Daily Papers

How do large language models (LLMs) know what they know? Answering this question has been difficult because pre-training data is often a "black box" -- unknown or inaccessible. The recent release of nanochat -- a family of small LLMs with fully open pre-training data -- addresses this as it provides a transparent view into where a model's parametric knowledge comes from. Towards the goal of understanding how knowledge is encoded by LLMs, we release NanoKnow, a benchmark dataset that partitions questions from Natural Questions and SQuAD into splits based on whether their answers are present in nanochat's pre-training corpus. Using these splits, we can now properly disentangle the sources of knowledge that LLMs rely on when producing an output. To demonstrate NanoKnow's utility, we conduct experiments using eight nanochat checkpoints. Our findings show: (1) closed-book accuracy is strongly influenced by answer frequency in the pre-training data, (2) providing external evidence can mitigate this frequency dependence, (3) even with external evidence, models are more accurate when answers were seen during pre-training, demonstrating that parametric and external knowledge are complementary, and (4) non-relevant information is harmful, with accuracy decreasing based on both the position and the number of non-relevant contexts. We release all NanoKnow artifacts at https://github.com/castorini/NanoKnow.

Are LLM-based search agents genuinely searching, or using the web to verify what they already know? We study this question on BrowseComp with three diagnostics. Our analysis reveals Intrinsic Knowledge Dependence (IKD): even with tool access, agents often rely on intrinsic knowledge -- information encoded in the model before retrieval -- rather than on external evidence. Agents answer up to 44.5% of BrowseComp questions without tools, generate more than half of their search queries from internally produced hypotheses rather than retrieved leads, and perform worse than closed-book baselines when answer-supporting evidence is removed. These results suggest that static search benchmarks can reward memory-backed verification rather than evidence-driven discovery, conflating what agents already know with what they can find. We then introduce LiveBrowseComp, a deep-search benchmark designed to evaluate agents beyond intrinsic coverage. It contains 335 human-authored questions whose answers depend on facts published within the 90 days preceding benchmark construction, drawn from six updated sources and filtered to exclude globally salient events. On LiveBrowseComp, all evaluated agents fall below 2% closed-book accuracy, search-augmented scores drop by 25-40 points relative to BrowseComp, and prior model rankings no longer reliably predict performance. LiveBrowseComp is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Forival/LiveBrowseComp.

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks. However, recent research has highlighted their sensitivity to variations in input prompts. To deploy LLMs in a safe and reliable manner, it is crucial for their outputs to be consistent when prompted with expressions that carry the same meaning or intent. While some existing work has explored how state-of-the-art LLMs address this issue, their evaluations have been confined to assessing lexical equality of single- or multi-word answers, overlooking the consistency of generative text sequences. For a more comprehensive understanding of the consistency of LLMs in open-ended text generation scenarios, we introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs. Our proposal demonstrates significantly higher consistency and stronger correlation with human evaluations of output consistency than traditional metrics based on lexical consistency. Finally, we propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency. When evaluated for closed-book question answering based on answer variations from the TruthfulQA benchmark, A2C increases accuracy metrics for pretrained and finetuned LLMs by up to 47%, and semantic consistency metrics for instruction-tuned models by up to 7-fold.

We introduce The FACTS Leaderboard, an online leaderboard suite and associated set of benchmarks that comprehensively evaluates the ability of language models to generate factually accurate text across diverse scenarios. The suite provides a holistic measure of factuality by aggregating the performance of models on four distinct sub-leaderboards: (1) FACTS Multimodal, which measures the factuality of responses to image-based questions; (2) FACTS Parametric, which assesses models' world knowledge by answering closed-book factoid questions from internal parameters; (3) FACTS Search, which evaluates factuality in information-seeking scenarios, where the model must use a search API; and (4) FACTS Grounding (v2), which evaluates whether long-form responses are grounded in provided documents, featuring significantly improved judge models. Each sub-leaderboard employs automated judge models to score model responses, and the final suite score is an average of the four components, designed to provide a robust and balanced assessment of a model's overall factuality. The FACTS Leaderboard Suite will be actively maintained, containing both public and private splits to allow for external participation while guarding its integrity. It can be found at https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/google/facts .

