Diet plays a critical role in human health, yet tailoring dietary reasoning to individual health conditions remains a major challenge. Nutrition Question Answering (QA) has emerged as a popular method for addressing this problem. However, current research faces two critical limitations. On one hand, the absence of datasets involving user-specific medical information severely limits personalization. This challenge is further compounded by the wide variability in individual health needs. On the other hand, while large language models (LLMs), a popular solution for this task, demonstrate strong reasoning abilities, they struggle with the domain-specific complexities of personalized healthy dietary reasoning, and existing benchmarks fail to capture these challenges. To address these gaps, we introduce the Nutritional Graph Question Answering (NGQA) benchmark, the first graph question answering dataset designed for personalized nutritional health reasoning. NGQA leverages data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) to evaluate whether a food is healthy for a specific user, supported by explanations of the key contributing nutrients. The benchmark incorporates three question complexity settings and evaluates reasoning across three downstream tasks. Extensive experiments with LLM backbones and baseline models demonstrate that the NGQA benchmark effectively challenges existing models. In sum, NGQA addresses a critical real-world problem while advancing GraphQA research with a novel domain-specific benchmark. Our codebase and dataset are available here.

Despite the increasing use of large language models (LLMs) for context-grounded tasks like summarization and question-answering, understanding what makes an LLM produce a certain response is challenging. We propose Multi-Level Explanations for Generative Language Models (MExGen), a technique to provide explanations for context-grounded text generation. MExGen assigns scores to parts of the context to quantify their influence on the model’s output. It extends attribution methods like LIME and SHAP to LLMs used in context-grounded tasks where (1) inference cost is high, (2) input text is long, and (3) the output is text. We conduct a systematic evaluation, both automated and human, of perturbation-based attribution methods for summarization and question answering. The results show that our framework can provide more faithful explanations of generated output than available alternatives, including LLM self-explanations. We open-source code for MExGen as part of the ICX360 toolkit: https://github.com/IBM/ICX360.

We present a synthetic data generation tool integrated into EvalAssist. EvalAssist is a web-based application designed to assist human-centered evaluation of language model outputs by allowing users to refine LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation criteria. The synthetic data generation tool in EvalAssist is tailored for evaluation contexts and informed by findings from user studies with AI practitioners. Participants identified key pain points in current workflows including circularity risks (where models are judged by criteria derived by themselves), compounded bias (amplification of biases across multiple stages of a pipeline), and poor support for edge cases, and expressed a strong preference for real-world grounding and fine-grained control. In response, our tool supports flexible prompting, RAG-based grounding, persona diversity, and iterative generation workflows. We also incorporate features for quality assurance and edge case discovery.

The deployment of language models in real-world applications exposes users to various risks, including hallucinations and harmful or unethical content. These challenges highlight the urgent need for robust safeguards to ensure safe and responsible AI. To address this, we introduce Granite Guardian, a suite of advanced models designed to detect and mitigate risks associated with prompts and responses, enabling seamless integration with any large language model (LLM). Unlike existing open-source solutions, our Granite Guardian models provide comprehensive coverage across a wide range of risk dimensions, including social bias, profanity, violence, sexual content, unethical behavior, jailbreaking, and hallucination-related issues such as context relevance, groundedness, and answer accuracy in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) scenarios. Trained on a unique dataset combining diverse human annotations and synthetic data, Granite Guardian excels in identifying risks often overlooked by traditional detection systems, particularly jailbreak attempts and RAG-specific challenges. https://github.com/ibm-granite/granite-guardian

Traditional reference-based metrics, such as BLEU and ROUGE, are less effective for assessing outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) that produce highly creative or superior-quality text, or in situations where reference outputs are unavailable. While human evaluation remains an option, it is costly and difficult to scale. Recent work using LLMs as evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) is promising, but trust and reliability remain a significant concern. Integrating human input is crucial to ensure criteria used to evaluate are aligned with the human’s intent, and evaluations are robust and consistent. This paper presents a user study of a design exploration called EvaluLLM, that enables users to leverage LLMs as customizable judges, promoting human involvement to balance trust and cost-saving potential with caution. Through interviews with eight domain experts, we identified the need for assistance in developing effective evaluation criteria aligning the LLM-as-a-judge with practitioners’ preferences and expectations. We offer findings and design recommendations to optimize human-assisted LLM-as-judge systems.