Generation of long-form, citation-backed reports is a primary use case for retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems. While open-source evaluation tools exist for various RAG tasks, ones tailored to report generation (RG) are lacking. Accordingly, we introduce Auto-ARGUE, a robust LLM-based implementation of the recently proposed ARGUE framework for RG evaluation.

Search augmentation empowers Large Language Models with retrieval capabilities to overcome the limitations imposed by static parameters. Recently, Reinforcement Learning leverages tailored reward signals as a viable technique to enhance LLMs performing tasks involving search. However, existing reward modeling for search-augmented LLMs faces several limitations. Rule-based rewards, such as Exact Match, are verifiable but fragile to variations in expression and cannot be applied to long-form workloads. In contrast, generative rewards improve robustness, but designing verifiable and stable rewards for long-form workloads in dynamic corpora remains challenging and also incurs high computational costs. In this paper, we propose a unified and verifiable paradigm, "nugget-as-rubric", which treats atomic information points as structured evaluation criteria for different search-augmentation workloads. Short-form tasks correspond to a single rubric, whereas long-form tasks expand to multiple rubrics aligned with the question's information needs. To support long-form settings, we design an automatic rubric construction pipeline based on query rewriting, which can automatically retrieve passages relevant to each question and extract rubrics from them, both from static corpora and from dynamic online web content. Furthermore, we introduce \textbf{Search-Gen-V}, a 4B-parameter efficient generative verifier under our proposed verifiable paradigm, which is trained via the idea of distillation and a two-stage strategy. Experimental results show that Search-Gen-V achieves strong verification accuracy across different workloads, making it a scalable, robust, and efficient verifiable reward constructor for search-augmented LLMs.

Existing methods for evaluating the factuality of large language model (LLM) responses treat all claims as equally important. This results in misleading evaluations when vital information is missing or incorrect as it receives the same weight as peripheral details, raising the question: how can we reliably detect such differences when there are errors in key information? Current approaches that measure factuality tend to be insensitive to omitted or false key information. To investigate this lack of sensitivity, we construct VITALERRORS, a benchmark of 6,733 queries with minimally altered LLM responses designed to omit or falsify key information. Using this dataset, we demonstrate the insensitivities of existing evaluation metrics to key information errors. To address this gap, we introduce VITAL, a set of metrics that provide greater sensitivity in measuring the factuality of responses by incorporating the relevance and importance of claims with respect to the query. Our analysis demonstrates that VITAL metrics more reliably detect errors in key information than previous methods. Our dataset, metrics, and analysis provide a foundation for more accurate and robust assessment of LLM factuality.

Agentic search, as a more autonomous and adaptive paradigm of retrieval augmentation, is driving the evolution of intelligent search systems. However, existing evaluation frameworks fail to align well with the goals of agentic search. First, the complex queries commonly used in current benchmarks often deviate from realistic user search scenarios. Second, prior approaches tend to introduce noise when extracting ground truth for end-to-end evaluations, leading to distorted assessments at a fine-grained level. Third, most current frameworks focus solely on the quality of final answers, neglecting the evaluation of the iterative process inherent to agentic search. To address these limitations, we propose RAVine -- a Reality-Aligned eValuation framework for agentic LLMs with search. RAVine targets multi-point queries and long-form answers that better reflect user intents, and introduces an attributable ground truth construction strategy to enhance the accuracy of fine-grained evaluation. Moreover, RAVine examines model's interaction with search tools throughout the iterative process, and accounts for factors of efficiency. We benchmark a series of models using RAVine and derive several insights, which we hope will contribute to advancing the development of agentic search systems. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/SwordFaith/RAVine.

How do Foundation Models Compare to Skeleton-Based Approaches for Gesture Recognition in Human-Robot Interaction? Abstract -- Gestures enable non-verbal human-robot communication, especially in noisy environments like agile production. Traditional deep learning-based gesture recognition relies on task-specific architectures using images, videos, or skeletal pose estimates as input. Meanwhile, Vision Foundation Models (VFMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) with their strong generalization abilities offer potential to reduce system complexity by replacing dedicated task-specific modules. This study investigates adapting such models for dynamic, full-body gesture recognition, comparing V-JEPA (a state-of-the-art VFM), Gemini Flash 2.0 (a multimodal VLM), and HD-GCN (a top-performing skeleton-based approach). We introduce NUGGET, a dataset tailored for human-robot communication in intralogistics environments, to evaluate the different gesture recognition approaches. In our experiments, HD-GCN achieves best performance, but V-JEPA comes close with a simple, task-specific classification head--thus paving a possible way towards reducing system complexity, by using it as a shared multi-task model. In contrast, Gemini struggles to differentiate gestures based solely on textual descriptions in the zero-shot setting, highlighting the need of further research on suitable input representations for gestures.