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their efficacy across various domains, yet they often hallucinate, especially in knowledge-intensive tasks that require external knowledge sources. To improve factual accuracy of language models, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a popular solution. However, traditional retrieval modules often rely on large-scale document indexes, which can be disconnected from generative tasks. Through generative retrieval (GR) approach, language models can achieve superior retrieval performance by directly generating relevant document identifiers (DocIDs). However, the relationship between GR and downstream tasks, as well as the potential of LLMs in GR, remains unexplored. In this paper, we present a unified language model that utilizes external corpus to handle various knowledge-intensive tasks by seamlessly integrating generative retrieval, closed-book generation, and RAG. In order to achieve effective retrieval and generation through a unified continuous decoding process, we introduce the following mechanisms: (1) a ranking-oriented DocID decoding strategy, which improves ranking ability by directly learning from a DocID ranking list; (2) a continuous generation strategy to facilitate effective and efficient RAG; (3) well-designed auxiliary DocID understanding tasks to enhance the model's comprehension of DocIDs and their relevance to downstream tasks. Our approach is evaluated on the widely used KILT benchmark using two variants of backbone models: an encoder-decoder T5 model and a decoder-only LLM, Llama2. Experimental results showcase the superior performance of our models in both retrieval and downstream knowledge-intensive tasks.

The GPT-4 technical report suggests that downstream performance can be predicted from pre-training signals, but offers little methodological detail on how to quantify this. This work address this gap by modeling knowledge retention, the capacity of a pre-trained language model to memorize factual information from its corpus, and introduce a principled method to estimate it prior to training. We propose Size-dependent Mutual Information (SMI), an information-theoretic predictor that integrates knowledge frequency, knowledge specificity, and model size to forecast closed-book question answering (QA) accuracy. SMI is validated through large-scale document retrieval over the disclosed pre-training corpora of 21 public and 3 custom models, combined with a robust multi-template QA evaluation. Experiments show that SMI significantly outperforms repetition-based baselines and achieves R^2 > 0.7 in predicting QA accuracy for models above 1B parameters, without additional training. The analysis further reveals diminishing returns from scaling data and model size and provides evidence for an intrinsic upper bound on knowledge retention achievable by pre-training alone, motivating retrieval and other augmentation strategies.

In this work, we carry out a data archaeology to infer books that are known to ChatGPT and GPT-4 using a name cloze membership inference query. We find that OpenAI models have memorized a wide collection of copyrighted materials, and that the degree of memorization is tied to the frequency with which passages of those books appear on the web. The ability of these models to memorize an unknown set of books complicates assessments of measurement validity for cultural analytics by contaminating test data; we show that models perform much better on memorized books than on non-memorized books for downstream tasks. We argue that this supports a case for open models whose training data is known.

We present a new kind of question answering dataset, OpenBookQA, modeled after open book exams for assessing human understanding of a subject. The open book that comes with our questions is a set of 1329 elementary level science facts. Roughly 6000 questions probe an understanding of these facts and their application to novel situations. This requires combining an open book fact (e.g., metals conduct electricity) with broad common knowledge (e.g., a suit of armor is made of metal) obtained from other sources. While existing QA datasets over documents or knowledge bases, being generally self-contained, focus on linguistic understanding, OpenBookQA probes a deeper understanding of both the topic---in the context of common knowledge---and the language it is expressed in. Human performance on OpenBookQA is close to 92%, but many state-of-the-art pre-trained QA methods perform surprisingly poorly, worse than several simple neural baselines we develop. Our oracle experiments designed to circumvent the knowledge retrieval bottleneck demonstrate the value of both the open book and additional facts. We leave it as a challenge to solve the retrieval problem in this multi-hop setting and to close the large gap to human performance.

How can we detect if copyrighted content was used in the training process of a language model, considering that the training data is typically undisclosed? We are motivated by the premise that a language model is likely to identify verbatim excerpts from its training text. We propose DE-COP, a method to determine whether a piece of copyrighted content was included in training. DE-COP's core approach is to probe an LLM with multiple-choice questions, whose options include both verbatim text and their paraphrases. We construct BookTection, a benchmark with excerpts from 165 books published prior and subsequent to a model's training cutoff, along with their paraphrases. Our experiments show that DE-COP surpasses the prior best method by 9.6% in detection performance (AUC) on models with logits available. Moreover, DE-COP also achieves an average accuracy of 72% for detecting suspect books on fully black-box models where prior methods give approx 4% accuracy. Our code and datasets are available at https://github.com/avduarte333/DE-COP_Method

