With advances in the quality of text-to-image (T2I) models has come interest in benchmarking their prompt faithfulness --the semantic coherence of generated images to the prompts they were conditioned on. A variety of T2I faithfulness metrics have been proposed, leveraging advances in cross-modal embeddings and vision-language models (VLMs).

With advances in the quality of text-to-image (T2I) models has come interest in benchmarking their prompt faithfulness---the semantic coherence of generated images to the prompts they were conditioned on. A variety of T2I faithfulness metrics have been proposed, leveraging advances in cross-modal embeddings and vision-language models (VLMs). However, these metrics are not rigorously compared and benchmarked, instead presented with correlation to human Likert scores over a set of easy-to-discriminate images against seemingly weak baselines. We introduce T2IScoreScore, a curated set of semantic error graphs containing a prompt and a set of increasingly erroneous images. These allow us to rigorously judge whether a given prompt faithfulness metric can correctly order images with respect to their objective error count and significantly discriminate between different error nodes, using meta-metric scores derived from established statistical tests. Surprisingly, we find that the state-of-the-art VLM-based metrics (e.g., TIFA, DSG, LLMScore, VIEScore) we tested fail to significantly outperform simple (and supposedly worse) feature-based metrics like CLIPScore, particularly on a hard subset of naturally-occurring T2I model errors. TS2 will enable the development of better T2I prompt faithfulness metrics through more rigorous comparison of their conformity to expected orderings and separations under objective criteria.

Climate adaptation strategies are proposed in response to climate change. They are practised in agriculture to sustain food production. These strategies can be found in unstructured data (for example, scientific literature from the Elsevier website) or structured (heterogeneous climate data via government APIs). We present Climate Adaptation question-answering with Improved Readability and Noted Sources (CAIRNS), a framework that enables experts -- farmer advisors -- to obtain credible preliminary answers from complex evidence sources from the web. It enhances readability and citation reliability through a structured ScholarGuide prompt and achieves robust evaluation via a consistency-weighted hybrid evaluator that leverages inter-model agreement with experts. Together, these components enable readable, verifiable, and domain-grounded question-answering without fine-tuning or reinforcement learning. Using a previously reported dataset of expert-curated question-answers, we show that CAIRNS outperforms the baselines on most of the metrics. Our thorough ablation study confirms the results on all metrics. To validate our LLM-based evaluation, we also report an analysis of correlations against human judgment.

With advances in the quality of text-to-image (T2I) models has come interest in benchmarking their prompt faithfulness---the semantic coherence of generated images to the prompts they were conditioned on. A variety of T2I faithfulness metrics have been proposed, leveraging advances in cross-modal embeddings and vision-language models (VLMs). However, these metrics are not rigorously compared and benchmarked, instead presented with correlation to human Likert scores over a set of easy-to-discriminate images against seemingly weak baselines. We introduce T2IScoreScore, a curated set of semantic error graphs containing a prompt and a set of increasingly erroneous images. These allow us to rigorously judge whether a given prompt faithfulness metric can correctly order images with respect to their objective error count and significantly discriminate between different error nodes, using meta-metric scores derived from established statistical tests. Surprisingly, we find that the state-of-the-art VLM-based metrics (e.g., TIFA, DSG, LLMScore, VIEScore) we tested fail to significantly outperform simple (and supposedly worse) feature-based metrics like CLIPScore, particularly on a hard subset of naturally-occurring T2I model errors.

