Daily Papers

Large language models (LLMs) can sometimes detect when they are being evaluated and adjust their behavior to appear more aligned, compromising the reliability of safety evaluations. In this paper, we show that adding a steering vector to an LLM's activations can suppress evaluation-awareness and make the model act like it is deployed during evaluation. To study our steering technique, we train an LLM to exhibit evaluation-aware behavior using a two-step training process designed to mimic how this behavior could emerge naturally. First, we perform continued pretraining on documents with factual descriptions of the model (1) using Python type hints during evaluation but not during deployment and (2) recognizing that the presence of a certain evaluation cue always means that it is being tested. Then, we train the model with expert iteration to use Python type hints in evaluation settings. The resulting model is evaluation-aware: it writes type hints in evaluation contexts more than deployment contexts. We find that activation steering can suppress evaluation awareness and make the model act like it is deployed even when the cue is present. Importantly, we constructed our steering vector using the original model before our additional training. Our results suggest that AI evaluators could improve the reliability of safety evaluations by steering models to act like they are deployed.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown remarkable abilities by integrating large language models with visual inputs. However, they often fail to utilize visual evidence adequately, either depending on linguistic priors in vision-centric tasks or resorting to textual shortcuts during reasoning. Although reinforcement learning (RL) can align models with desired behaviors, its application to VLMs has been hindered by the lack of scalable and reliable reward mechanisms. To overcome this challenge, we propose SSL4RL, a novel framework that leverages self-supervised learning (SSL) tasks as a source of verifiable rewards for RL-based fine-tuning. Our approach reformulates SSL objectives-such as predicting image rotation or reconstructing masked patches-into dense, automatic reward signals, eliminating the need for human preference data or unreliable AI evaluators. Experiments show that SSL4RL substantially improves performance on both vision-centric and vision-language reasoning benchmarks. Furthermore, through systematic ablations, we identify key factors-such as task difficulty, model scale, and semantic alignment with the target domain-that influence the effectiveness of SSL4RL tasks, offering new design principles for future work. We also demonstrate the framework's generality by applying it to graph learning, where it yields significant gains. SSL4RL establishes a versatile and effective paradigm for aligning multimodal models using verifiable, self-supervised objectives.

With the rapid growth of video generative models (VGMs), it is essential to develop reliable and comprehensive automatic metrics for AI-generated videos (AIGVs). Existing methods either use off-the-shelf models optimized for other tasks or rely on human assessment data to train specialized evaluators. These approaches are constrained to specific evaluation aspects and are difficult to scale with the increasing demands for finer-grained and more comprehensive evaluations. To address this issue, this work investigates the feasibility of using multimodal large language models (MLLMs) as a unified evaluator for AIGVs, leveraging their strong visual perception and language understanding capabilities. To evaluate the performance of automatic metrics in unified AIGV evaluation, we introduce a benchmark called UVE-Bench. UVE-Bench collects videos generated by state-of-the-art VGMs and provides pairwise human preference annotations across 15 evaluation aspects. Using UVE-Bench, we extensively evaluate 16 MLLMs. Our empirical results suggest that while advanced MLLMs (e.g., Qwen2VL-72B and InternVL2.5-78B) still lag behind human evaluators, they demonstrate promising ability in unified AIGV evaluation, significantly surpassing existing specialized evaluation methods. Additionally, we conduct an in-depth analysis of key design choices that impact the performance of MLLM-driven evaluators, offering valuable insights for future research on AIGV evaluation. The code is available at https://github.com/bytedance/UVE.

Past analyses of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) assume that the human fully observes the environment. What happens when human feedback is based only on partial observations? We formally define two failure cases: deception and overjustification. Modeling the human as Boltzmann-rational w.r.t. a belief over trajectories, we prove conditions under which RLHF is guaranteed to result in policies that deceptively inflate their performance, overjustify their behavior to make an impression, or both. To help address these issues, we mathematically characterize how partial observability of the environment translates into (lack of) ambiguity in the learned return function. In some cases, accounting for partial observability makes it theoretically possible to recover the return function and thus the optimal policy, while in other cases, there is irreducible ambiguity. We caution against blindly applying RLHF in partially observable settings and propose research directions to help tackle these challenges.