We introduce FreshStack, a holistic framework for automatically building information retrieval (IR) evaluation benchmarks by incorporating challenging questions and answers. FreshStack conducts the following steps: (1) automatic corpus collection from code and technical documentation, (2) nugget generation from community-asked questions and answers, and (3) nugget-level support, retrieving documents using a fusion of retrieval techniques and hybrid architectures. We use FreshStack to build five datasets on fast-growing, recent, and niche topics to ensure the tasks are sufficiently challenging. On FreshStack, existing retrieval models, when applied out-of-the-box, significantly underperform oracle approaches on all five topics, denoting plenty of headroom to improve IR quality. In addition, we identify cases where rerankers do not improve first-stage retrieval accuracy (two out of five topics) and oracle context helps an LLM generator generate a high-quality RAG answer. We hope FreshStack will facilitate future work toward constructing realistic, scalable, and uncontaminated IR and RAG evaluation benchmarks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced the capabilities of information access systems, especially with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Nevertheless, the evaluation of RAG systems remains a barrier to continued progress, a challenge we tackle in this work by proposing an automatic evaluation framework that is validated against human annotations. We believe that the nugget evaluation methodology provides a solid foundation for evaluating RAG systems. This approach, originally developed for the TREC Question Answering (QA) Track in 2003, evaluates systems based on atomic facts that should be present in good answers. Our efforts focus on "refactoring" this methodology, where we describe the AutoNuggetizer framework that specifically applies LLMs to both automatically create nuggets and automatically assign nuggets to system answers. In the context of the TREC 2024 RAG Track, we calibrate a fully automatic approach against strategies where nuggets are created manually or semi-manually by human assessors and then assigned manually to system answers. Based on results from a community-wide evaluation, we observe strong agreement at the run level between scores derived from fully automatic nugget evaluation and human-based variants. The agreement is stronger when individual framework components such as nugget assignment are automated independently. This suggests that our evaluation framework provides tradeoffs between effort and quality that can be used to guide the development of future RAG systems. However, further research is necessary to refine our approach, particularly in establishing robust per-topic agreement to diagnose system failures effectively.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in both academic and industry settings to automate the evaluation of information seeking systems, particularly by generating graded relevance judgments. Previous work on LLM-based relevance assessment has primarily focused on replicating graded human relevance judgments through various prompting strategies. However, there has been limited exploration of alternative assessment methods or comprehensive comparative studies. In this paper, we systematically compare multiple LLM-based relevance assessment methods, including binary relevance judgments, graded relevance assessments, pairwise preference-based methods, and two nugget-based evaluation methods~--~document-agnostic and document-dependent. In addition to a traditional comparison based on system rankings using Kendall correlations, we also examine how well LLM judgments align with human preferences, as inferred from relevance grades. We conduct extensive experiments on datasets from three TREC Deep Learning tracks 2019, 2020 and 2021 as well as the ANTIQUE dataset, which focuses on non-factoid open-domain question answering. As part of our data release, we include relevance judgments generated by both an open-source (Llama3.2b) and a commercial (gpt-4o) model. Our goal is to \textit{reproduce} various LLM-based relevance judgment methods to provide a comprehensive comparison. All code, data, and resources are publicly available in our GitHub Repository at https://github.com/Narabzad/llm-relevance-judgement-comparison.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) faces challenges related to factual correctness, source attribution, and response completeness. To address them, we propose a modular pipeline for grounded response generation that operates on information nuggets-minimal, atomic units of relevant information extracted from retrieved documents. The multistage pipeline encompasses nugget detection, clustering, ranking, top cluster summarization, and fluency enhancement. It guarantees grounding in specific facts, facilitates source attribution, and ensures maximum information inclusion within length constraints. Extensive experiments on the TREC RAG'24 dataset evaluated with the AutoNuggetizer framework demonstrate that GINGER achieves state-of-the-art performance on this benchmark.

Training LLMs on data containing unfamiliar knowledge during the instruction tuning stage can encourage hallucinations. To address this challenge, we introduce NOVA, a novel framework designed to identify high-quality data that aligns well with the LLM's learned knowledge to reduce hallucinations. NOVA includes Internal Consistency Probing (ICP) and Semantic Equivalence Identification (SEI) to measure how familiar the LLM is with instruction data. Specifically, ICP evaluates the LLM's understanding of the given instruction by calculating the tailored consistency among multiple self-generated responses. SEI further assesses the familiarity of the LLM with the target response by comparing it to the generated responses, using the proposed semantic clustering and well-designed voting strategy. Finally, to ensure the quality of selected samples, we introduce an expert-aligned reward model, considering characteristics beyond just familiarity. By considering data quality and avoiding unfamiliar data, we can utilize the selected data to effectively align LLMs to follow instructions and hallucinate less.