Deep Learning (DL) models processing images to recognize the health state of large infrastructure components can exhibit biases and rely on non-causal shortcuts. eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) can address these issues but manually analyzing explanations generated by XAI techniques is time-consuming and prone to errors. This work proposes a novel framework that combines post-hoc explanations with semi-supervised learning to automatically identify anomalous explanations that deviate from those of correctly classified images and may therefore indicate model abnormal behaviors. This significantly reduces the workload for maintenance decision-makers, who only need to manually reclassify images flagged as having anomalous explanations. The proposed framework is applied to drone-collected images of insulator shells for power grid infrastructure monitoring, considering two different Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), GradCAM explanations and Deep Semi-Supervised Anomaly Detection. The average classification accuracy on two faulty classes is improved by 8% and maintenance operators are required to manually reclassify only 15% of the images. We compare the proposed framework with a state-of-the-art approach based on the faithfulness metric: the experimental results obtained demonstrate that the proposed framework consistently achieves F_1 scores larger than those of the faithfulness-based approach. Additionally, the proposed framework successfully identifies correct classifications that result from non-causal shortcuts, such as the presence of ID tags printed on insulator shells.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural language explanations as an alternative to feature attribution methods for model interpretability. However, despite their plausibility, they may not reflect the model's internal reasoning faithfully, which is crucial for understanding the model's true decision-making processes. Although several faithfulness metrics have been proposed, a unified evaluation framework remains absent. To address this gap, we present Causal Diagnosticity, a framework to evaluate faithfulness metrics for natural language explanations. Our framework employs the concept of causal diagnosticity, and uses model-editing methods to generate faithful-unfaithful explanation pairs. Our benchmark includes four tasks: fact-checking, analogy, object counting, and multi-hop reasoning. We evaluate a variety of faithfulness metrics, including post-hoc explanation and chain-of-thought-based methods. We find that all tested faithfulness metrics often fail to surpass a random baseline. Our work underscores the need for improved metrics and more reliable interpretability methods in LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit positional bias in long-context settings, under-attending to information in the middle of inputs. We investigate the presence of this bias in long-form summarization, its impact on faithfulness, and various techniques to mitigate this bias. To consistently evaluate faithfulness, we first compile a benchmark of eight human-annotated long-form summarization datasets and perform a meta-evaluation of faithfulness metrics. We show that LLM-based faithfulness metrics, though effective with full-context inputs, remain sensitive to document order, indicating positional bias. Analyzing LLM-generated summaries across six datasets, we find a "U-shaped" trend in faithfulness, where LLMs faithfully summarize the beginning and end of documents but neglect middle content. Perturbing document order similarly reveals models are less faithful when important documents are placed in the middle of the input. We find that this behavior is partly due to shifting focus with context length: as context increases, summaries become less faithful, but beyond a certain length, faithfulness improves as the model focuses on the end. Finally, we experiment with different generation techniques to reduce positional bias and find that prompting techniques effectively direct model attention to specific positions, whereas more sophisticated approaches offer limited improvements. Our data and code are available in https://github.com/meetdavidwan/longformfact.

Large language models (LLMs) often generate content with unsupported or unverifiable content, known as "hallucinations." To address this, retrieval-augmented LLMs are employed to include citations in their content, grounding the content in verifiable sources. Despite such developments, manually assessing how well a citation supports the associated statement remains a major challenge. Previous studies tackle this challenge by leveraging faithfulness metrics to estimate citation support automatically. However, they limit this citation support estimation to a binary classification scenario, neglecting fine-grained citation support in practical scenarios. To investigate the effectiveness of faithfulness metrics in fine-grained scenarios, we propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishing citations between three-category support levels: full, partial, and no support. Our framework employs correlation analysis, classification evaluation, and retrieval evaluation to measure the alignment between metric scores and human judgments comprehensively. Our results indicate no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, highlighting the complexity of accurately evaluating fine-grained support levels. Particularly, we find that the best-performing metrics struggle to distinguish partial support from full or no support. Based on these findings, we provide practical recommendations for developing more effective metrics.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce unsupported or unverifiable information, known as "hallucinations." To mitigate this, retrieval-augmented LLMs incorporate citations, grounding the content in verifiable sources. Despite such developments, manually assessing how well a citation supports the associated statement remains a major challenge. Previous studies use faithfulness metrics to estimate citation support automatically but are limited to binary classification, overlooking fine-grained citation support in practical scenarios. To investigate the effectiveness of faithfulness metrics in fine-grained scenarios, we propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishinging citations between three-category support levels: full, partial, and no support. Our framework employs correlation analysis, classification evaluation, and retrieval evaluation to measure the alignment between metric scores and human judgments comprehensively. Our results show no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, revealing the complexity of assessing fine-grained support. Based on the findings, we provide practical recommendations for developing more effective metrics.