Self-evaluation using large language models (LLMs) has proven valuable not only in benchmarking but also methods like reward modeling, constitutional AI, and self-refinement. But new biases are introduced due to the same LLM acting as both the evaluator and the evaluatee. One such bias is self-preference, where an LLM evaluator scores its own outputs higher than others' while human annotators consider them of equal quality. But do LLMs actually recognize their own outputs when they give those texts higher scores, or is it just a coincidence? In this paper, we investigate if self-recognition capability contributes to self-preference. We discover that, out of the box, LLMs such as GPT-4 and Llama 2 have non-trivial accuracy at distinguishing themselves from other LLMs and humans. By fine-tuning LLMs, we discover a linear correlation between self-recognition capability and the strength of self-preference bias; using controlled experiments, we show that the causal explanation resists straightforward confounders. We discuss how self-recognition can interfere with unbiased evaluations and AI safety more generally.

The rise of AI voice-cloning technology, particularly audio Real-time Deepfakes (RTDFs), has intensified social engineering attacks by enabling real-time voice impersonation that bypasses conventional enrollment-based authentication. To address this, we propose PITCH, a robust challenge-response method to detect and tag interactive deepfake audio calls. We developed a comprehensive taxonomy of audio challenges based on the human auditory system, linguistics, and environmental factors, yielding 20 prospective challenges. These were tested against leading voice-cloning systems using a novel dataset comprising 18,600 original and 1.6 million deepfake samples from 100 users. PITCH's prospective challenges enhanced machine detection capabilities to 88.7% AUROC score on the full unbalanced dataset, enabling us to shortlist 10 functional challenges that balance security and usability. For human evaluation and subsequent analyses, we filtered a challenging, balanced subset. On this subset, human evaluators independently scored 72.6% accuracy, while machines achieved 87.7%. Acknowledging that call environments require higher human control, we aided call receivers in making decisions with them using machines. Our solution uses an early warning system to tag suspicious incoming calls as "Deepfake-likely." Contrary to prior findings, we discovered that integrating human intuition with machine precision offers complementary advantages. Our solution gave users maximum control and boosted detection accuracy to 84.5%. Evidenced by this jump in accuracy, PITCH demonstrated the potential for AI-assisted pre-screening in call verification processes, offering an adaptable and usable approach to combat real-time voice-cloning attacks. Code to reproduce and access data at https://github.com/mittalgovind/PITCH-Deepfakes.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is effective at aligning large language models (LLMs) to human preferences, but gathering high quality human preference labels is a key bottleneck. We conduct a head-to-head comparison of RLHF vs. RL from AI Feedback (RLAIF) - a technique where preferences are labeled by an off-the-shelf LLM in lieu of humans, and we find that they result in similar improvements. On the task of summarization, human evaluators prefer generations from both RLAIF and RLHF over a baseline supervised fine-tuned model in ~70% of cases. Furthermore, when asked to rate RLAIF vs. RLHF summaries, humans prefer both at equal rates. These results suggest that RLAIF can yield human-level performance, offering a potential solution to the scalability limitations of RLHF.

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor practices remain uneven across the AI ecosystem. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of both first-party and third-party social impact evaluation reporting across a wide range of model developers. Our study examines 186 first-party release reports and 183 post-release evaluation sources, and complements this quantitative analysis with interviews of model developers. We find a clear division of evaluation labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and has declined over time in key areas such as environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators including academic researchers, nonprofits, and independent organizations provide broader and more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, this complementarity has limits. Only model developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, financial costs, and training infrastructure, yet interviews reveal that these disclosures are often deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or regulatory compliance. Our findings indicate that current evaluation practices leave major gaps in assessing AI's societal impacts, highlighting the urgent need for policies that promote developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure to aggregate and compare third-party evaluations in a consistent and accessible way.

