Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as automated judges to evaluate text, but their effectiveness can be hindered by various unintentional biases. We propose using linear classifying probes, trained by leveraging differences between contrasting pairs of prompts, to directly access LLMs’ latent knowledge and extract more accurate preferences. Through extensive experiments using models of varying size from four different families and six diverse datasets assessing text quality evaluation and common sense reasoning, we demonstrate that both supervised and unsupervised probing approaches consistently outperform traditional generation-based judgement while maintaining similar computational costs. These probes generalise under domain shifts and can even outperform finetuned evaluators with the same training data size. Our results suggest linear probing offers an accurate, robust and computationally efficient approach for LLM-as-judge tasks while providing interpretable insights into how models encode judgement-relevant knowledge. Our data and code will be openly released in the future.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used, but they often generate subtle factual errors, especially in long-form text. These errors are fatal in some specialized domains such as medicine. Existing fact-checking with grounding documents methods face two main challenges: (1) they struggle to understand complex multihop relations in long documents, often overlooking subtle factual errors; (2) most specialized methods rely on pairwise comparisons, requiring multiple model calls, leading to high resource and computational costs. To address these challenges, we propose GraphCheck, a fact-checking framework that uses extracted knowledge graphs to enhance text representation. Graph Neural Networks further process these graphs as a soft prompt, enabling LLMs to incorporate structured knowledge more effectively. Enhanced with graph-based reasoning, GraphCheck captures multihop reasoning chains that are often overlooked by existing methods, enabling precise and efficient fact-checking in a single inference call. Experimental results on seven benchmarks spanning both general and medical domains demonstrate up to a 7.1% overall improvement over baseline models. Notably, GraphCheck outperforms existing specialized fact-checkers and achieves comparable performance with state-of-the-art LLMs, such as DeepSeek-V3 and OpenAI-o1, with significantly fewer parameters.

Multimodal Dialogue Summarization (MDS) is a critical task with wide-ranging applications. To support the development of effective MDS models, robust automatic evaluation methods are essential for reducing both cost and human effort. However, such methods require a strong meta-evaluation benchmark grounded in human annotations. In this work, we introduce MDSEval, the first meta-evaluation benchmark for MDS, consisting image-sharing dialogues, corresponding summaries, and human judgments across eight well-defined quality aspects. To ensure data quality and richfulness, we propose a novel filtering framework leveraging Mutually Exclusive Key Information (MEKI) across modalities. Our work is the first to identify and formalize key evaluation dimensions specific to MDS. Finally, we benchmark state-of-the-art modal evaluation methods, revealing their limitations in distinguishing summaries from advanced MLLMs and their susceptibility to various bias.

While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is widely used to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences, it typically assumes homogeneous preferences across users, overlooking diverse human values and minority viewpoints.Although personalized preference learning addresses this by tailoring separate preferences for individual users, the field lacks standardized methods to assess its effectiveness. We present a multi-faceted evaluation framework that measures not only performance but also fairness, unintended effects, and adaptability across varying levels of preference divergence. Through extensive experiments comparing eight personalization methods across three preference datasets, we demonstrate that performance differences between methods could reach 36% when users strongly disagree, and personalization can introduce up to 20% safety misalignment. These findings highlight the critical need for holistic evaluation approaches to advance the development of more effective and inclusive preference learning systems.

Evaluating the factuality of long-form generations from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging due to accuracy issues and costly human assessment. Prior evaluation pipelines attempt this by decomposing text into claims, searching for evidence, and verifying claims, but suffer from critical drawbacks: (1) inefficiency due to complex pipeline components unsuitable for long LLM outputs, and (2) ineffectiveness stemming from inaccurate claim sets and insufficient evidence collection of one-line SERP snippets. To address these limitations, we adapt the existing decompose-then-verify evaluation framework and propose **FaStFact**, a fast and strong evaluation pipeline that achieves the highest alignment with human evaluation and efficiency among existing baselines. FaStFact first employs chunk-level claim extraction integrated with confidence-based pre-verification, significantly reducing the cost of web searching and inference calling while ensuring reliability. For searching and verification, it gathers document-level evidence from crawled website pages for retrieval during verification, addressing the evidence insufficiency problem in previous pipelines. Extensive experiments based on an aggregated and manually annotated benchmark demonstrate the reliability of FaStFact in both efficiently and effectively evaluating the factuality of long-form LLM generations. We submit the paper with code and benchmark, and will make them publicly available to facilitate research.

Leveraging large language models (LLMs) for complex natural language tasks typically requires long-form prompts to convey detailed requirements and information, which results in increased memory usage and inference costs. To mitigate these challenges, multiple efficient methods have been proposed, with prompt compression gaining significant research interest. This survey provides an overview of prompt compression techniques, categorized into hard prompt methods and soft prompt methods. First, the technical approaches of these methods are compared, followed by an exploration of various ways to understand their mechanisms, including the perspectives of attention optimization, Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT), modality integration, and new synthetic language. We also examine the downstream adaptations of various prompt compression techniques. Finally, the limitations of current prompt compression methods are analyzed, and several future directions are outlined, such as optimizing the compression encoder, combining hard and soft prompts methods, and leveraging insights from multimodality.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

In light of recent advances in large language models (LLMs), the expectations for the next generation of virtual assistants include enhanced naturalness and adaptability across diverse usage scenarios. However, the creation of high-quality annotated data for Task-Oriented Dialog (TOD) is recognized to be slow and costly. To address these challenges, we introduce Task-Oriented Automatic Dialogs (TOAD), a novel and scalable TOD dataset along with its automatic generation pipeline. The TOAD dataset simulates realistic app context interaction and provide a variety of system response style options. Two aspects of system response styles are considered, verbosity level and users’ expression mirroring. We benchmark TOAD on two response generation tasks, and the results show that modeling more verbose responses or responses without user expression mirroring is more challenging.

Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in aligning generated text with user intentions across various tasks. When it comes to long-form text generation, there has been a growing interest in generation from a discourse coherence perspective.However, existing lexical or semantic metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, BertScore cannot effectively capture the discourse coherence.The development of discourse-specific automatic evaluation methods for assessing the output of LLMs warrants greater focus and exploration. In this paper, we present a novel automatic metric designed to quantify the discourse divergence between two long-form articles.Extensive experiments on three datasets from representative domains demonstrate that our metric aligns more closely with human preferences and GPT-4 coherence evaluation, outperforming existing evaluation methods.

Functional Distributional Semantics is a recently proposed framework for learning distributional semantics that provides linguistic interpretability. It models the meaning of a word as a binary classifier rather than a numerical vector. In this work, we propose a method to train a Functional Distributional Semantics model with grounded visual data. We train it on the Visual Genome dataset, which is closer to the kind of data encountered in human language acquisition than a large text corpus. On four external evaluation datasets, our model outperforms previous work on learning semantics from Visual Genome.

Recent pre-trained language models have shown promising capability to generate fluent and realistic natural text. However, generating multi-sentence text with global content planning has been a long-existing research question. The current controlled text generation models cannot directly address this issue, as they usually condition on single known control attribute. We propose a low-cost yet effective framework that explicitly models content plans and optimizes the joint distribution of the natural sequence and the content plans in a plug-and-play post-processing manner. We evaluate our model with extensive automatic metrics and human evaluations and show that it achieves the state-of-the-art performance on the recipe generation task on Recipe1M+ dataset.