EvalAgent: Discovering Implicit Evaluation Criteria from the Web

Evaluation of language model outputs on structured writing tasks is typically conducted with a number of desirable criteria presented to human evaluators or large language models (LLMs). For instance, on a prompt like "Help me draft an academic talk on coffee intake vs research productivity", a model response may be evaluated for criteria like accuracy and coherence. However, high-quality responses should do more than just satisfy basic task requirements. An effective response to this query should include quintessential features of an academic talk, such as a compelling opening, clear research questions, and a takeaway. To help identify these implicit criteria, we introduce EvalAgent, a novel framework designed to automatically uncover nuanced and task-specific criteria. EvalAgent first mines expert-authored online guidance. It then uses this evidence to propose diverse, long-tail evaluation criteria that are grounded in reliable external sources. Our experiments demonstrate that the grounded criteria produced by EvalAgent are often implicit (not directly stated in the user's prompt), yet specific (high degree of lexical precision). Further, EvalAgent criteria are often not satisfied by initial responses but they are actionable, such that responses can be refined to satisfy them. Finally, we show that combining LLM-generated and EvalAgent criteria uncovers more human-valued criteria than using LLMs alone.

CRUST-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for C-to-safe-Rust Transpilation

C-to-Rust transpilation is essential for modernizing legacy C code while enhancing safety and interoperability with modern Rust ecosystems. However, no dataset currently exists for evaluating whether a system can transpile C into safe Rust that passes a set of test cases. We introduce CRUST-Bench, a dataset of 100 C repositories, each paired with manually-written interfaces in safe Rust as well as test cases that can be used to validate correctness of the transpilation. By considering entire repositories rather than isolated functions, CRUST-Bench captures the challenges of translating complex projects with dependencies across multiple files. The provided Rust interfaces provide explicit specifications that ensure adherence to idiomatic, memory-safe Rust patterns, while the accompanying test cases enforce functional correctness. We evaluate state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on this task and find that safe and idiomatic Rust generation is still a challenging problem for various state-of-the-art methods and techniques. We also provide insights into the errors LLMs usually make in transpiling code from C to safe Rust. The best performing model, OpenAI o1, is able to solve only 15 tasks in a single-shot setting. Improvements on CRUST-Bench would lead to improved transpilation systems that can reason about complex scenarios and help in migrating legacy codebases from C into languages like Rust that ensure memory safety. You can find the dataset and code at https://github.com/anirudhkhatry/CRUST-bench.

Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in the development of reliable LLMs, and the choice of feedback protocol plays a central role in both but remains understudied. In this work, we show that the choice of feedback protocol (absolute scores versus relative preferences) can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In particular, we show that pairwise evaluation protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation. Generator models can exploit spurious attributes (or distractor features) favored by the LLM judge, resulting in inflated scores for lower-quality outputs and misleading training signals. We find that absolute scoring is more robust to such manipulation, producing judgments that better reflect response quality and are less influenced by distractor features. Our results demonstrate that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features, skewing LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and leading to inaccurate conclusions about model quality in benchmark evaluations. Pairwise preferences flip in about 35% of the cases, compared to only 9% for absolute scores. We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.

RankAlign: A Ranking View of the Generator-Validator Gap in Large Language Models

Although large language models (LLMs) have become generally more capable and accurate across many tasks, some fundamental sources of unreliability remain in their behavior. One key limitation is their inconsistency at reporting the the same information when prompts are changed. In this paper, we consider the discrepancy between a model's generated answer and their own verification of that answer, the generator-validator gap. We define this gap in a more stringent way than prior work: we expect correlation of scores from a generator and a validator over the entire set of candidate answers. We show that according to this measure, a large gap exists in various settings, including question answering, lexical semantics tasks, and next-word prediction. We then propose RankAlign, a ranking-based training method, and show that it significantly closes the gap by 31.8% on average, surpassing all baseline methods. Moreover, this approach generalizes well to out-of-domain tasks and lexical items.

QUDsim: Quantifying Discourse Similarities in LLM-Generated Text

As large language models become increasingly capable at various writing tasks, their weakness at generating unique and creative content becomes a major liability. Although LLMs have the ability to generate text covering diverse topics, there is an overall sense of repetitiveness across texts that we aim to formalize and quantify via a similarity metric. The familiarity between documents arises from the persistence of underlying discourse structures. However, existing similarity metrics dependent on lexical overlap and syntactic patterns largely capture $\textit{content}$ overlap, thus making them unsuitable for detecting $\textit{structural}$ similarities. We introduce an abstraction based on linguistic theories in Questions Under Discussion (QUD) and question semantics to help quantify differences in discourse progression. We then use this framework to build $\textbf{QUDsim}$, a similarity metric that can detect discursive parallels between documents. Using QUDsim, we find that LLMs often reuse discourse structures (more so than humans) across samples, even when content differs. Furthermore, LLMs are not only repetitive and structurally uniform, but are also divergent from human authors in the types of structures they use.

Is the Top Still Spinning? Evaluating Subjectivity in Narrative Understanding

Determining faithfulness of a claim to a source document is an important problem across many domains. This task is generally treated as a binary judgment of whether the claim is supported or unsupported in relation to the source. In many cases, though, whether a claim is supported can be ambiguous. For instance, it may depend on making inferences from given evidence, and different people can reasonably interpret the claim as either supported or unsupported based on their agreement with those inferences. Forcing binary labels upon such claims lowers the reliability of evaluation. In this work, we reframe the task to manage the subjectivity involved with factuality judgments of ambiguous claims. We introduce LLM-generated edits of summaries as a method of providing a nuanced evaluation of claims: how much does a summary need to be edited to be unambiguous? Whether a claim gets rewritten and how much it changes can be used as an automatic evaluation metric, the Ambiguity Rewrite Metric (ARM), with a much richer feedback signal than a binary judgment of faithfulness. We focus on the area of narrative summarization as it is particularly rife with ambiguity and subjective interpretation. We show that ARM produces a 21% absolute improvement in annotator agreement on claim faithfulness, indicating that subjectivity is reduced.