The role-play ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged as a popular research direction. However, existing studies focus on imitating well-known public figures or fictional characters, overlooking the potential for simulating ordinary individuals. Such an oversight limits the potential for advancements in digital human clones and non-player characters in video games. To bridge this gap, we introduce ECHO, an evaluative framework inspired by the Turing test. This framework engages the acquaintances of the target individuals to distinguish between human and machine-generated responses. Notably, our framework focuses on emulating average individuals rather than historical or fictional figures, presenting a unique advantage to apply the Turing Test. We evaluated three role-playing LLMs using ECHO, with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 serving as foundational models, alongside the online application GPTs from OpenAI. Our results demonstrate that GPT-4 more effectively deceives human evaluators, and GPTs achieves a leading success rate of 48.3%. Furthermore, we investigated whether LLMs could discern between human-generated and machine-generated texts. While GPT-4 can identify differences, it could not determine which texts were human-produced. Our code and results of reproducing the role-playing LLMs are made publicly available via https://github.com/CUHK-ARISE/ECHO.

How to accurately and efficiently assess AI-generated images (AIGIs) remains a critical challenge for generative models. Given the high costs and extensive time commitments required for user studies, many researchers have turned towards employing large multi-modal models (LMMs) as AIGI evaluators, the precision and validity of which are still questionable. Furthermore, traditional benchmarks often utilize mostly natural-captured content rather than AIGIs to test the abilities of LMMs, leading to a noticeable gap for AIGIs. Therefore, we introduce A-Bench in this paper, a benchmark designed to diagnose whether LMMs are masters at evaluating AIGIs. Specifically, A-Bench is organized under two key principles: 1) Emphasizing both high-level semantic understanding and low-level visual quality perception to address the intricate demands of AIGIs. 2) Various generative models are utilized for AIGI creation, and various LMMs are employed for evaluation, which ensures a comprehensive validation scope. Ultimately, 2,864 AIGIs from 16 text-to-image models are sampled, each paired with question-answers annotated by human experts, and tested across 18 leading LMMs. We hope that A-Bench will significantly enhance the evaluation process and promote the generation quality for AIGIs. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/Q-Future/A-Bench.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise as automated evaluators for assessing the quality of answers generated by AI systems. However, these LLM-based evaluators exhibit position bias, or inconsistency, when used to evaluate candidate answers in pairwise comparisons, favoring either the first or second answer regardless of content. To address this limitation, we propose PORTIA, an alignment-based system designed to mimic human comparison strategies to calibrate position bias in a lightweight yet effective manner. Specifically, PORTIA splits the answers into multiple segments, aligns similar content across candidate answers, and then merges them back into a single prompt for evaluation by LLMs. We conducted extensive experiments with six diverse LLMs to evaluate 11,520 answer pairs. Our results show that PORTIA markedly enhances the consistency rates for all the models and comparison forms tested, achieving an average relative improvement of 47.46%. Remarkably, PORTIA enables less advanced GPT models to achieve 88% agreement with the state-of-the-art GPT-4 model at just 10% of the cost. Furthermore, it rectifies around 80% of the position bias instances within the GPT-4 model, elevating its consistency rate up to 98%. Subsequent human evaluations indicate that the PORTIA-enhanced GPT-3.5 model can even surpass the standalone GPT-4 in terms of alignment with human evaluators. These findings highlight PORTIA's ability to correct position bias, improve LLM consistency, and boost performance while keeping cost-efficiency. This represents a valuable step toward a more reliable and scalable use of LLMs for automated evaluations across diverse applications.

The rapid advancement of AI-generated video models has created a pressing need for robust and interpretable evaluation frameworks. Existing metrics are limited to producing numerical scores without explanatory comments, resulting in low interpretability and human evaluation alignment. To address those challenges, we introduce AIGVE-MACS, a unified model for AI-Generated Video Evaluation(AIGVE), which can provide not only numerical scores but also multi-aspect language comment feedback in evaluating these generated videos. Central to our approach is AIGVE-BENCH 2, a large-scale benchmark comprising 2,500 AI-generated videos and 22,500 human-annotated detailed comments and numerical scores across nine critical evaluation aspects. Leveraging AIGVE-BENCH 2, AIGVE-MACS incorporates recent Vision-Language Models with a novel token-wise weighted loss and a dynamic frame sampling strategy to better align with human evaluators. Comprehensive experiments across supervised and zero-shot benchmarks demonstrate that AIGVE-MACS achieves state-of-the-art performance in both scoring correlation and comment quality, significantly outperforming prior baselines including GPT-4o and VideoScore. In addition, we further showcase a multi-agent refinement framework where feedback from AIGVE-MACS drives iterative improvements in video generation, leading to 53.5% quality enhancement. This work establishes a new paradigm for comprehensive, human-aligned evaluation of AI-generated videos. We release the AIGVE-BENCH 2 and AIGVE-MACS at https://huggingface.co/xiaoliux/AIGVE-MACS.

