable technology, has become a cornerstone in modern health monitoring systems [5]. Analyzing wearable device signals often involves ML models of different complexities [6, 7]. In the model development phase, typically, continuous signals are cut into discrete segments, and the model's performance is evaluated at the segment level using conventional metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score [8]. However, relying solely on these conventional metrics at the segment level does not provide a holistic assessment and hurts both consumers by making it impossible to select optimal solution for their needs and innovators by failing to guide their effort towards true progresses. The complex nature of continuous health monitoring using wearable devices introduces unique challenges beyond conventional evaluation approaches' capabilities, as illustrated in Figure 1. Recognizing these challenges is imperative for imbuing continuous health monitoring applications with accurate and reliable ML models to ensure a successful translation of these models into everyday use by millions of people and fulfill the potential of this technology at scale. In the subsequent sections, we outline the challenges in evaluating ML models for continuous health monitoring using wearables, thoroughly review existing evaluation methods and metrics, and propose a standardized evaluation guideline.

There is an imminent need for guidelines and standard test sets to allow direct and fair comparisons of speech emotion recognition (SER). While resources, such as the Interactive Emotional Dyadic Motion Capture (IEMOCAP) database, have emerged as widely-adopted reference corpora for researchers to develop and test models for SER, published work reveals a wide range of assumptions and variety in its use that challenge reproducibility and generalization. Based on a critical review of the latest advances in SER using IEMOCAP as the use case, our work aims at two contributions: First, using an analysis of the recent literature, including assumptions made and metrics used therein, we provide a set of SER evaluation guidelines. Second, using recent publications with open-sourced implementations, we focus on reproducibility assessment in SER.