Machine learning methods have proven useful in transcribing historical data. However, results from even highly accurate methods require manual verification and correction. Such manual review can be time-consuming and expensive, therefore the objective of this paper was to make it more efficient. Previously, we used machine learning to transcribe 2.3 million handwritten occupation codes from the Norwegian 1950 census with high accuracy (97%). We manually reviewed the 90,000 (3%) codes with the lowest model confidence. We allocated those 90,000 codes to human reviewers, who used our annotation tool to review the codes. To assess reviewer agreement, some codes were assigned to multiple reviewers. We then analyzed the review results to understand the relationship between accuracy improvements and effort. Additionally, we interviewed the reviewers to improve the workflow. The reviewers corrected 62.8% of the labels and agreed with the model label in 31.9% of cases. About 0.2% of the images could not be assigned a label, while for 5.1% the reviewers were uncertain, or they assigned an invalid label. 9,000 images were independently reviewed by multiple reviewers, resulting in an agreement of 86.43% and disagreement of 8.96%. We learned that our automatic transcription is biased towards the most frequent codes, with a higher degree of misclassification for the lowest frequency codes. Our interview findings show that the reviewers did internal quality control and found our custom tool well-suited. So, only one reviewer is needed, but they should report uncertainty.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks are often based on open-ended or close-ended QA evaluations, avoiding the requirement of human labor. Close-ended measurements evaluate the factuality of responses but lack expressiveness. Open-ended capture the model's capacity to produce discourse responses but are harder to assess for correctness. These two approaches are commonly used, either independently or together, though their relationship remains poorly understood. This work is focused on the healthcare domain, where both factuality and discourse matter greatly. It introduces a comprehensive, multi-axis suite for healthcare LLM evaluation, exploring correlations between open and close benchmarks and metrics. Findings include blind spots and overlaps in current methodologies. As an updated sanity check, we release a new medical benchmark--CareQA--, with both open and closed variants. Finally, we propose a novel metric for open-ended evaluations --Relaxed Perplexity-- to mitigate the identified limitations.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage -- a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline-which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation-and are subsequently validated through expert review. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable success in open-book question answering (QA), where the task requires generating answers grounded in a provided external context. A critical challenge in open-book QA is to ensure that model responses are based on the provided context rather than its parametric knowledge, which can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect. Existing evaluation methods, primarily based on the LLM-as-a-judge approach, face significant limitations, including biases, scalability issues, and dependence on costly external systems. To address these challenges, we propose a novel metric that contrasts the perplexity of the model response under two conditions: when the context is provided and when it is not. The resulting score quantifies the extent to which the model's answer relies on the provided context. The validity of this metric is demonstrated through a series of experiments that show its effectiveness in identifying whether a given answer is grounded in the provided context. Unlike existing approaches, this metric is computationally efficient, interpretable, and adaptable to various use cases, offering a scalable and practical solution to assess context utilization in open-book QA systems.

Recent advancements in large language models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various NLP tasks. But many questions remain, including whether open-source models match closed ones, why these models excel or struggle with certain tasks, and what types of practical procedures can improve performance. We address these questions in the context of classification by evaluating three classes of models using eight datasets across three distinct tasks: named entity recognition, political party prediction, and misinformation detection. While larger LLMs often lead to improved performance, open-source models can rival their closed-source counterparts by fine-tuning. Moreover, supervised smaller models, like RoBERTa, can achieve similar or even greater performance in many datasets compared to generative LLMs. On the other hand, closed models maintain an advantage in hard tasks that demand the most generalizability. This study underscores the importance of model selection based on task requirements

Humanities scholars commonly provide evidence for claims that they make about a work of literature (e.g., a novel) in the form of quotations from the work. We collect a large-scale dataset (RELiC) of 78K literary quotations and surrounding critical analysis and use it to formulate the novel task of literary evidence retrieval, in which models are given an excerpt of literary analysis surrounding a masked quotation and asked to retrieve the quoted passage from the set of all passages in the work. Solving this retrieval task requires a deep understanding of complex literary and linguistic phenomena, which proves challenging to methods that overwhelmingly rely on lexical and semantic similarity matching. We implement a RoBERTa-based dense passage retriever for this task that outperforms existing pretrained information retrieval baselines; however, experiments and analysis by human domain experts indicate that there is substantial room for improvement over our dense retriever.

This data paper introduces MajinBook, an open catalogue designed to facilitate the use of shadow libraries--such as Library Genesis and Z-Library--for computational social science and cultural analytics. By linking metadata from these vast, crowd-sourced archives with structured bibliographic data from Goodreads, we create a high-precision corpus of over 539,000 references to English-language books spanning three centuries, enriched with first publication dates, genres, and popularity metrics like ratings and reviews. Our methodology prioritizes natively digital EPUB files to ensure machine-readable quality, while addressing biases in traditional corpora like HathiTrust, and includes secondary datasets for French, German, and Spanish. We evaluate the linkage strategy for accuracy, release all underlying data openly, and discuss the project's legal permissibility under EU and US frameworks for text and data mining in research.