Evaluating Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI, but has been a longstanding research challenge. While human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, it is expensive and lacks scalability. Practical applications have driven the development of various automatic evaluation metrics (AEM), designed to compare the model output with human-written references, generating a score which approximates human judgment. Over time, AEMs have evolved from simple lexical comparisons, to semantic similarity models and, more recently, to LLM-based evaluators. However, it seems that no single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications. This paper aims to show this by conducting a thorough examination of the methodologies of existing metrics, their documented strengths and limitations, validation methods, and correlations with human judgment. We identify several key challenges: metrics often capture only specific aspects of text quality, their effectiveness varies by task and dataset, validation practices remain unstructured, and correlations with human judgment are inconsistent. Importantly, we find that these challenges persist in the most recent type of metric, LLM-as-a-Judge, as well as in the evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), an increasingly relevant task in academia and industry. Our findings challenge the quest for the 'perfect metric'. We propose selecting metrics based on task-specific needs and leveraging complementary evaluations and advocate that new metrics should focus on enhanced validation methodologies.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven their expanding application across various fields. One of the most promising applications is their role as evaluators based on natural language responses, referred to as ''LLMs-as-judges''. This framework has attracted growing attention from both academia and industry due to their excellent effectiveness, ability to generalize across tasks, and interpretability in the form of natural language. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the LLMs-as-judges paradigm from five key perspectives: Functionality, Methodology, Applications, Meta-evaluation, and Limitations. We begin by providing a systematic definition of LLMs-as-Judges and introduce their functionality (Why use LLM judges?). Then we address methodology to construct an evaluation system with LLMs (How to use LLM judges?). Additionally, we investigate the potential domains for their application (Where to use LLM judges?) and discuss methods for evaluating them in various contexts (How to evaluate LLM judges?). Finally, we provide a detailed analysis of the limitations of LLM judges and discuss potential future directions. Through a structured and comprehensive analysis, we aim aims to provide insights on the development and application of LLMs-as-judges in both research and practice. We will continue to maintain the relevant resource list at https://github.com/CSHaitao/Awesome-LLMs-as-Judges.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into society, their alignment with human morals is crucial. To better understand this alignment, we created a large corpus of human- and LLM-generated responses to various moral scenarios. We found a misalignment between human and LLM moral assessments; although both LLMs and humans tended to reject morally complex utilitarian dilemmas, LLMs were more sensitive to personal framing. We then conducted a quantitative user study involving 230 participants (N=230), who evaluated these responses by determining whether they were AI-generated and assessed their agreement with the responses. Human evaluators preferred LLMs' assessments in moral scenarios, though a systematic anti-AI bias was observed: participants were less likely to agree with judgments they believed to be machine-generated. Statistical and NLP-based analyses revealed subtle linguistic differences in responses, influencing detection and agreement. Overall, our findings highlight the complexities of human-AI perception in morally charged decision-making.

This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT variants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, both with and without prompt engineering, against solely student work and a mixed category containing both student and GPT-4 contributions in university-level physics coding assignments using the Python language. Comparing 50 student submissions to 50 AI-generated submissions across different categories, and marked blindly by three independent markers, we amassed n = 300 data points. Students averaged 91.9% (SE:0.4), surpassing the highest performing AI submission category, GPT-4 with prompt engineering, which scored 81.1% (SE:0.8) - a statistically significant difference (p = 2.482 times 10^{-10}). Prompt engineering significantly improved scores for both GPT-4 (p = 1.661 times 10^{-4}) and GPT-3.5 (p = 4.967 times 10^{-9}). Additionally, the blinded markers were tasked with guessing the authorship of the submissions on a four-point Likert scale from `Definitely AI' to `Definitely Human'. They accurately identified the authorship, with 92.1% of the work categorized as 'Definitely Human' being human-authored. Simplifying this to a binary `AI' or `Human' categorization resulted in an average accuracy rate of 85.3%. These findings suggest that while AI-generated work closely approaches the quality of university students' work, it often remains detectable by human evaluators.