${\rm P{\small ROOF}W{\small ALA}}$: Multilingual Proof Data Synthesis and Theorem-Proving

Neural networks have shown substantial promise at automatic theorem-proving in interactive proof assistants (ITPs) like Lean and Coq. However, most neural theorem-proving models are restricted to specific ITPs, leaving out opportunities for cross-lingual $\textit{transfer}$ between ITPs. We address this weakness with a multilingual proof framework, ${\rm P{\small ROOF}W{\small ALA}}$, that allows a standardized form of interaction between neural theorem-provers and two established ITPs (Coq and Lean). It enables the collection of multilingual proof step data -- data recording the result of proof actions on ITP states -- for training neural provers. ${\rm P{\small ROOF}W{\small ALA}}$ allows the systematic evaluation of a model's performance across different ITPs and problem domains via efficient parallel proof search algorithms. We show that multilingual training enabled by ${\rm P{\small ROOF}W{\small ALA}}$ can lead to successful transfer across ITPs. Specifically, a model trained on a mix of ${\rm P{\small ROOF}W{\small ALA}}$-generated Coq and Lean data outperforms Lean-only and Coq-only models on the standard prove-at-$k$ metric. We open source all code including code for the $\href{https://github.com/trishullab/proof-wala}{ProofWala\; Framework}$, and the $\href{https://github.com/trishullab/itp-interface}{Multilingual\; ITP\; interaction\; framework}$.

LongProc: Benchmarking Long-Context Language Models on Long Procedural Generation

Existing benchmarks for evaluating long-context language models (LCLMs) primarily focus on long-context recall, requiring models to produce short responses based on a few critical snippets while processing thousands of irrelevant tokens. We introduce LongProc (Long Procedural Generation), a new benchmark that requires both the integration of highly dispersed information and long-form generation. LongProc consists of six diverse procedural generation tasks, such as extracting structured information from HTML pages into a TSV format and executing complex search procedures to create travel plans. These tasks challenge LCLMs by testing their ability to follow detailed procedural instructions, synthesize and reason over dispersed information, and generate structured, long-form outputs (up to 8K tokens). Furthermore, as these tasks adhere to deterministic procedures and yield structured outputs, they enable reliable rule-based evaluation. We evaluate 17 LCLMs on LongProc across three difficulty levels, with maximum numbers of output tokens set at 500, 2K, and 8K. Notably, while all tested models claim a context window size above 32K tokens, open-weight models typically falter on 2K-token tasks, and closed-source models like GPT-4o show significant degradation on 8K-token tasks. Further analysis reveals that LCLMs struggle to maintain long-range coherence in long-form generations. These findings highlight critical limitations in current LCLMs and suggest substantial room for improvement. Data and code available at: https://princeton-pli.github.io/LongProc

Understanding Synthetic Context Extension via Retrieval Heads

Long-context LLMs are increasingly in demand for applications such as retrieval-augmented generation. To defray the cost of pretraining LLMs over long contexts, recent work takes an approach of synthetic context extension: fine-tuning LLMs with synthetically generated long-context data in a post-training stage. However, it remains unclear how and why this synthetic context extension imparts abilities for downstream long-context tasks. In this paper, we investigate fine-tuning on synthetic data for three long-context tasks that require retrieval and reasoning. We vary the realism of "needle" concepts to be retrieved and diversity of the surrounding "haystack" context, from using LLMs to construct synthetic documents to using templated relations and creating symbolic datasets. We find that models trained on synthetic data fall short of the real data, but surprisingly, the mismatch can be interpreted and even predicted in terms of a special set of attention heads that are responsible for retrieval over long context: retrieval heads (Wu et al., 2024). The retrieval heads learned on synthetic data are mostly subsets of the retrieval heads learned on real data, and there is a strong correlation between the recall of heads learned and the downstream performance of a model. Furthermore, with attention knockout and activation patching, we mechanistically show that retrieval heads are necessary and explain model performance, although they are not totally sufficient. Our results shed light on how to interpret synthetic data fine-tuning performance and how to approach creating better data for learning real-world capabilities over long contexts.

Contrastive Learning to Improve Retrieval for Real-world Fact Checking

Recent work on fact-checking addresses a realistic setting where models incorporate evidence retrieved from the web to decide the veracity of claims. A bottleneck in this pipeline is in retrieving relevant evidence: traditional methods may surface documents directly related to a claim, but fact-checking complex claims requires more inferences. For instance, a document about how a vaccine was developed is relevant to addressing claims about what it might contain, even if it does not address them directly. We present Contrastive Fact-Checking Reranker (CFR), an improved retriever for this setting. By leveraging the AVeriTeC dataset, which annotates subquestions for claims with human written answers from evidence documents, we fine-tune Contriever with a contrastive objective based on multiple training signals, including distillation from GPT-4, evaluating subquestion answers, and gold labels in the dataset. We evaluate our model on both retrieval and end-to-end veracity judgments about claims. On the AVeriTeC dataset, we find a 6\% improvement in veracity classification accuracy. We also show our gains can be transferred to FEVER, ClaimDecomp, HotpotQA, and a synthetic dataset requiring retrievers to make inferences.