Recent literature has underscored the importance of dataset documentation work for machine learning, and part of this work involves addressing "documentation debt" for datasets that have been used widely but documented sparsely. This paper aims to help address documentation debt for BookCorpus, a popular text dataset for training large language models. Notably, researchers have used BookCorpus to train OpenAI's GPT-N models and Google's BERT models, even though little to no documentation exists about the dataset's motivation, composition, collection process, etc. We offer a preliminary datasheet that provides key context and information about BookCorpus, highlighting several notable deficiencies. In particular, we find evidence that (1) BookCorpus likely violates copyright restrictions for many books, (2) BookCorpus contains thousands of duplicated books, and (3) BookCorpus exhibits significant skews in genre representation. We also find hints of other potential deficiencies that call for future research, including problematic content, potential skews in religious representation, and lopsided author contributions. While more work remains, this initial effort to provide a datasheet for BookCorpus adds to growing literature that urges more careful and systematic documentation for machine learning datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to be integrated into human daily lives. Therefore, user preference is the most critical criterion for assessing LLMs' performance in real-world scenarios. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on measuring models' accuracy using multi-choice questions, which limits the understanding of their capabilities in real applications. We fill this gap by proposing a comprehensive Chinese benchmark SuperCLUE, named after another popular Chinese LLM benchmark CLUE. SuperCLUE encompasses three sub-tasks: actual users' queries and ratings derived from an LLM battle platform (CArena), open-ended questions with single and multiple-turn dialogues (OPEN), and closed-ended questions with the same stems as open-ended single-turn ones (CLOSE). Our study shows that accuracy on closed-ended questions is insufficient to reflect human preferences achieved on open-ended ones. At the same time, they can complement each other to predict actual user preferences. We also demonstrate that GPT-4 is a reliable judge to automatically evaluate human preferences on open-ended questions in a Chinese context. Our benchmark will be released at https://www.CLUEbenchmarks.com

Critiques are important for enhancing the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), enabling both self-improvement and constructive feedback for others by identifying flaws and suggesting improvements. However, evaluating the critique capabilities of LLMs presents a significant challenge due to the open-ended nature of the task. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark designed to assess the critique capabilities of LLMs. Unlike existing benchmarks, which typically function in an open-loop fashion, our approach employs a closed-loop methodology that evaluates the quality of corrections generated from critiques. Moreover, the benchmark incorporates features such as self-critique, cross-critique, and iterative critique, which are crucial for distinguishing the abilities of advanced reasoning models from more classical ones. We implement this benchmark using eight challenging reasoning tasks. We have several interesting findings. First, despite demonstrating comparable performance in direct chain-of-thought generation, classical LLMs significantly lag behind the advanced reasoning-based model o1-mini across all critique scenarios. Second, in self-critique and iterative critique settings, classical LLMs may even underperform relative to their baseline capabilities. We hope that this benchmark will serve as a valuable resource to guide future advancements. The code and data are available at https://github.com/tangzhy/RealCritic.

Retrieval models are often evaluated on partially-annotated datasets. Each query is mapped to a few relevant texts and the remaining corpus is assumed to be irrelevant. As a result, models that successfully retrieve false negatives are punished in evaluation. Unfortunately, completely annotating all texts for every query is not resource efficient. In this work, we show that using partially-annotated datasets in evaluation can paint a distorted picture. We curate D-MERIT, a passage retrieval evaluation set from Wikipedia, aspiring to contain all relevant passages for each query. Queries describe a group (e.g., ``journals about linguistics'') and relevant passages are evidence that entities belong to the group (e.g., a passage indicating that Language is a journal about linguistics). We show that evaluating on a dataset containing annotations for only a subset of the relevant passages might result in misleading ranking of the retrieval systems and that as more relevant texts are included in the evaluation set, the rankings converge. We propose our dataset as a resource for evaluation and our study as a recommendation for balance between resource-efficiency and reliable evaluation when annotating evaluation sets for text retrieval.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

This work presents a framework for assessing whether large language models (LLMs) encode more factual knowledge in their parameters than what they express in their outputs. While a few studies hint at this possibility, none has clearly defined or demonstrated this phenomenon. We first propose a formal definition of knowledge, quantifying it for a given question as the fraction of correct-incorrect answer pairs where the correct one is ranked higher. This gives rise to external and internal knowledge, depending on the information used to score individual answer candidates: either the model's observable token-level probabilities or its intermediate computations. Hidden knowledge arises when internal knowledge exceeds external knowledge. We then present a case study, applying this framework to three popular open-weights LLMs in a closed-book QA setup. Our results indicate that: (1) LLMs consistently encode more factual knowledge internally than what they express externally, with an average gap of 40%. (2) Surprisingly, some knowledge is so deeply hidden that a model can internally know an answer perfectly, yet fail to generate it even once, despite large-scale repeated sampling of 1,000 answers. This reveals fundamental limitations in the generation capabilities of LLMs, which (3) puts a practical constraint on scaling test-time compute via repeated answer sampling in closed-book QA: significant performance improvements remain inaccessible because some answers are practically never sampled, yet if they were, we would be guaranteed to rank them first.

