Evaluating the Diversity of AI-Generated Content with Diversity Profiles

Diversity is a fundamental criterion for evaluating generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, yet its measurement remains inherently ambiguous. Existing approaches typically represent generated samples in an embedding space, compute pairwise distances or similarities, and aggregate them into a single scalar score. Such scalar summaries are convenient, but they often encode different inductive biases and may yield contradictory rankings of the same sample sets. In this paper, we argue that diversity evaluation for AI-generated content is intrinsically under-specified when reduced to a single number. We first review representative diversity metrics, and then diagnose their limitations from two complementary perspectives: an axiomatic analysis showing that no representative scalar metric satisfies all desirable properties simultaneously, and an empirical analysis showing that high-dimensional representation spaces can induce concentrated, modality-dependent distance distributions. To address these issues, we propose diversity profiles: curve-valued, condition-aware summaries that evaluate a parameterized diversity family across a range of thresholds, scales, exponents, or orders under a specified representation and distance or kernel function. Diversity profiles reveal whether a comparison is robust across resolutions or instead depends on an arbitrary parameter choice. We instantiate profiles for several representative metric families and demonstrate their practical use in generative AI evaluation. Overall, diversity profiles provide a more transparent and resolution-aware framework for comparing the diversity of AI-generated content.

Leveraging Reference Documents for Zero-Shot Ranking via Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance in the task of text ranking for information retrieval. While Pointwise ranking approaches offer computational efficiency by scoring documents independently, they often yield biased relevance estimates due to the lack of inter-document comparisons. In contrast, Pairwise methods improve ranking accuracy by explicitly comparing document pairs, but suffer from substantial computational overhead with quadratic complexity ($O(n^2)$). To address this tradeoff, we propose \textbf{RefRank}, a simple and effective comparative ranking method based on a fixed reference document. Instead of comparing all document pairs, RefRank prompts the LLM to evaluate each candidate relative to a shared reference anchor. By selecting the reference anchor that encapsulates the core query intent, RefRank implicitly captures relevance cues, enabling indirect comparison between documents via this common anchor. This reduces computational cost to linear time ($O(n)$) while importantly, preserving the advantages of comparative evaluation. To further enhance robustness, we aggregate multiple RefRank outputs using a weighted averaging scheme across different reference choices. Experiments on several benchmark datasets and with various LLMs show that RefRank significantly outperforms Pointwise baselines and could achieve performance at least on par with Pairwise approaches with a significantly lower computational cost.