Most benchmark datasets targeting commonsense reasoning focus on everyday scenarios: physical knowledge like knowing that you could fill a cup under a waterfall [Talmor et al., 2019], social knowledge like bumping into someone is awkward [Sap et al., 2019], and other generic situations. However, there is a rich space of commonsense inferences anchored to knowledge about specific entities: for example, deciding the truthfulness of a claim "Harry Potter can teach classes on how to fly on a broomstick." Can models learn to combine entity knowledge with commonsense reasoning in this fashion? We introduce CREAK, a testbed for commonsense reasoning about entity knowledge, bridging fact-checking about entities (Harry Potter is a wizard and is skilled at riding a broomstick) with commonsense inferences (if you're good at a skill you can teach others how to do it). Our dataset consists of 13k human-authored English claims about entities that are either true or false, in addition to a small contrast set. Crowdworkers can easily come up with these statements and human performance on the dataset is high (high 90s); we argue that models should be able to blend entity knowledge and commonsense reasoning to do well here. In our experiments, we focus on the closed-book setting and observe that a baseline model finetuned on existing fact verification benchmark struggles on CREAK. Training a model on CREAK improves accuracy by a substantial margin, but still falls short of human performance. Our benchmark provides a unique probe into natural language understanding models, testing both its ability to retrieve facts (e.g., who teaches at the University of Chicago?) and unstated commonsense knowledge (e.g., butlers do not yell at guests).

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in user-facing applications, building trust and maintaining safety by accurately quantifying a model's confidence in its prediction becomes even more important. However, finding effective ways to calibrate LLMs - especially when the only interface to the models is their generated text - remains a challenge. We propose APRICOT (auxiliary prediction of confidence targets): A method to set confidence targets and train an additional model that predicts an LLM's confidence based on its textual input and output alone. This approach has several advantages: It is conceptually simple, does not require access to the target model beyond its output, does not interfere with the language generation, and has a multitude of potential usages, for instance by verbalizing the predicted confidence or adjusting the given answer based on the confidence. We show how our approach performs competitively in terms of calibration error for white-box and black-box LLMs on closed-book question-answering to detect incorrect LLM answers.

Attribution is a key concept in large language models (LLMs) as it enables control over information sources and enhances the factuality of LLMs. While existing approaches utilize open book question answering to improve attribution, factual datasets may reward language models to recall facts that they already know from their pretraining data, not attribution. In contrast, counterfactual open book QA datasets would further improve attribution because the answer could only be grounded in the given text. We propose Hallucination Augmented Recitations (HAR) for creating counterfactual datasets by utilizing hallucination in LLMs to improve attribution. For open book QA as a case study, we demonstrate that models finetuned with our counterfactual datasets improve text grounding, leading to better open book QA performance, with up to an 8.0% increase in F1 score. Our counterfactual dataset leads to significantly better performance than using humanannotated factual datasets, even with 4x smaller datasets and 4x smaller models. We observe that improvements are consistent across various model sizes and datasets, including multi-hop, biomedical, and adversarial QA datasets.

Scientific progress depends on researchers' ability to synthesize the growing body of literature. Can large language models (LMs) assist scientists in this task? We introduce OpenScholar, a specialized retrieval-augmented LM that answers scientific queries by identifying relevant passages from 45 million open-access papers and synthesizing citation-backed responses. To evaluate OpenScholar, we develop ScholarQABench, the first large-scale multi-domain benchmark for literature search, comprising 2,967 expert-written queries and 208 long-form answers across computer science, physics, neuroscience, and biomedicine. On ScholarQABench, OpenScholar-8B outperforms GPT-4o by 5% and PaperQA2 by 7% in correctness, despite being a smaller, open model. While GPT4o hallucinates citations 78 to 90% of the time, OpenScholar achieves citation accuracy on par with human experts. OpenScholar's datastore, retriever, and self-feedback inference loop also improves off-the-shelf LMs: for instance, OpenScholar-GPT4o improves GPT-4o's correctness by 12%. In human evaluations, experts preferred OpenScholar-8B and OpenScholar-GPT4o responses over expert-written ones 51% and 70% of the time, respectively, compared to GPT4o's 32%. We open-source all of our code, models, datastore, data and a public demo.

Although large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed, the data used to train them is rarely disclosed. Given the incredible scale of this data, up to trillions of tokens, it is all but certain that it includes potentially problematic text such as copyrighted materials, personally identifiable information, and test data for widely reported reference benchmarks. However, we currently have no way to know which data of these types is included or in what proportions. In this paper, we study the pretraining data detection problem: given a piece of text and black-box access to an LLM without knowing the pretraining data, can we determine if the model was trained on the provided text? To facilitate this study, we introduce a dynamic benchmark WIKIMIA that uses data created before and after model training to support gold truth detection. We also introduce a new detection method Min-K% Prob based on a simple hypothesis: an unseen example is likely to contain a few outlier words with low probabilities under the LLM, while a seen example is less likely to have words with such low probabilities. Min-K% Prob can be applied without any knowledge about the pretraining corpus or any additional training, departing from previous detection methods that require training a reference model on data that is similar to the pretraining data. Moreover, our experiments demonstrate that Min-K% Prob achieves a 7.4% improvement on WIKIMIA over these previous methods. We apply Min-K% Prob to two real-world scenarios, copyrighted book detection, and contaminated downstream example detection, and find it a consistently effective solution.

Literature research, vital for scientific work, faces the challenge of the surging torrent of information in the vast ocean of literature exceeding researchers' processing capabilities. To address this issue, we present an automated review generation method based on Large Language Models (LLMs), aimed at overcoming efficiency bottlenecks in literature processing and reducing cognitive load. Our statistically validated evaluation framework demonstrates that the generated reviews match or exceed manual quality, offering broad applicability across research fields due to minimal domain knowledge requirements. In a case study on propane dehydrogenation (PDH) catalysts, our method swiftly analyzed 343 articles, averaging seconds per article per LLM account, producing comprehensive reviews spanning 35 topics. Extended analysis of 1041 articles provided deep insights into catalysts' composition, structure, and performance. Recognizing LLMs' hallucinations, we implemented a multi-layered quality control strategy, effectively mitigating risks and ensuring reliability, as quantitatively demonstrated through manual verification. Expert verification confirms the accuracy and citation integrity of generated reviews, demonstrating LLM hallucination risks reduced to below 0.5\% with over 95\% confidence. Released Windows application enables one-click review generation, aiding researchers in tracking advancements and recommending literature. This approach showcases LLMs' role in enhancing scientific research productivity and sets the stage for further exploration.

Critique, as a natural language description for assessing the quality of model-generated content, has been proven to play an essential role in the training, evaluation, and refinement of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, there is a lack of principled understanding in evaluating the quality of the critique itself. In this paper, we pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which is a framework to evaluate the critique from two aspects, i.e., factuality as precision score and comprehensiveness as recall score. We calculate the harmonic mean of precision and recall as the overall rating called F1 score. To obtain a reliable evaluation outcome, we propose Atomic Information Units (AIUs), which describe the critique in a more fine-grained manner. MetaCritique takes each AIU into account and aggregates each AIU's judgment for the overall score. Moreover, given the evaluation process involves intricate reasoning, our MetaCritique provides a natural language rationale to support each judgment. We construct a meta-evaluation dataset containing 300 critiques (2653 AIUs) across four tasks (question answering, reasoning, entailment, and summarization), and we conduct a comparative study to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness. Experiments also show superior critique judged by MetaCritique leads to better refinement, indicating generative artificial intelligence indeed has the potential to be significantly advanced with our MetaCritique. We will release relevant code and meta-evaluation datasets at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/MetaCritique.

Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named Testset Slot Guessing (TS-Guessing), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the TruthfulQA benchmark, we find that LLMs exhibit notable performance improvement when provided with additional metadata in the benchmark. Further, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52\% and 57\%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.

Literature search questions, such as "where can I find research on the evaluation of consistency in generated summaries?" pose significant challenges for modern search engines and retrieval systems. These questions often require a deep understanding of research concepts and the ability to reason over entire articles. In this work, we introduce LitSearch, a retrieval benchmark comprising 597 realistic literature search queries about recent ML and NLP papers. LitSearch is constructed using a combination of (1) questions generated by GPT-4 based on paragraphs containing inline citations from research papers and (2) questions about recently published papers, manually written by their authors. All LitSearch questions were manually examined or edited by experts to ensure high quality. We extensively benchmark state-of-the-art retrieval models and also evaluate two LLM-based reranking pipelines. We find a significant performance gap between BM25 and state-of-the-art dense retrievers, with a 24.8% difference in absolute recall@5. The LLM-based reranking strategies further improve the best-performing dense retriever by 4.4%. Additionally, commercial search engines and research tools like Google Search perform poorly on LitSearch, lagging behind the best dense retriever by 32 points. Taken together, these results show that LitSearch is an informative new testbed for retrieval systems while catering to a real-world use case.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific writing promises efficiency but risks introducing informational entropy. While "hallucinated papers" are a known artifact, the systematic degradation of valid citation chains remains unquantified. We conducted a forensic audit of 50 recent survey papers in Artificial Intelligence (N=5,514 citations) published between September 2024 and January 2026. We utilized a hybrid verification pipeline combining DOI resolution, Crossref metadata analysis, Semantic Scholar queries, and fuzzy text matching to distinguish between formatting errors ("Sloppiness") and verifiable non-existence ("Phantoms). We detect a persistent 17.0% Phantom Rate -- citations that cannot be resolved to any digital object despite aggressive forensic recovery. Diagnostic categorization reveals three distinct failure modes: pure hallucinations (5.1%), hallucinated identifiers with valid titles (16.4%), and parsing-induced matching failures (78.5%). Longitudinal analysis reveals a flat trend (+0.07 pp/month), suggesting that high-entropy citation practices have stabilized as an endemic feature of the field. The scientific citation graph in AI survey literature exhibits "link rot" at scale. This suggests a mechanism where AI tools act as "lazy research assistants," retrieving correct titles but hallucinating metadata, thereby severing the digital chain of custody required for reproducible science.

Noise plagues many numerical datasets, where the recorded values in the data may fail to match the true underlying values due to reasons including: erroneous sensors, data entry/processing mistakes, or imperfect human estimates. We consider general regression settings with covariates and a potentially corrupted response whose observed values may contain errors. By accounting for various uncertainties, we introduced veracity scores that distinguish between genuine errors and natural data fluctuations, conditioned on the available covariate information in the dataset. We propose a simple yet efficient filtering procedure for eliminating potential errors, and establish theoretical guarantees for our method. We also contribute a new error detection benchmark involving 5 regression datasets with real-world numerical errors (for which the true values are also known). In this benchmark and additional simulation studies, our method identifies incorrect values with better precision/recall than other approaches.

For humans to trust the fluent generations of large language models (LLMs), they must be able to verify their correctness against trusted, external sources. Recent efforts aim to increase verifiability through citations of retrieved documents or post-hoc provenance. However, such citations are prone to mistakes that further complicate their verifiability. To address these limitations, we tackle the verifiability goal with a different philosophy: we trivialize the verification process by developing models that quote verbatim statements from trusted sources in pre-training data. We propose Quote-Tuning, which demonstrates the feasibility of aligning LLMs to leverage memorized information and quote from pre-training data. Quote-Tuning quantifies quoting against large corpora with efficient membership inference tools, and uses the amount of quotes as an implicit reward signal to construct a synthetic preference dataset for quoting, without any human annotation. Next, the target model is aligned to quote using preference optimization algorithms. Experimental results show that Quote-Tuning significantly increases the percentage of LLM generation quoted verbatim from high-quality pre-training documents by 55% to 130% relative to untuned models while maintaining response quality. Further experiments demonstrate that Quote-Tuning generalizes quoting to out-of-domain data, is applicable in different tasks, and provides additional benefits to truthfulness. Quote-Tuning not only serves as a hassle-free method to increase quoting but also opens up avenues for improving LLM trustworthiness through better verifiability.

Thousands of new scientific papers are published each month. Such information overload complicates researcher efforts to stay current with the state-of-the-art as well as to verify and correctly attribute claims. We pose the following research question: Given a text excerpt referencing a paper, could an LM act as a research assistant to correctly identify the referenced paper? We advance efforts to answer this question by building a benchmark that evaluates the abilities of LMs in citation attribution. Our benchmark, CiteME, consists of text excerpts from recent machine learning papers, each referencing a single other paper. CiteME use reveals a large gap between frontier LMs and human performance, with LMs achieving only 4.2-18.5% accuracy and humans 69.7%. We close this gap by introducing CiteAgent, an autonomous system built on the GPT-4o LM that can also search and read papers, which achieves an accuracy of 35.3\% on CiteME. Overall, CiteME serves as a challenging testbed for open-ended claim attribution, driving the research community towards a future where any claim made by an LM can be automatically verified and discarded if found to be incorrect.

Professionals in academia, law, and finance audit their documents because inconsistencies can result in monetary, reputational, and scientific costs. Language models (LMs) have the potential to dramatically speed up this auditing process. To understand their abilities, we introduce a benchmark, FIND (Finding INconsistencies in Documents), where each example is a document with an inconsistency inserted manually by a domain expert. Despite the documents being long, technical, and complex, the best-performing model (gpt-5) recovered 64% of the inserted inconsistencies. Surprisingly, gpt-5 also found undiscovered inconsistencies present in the original documents. For example, on 50 arXiv papers, we judged 136 out of 196 of the model's suggestions to be legitimate inconsistencies missed by the original authors. However, despite these findings, even the best models miss almost half of the inconsistencies in FIND, demonstrating that inconsistency detection is still a challenging task.

Fine-grained recognition in everyday life is often not a closed-book classification problem: when encountering unfamiliar objects, humans actively search, compare visual details, and verify evidence before deciding. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate visually recognition, leaving this active external knowledge acquisition ability underexplored. We study fine-grained knowledge acquisition, where a system must seek, verify, and use external evidence to answer open-ended fine-grained recognition questions. We introduce FIKA-Bench, a leakage-aware and evidence-grounded collection of 311 public-source and real-life instances. To ensure high quality, every example is filtered against frontier closed-book models to remove memorized cases and audited to eliminate image-answer leakage, retaining only samples supported by verified evidence. Our evaluation of latest Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) and agents reveals that the task remains a formidable challenge: the best system reaches only 25.1% accuracy, with no model exceeding 30%. Crucially, we find that merely equipping models with tools is insufficient to bridge this gap; agent failures are predominantly driven by wrong entity retrieval and poor visual judgement. These results show that reliable knowledge acquisition needs better agent designs that focus on fine-grained recognition.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating long-form responses, but evaluating their factuality remains challenging due to complex inter-sentence dependencies within the generated facts. Prior solutions predominantly follow a decompose-decontextualize-verify pipeline but often fail to capture essential context and miss key relational facts. In this paper, we introduce VeriFact, a factuality evaluation framework designed to enhance fact extraction by identifying and resolving incomplete and missing facts to support more accurate verification results. Moreover, we introduce FactRBench , a benchmark that evaluates both precision and recall in long-form model responses, whereas prior work primarily focuses on precision. FactRBench provides reference fact sets from advanced LLMs and human-written answers, enabling recall assessment. Empirical evaluations show that VeriFact significantly enhances fact completeness and preserves complex facts with critical relational information, resulting in more accurate factuality evaluation. Benchmarking various open- and close-weight LLMs on FactRBench indicate that larger models within same model family improve precision and recall, but high precision does not always correlate with high recall, underscoring the importance of comprehensive factuality assessment.

This paper presents FormationEval, an open multiple-choice question benchmark for evaluating language models on petroleum geoscience and subsurface disciplines. The dataset contains 505 questions across seven domains including petrophysics, petroleum geology and reservoir engineering, derived from three authoritative sources using a reasoning model with detailed instructions and a concept-based approach that avoids verbatim copying of copyrighted text. Each question includes source metadata to support traceability and audit. The evaluation covers 72 models from major providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and open-weight alternatives. The top performers achieve over 97\% accuracy, with Gemini 3 Pro Preview reaching 99.8\%, while tier and domain gaps persist. Among open-weight models, GLM-4.7 leads at 98.6\%, with several DeepSeek, Llama, Qwen and Mistral models also exceeding 93\%. The performance gap between open-weight and closed models is narrower than expected, with several lower-cost open-weight models exceeding 90\% accuracy. Petrophysics emerges as the most challenging domain across all models, while smaller models show wider performance variance. Residual length bias in the dataset (correct answers tend to be longer) is documented along with bias mitigation strategies applied during construction. The benchmark, evaluation code and results are publicly available.

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

Passage ranking involves two stages: passage retrieval and passage re-ranking, which are important and challenging topics for both academics and industries in the area of Information Retrieval (IR). However, the commonly-used datasets for passage ranking usually focus on the English language. For non-English scenarios, such as Chinese, the existing datasets are limited in terms of data scale, fine-grained relevance annotation and false negative issues. To address this problem, we introduce T2Ranking, a large-scale Chinese benchmark for passage ranking. T2Ranking comprises more than 300K queries and over 2M unique passages from real-world search engines. Expert annotators are recruited to provide 4-level graded relevance scores (fine-grained) for query-passage pairs instead of binary relevance judgments (coarse-grained). To ease the false negative issues, more passages with higher diversities are considered when performing relevance annotations, especially in the test set, to ensure a more accurate evaluation. Apart from the textual query and passage data, other auxiliary resources are also provided, such as query types and XML files of documents which passages are generated from, to facilitate further studies. To evaluate the dataset, commonly used ranking models are implemented and tested on T2Ranking as baselines. The experimental results show that T2Ranking is challenging and there is still scope for improvement. The full data and all codes are available at https://github.com/THUIR/T2Ranking/

While long-context large language models (LLMs) can technically summarize book-length documents (>100K tokens), the length and complexity of the documents have so far prohibited evaluations of input-dependent aspects like faithfulness. In this paper, we conduct the first large-scale human evaluation of faithfulness and content selection on LLM-generated summaries of fictional books. Our study mitigates the issue of data contamination by focusing on summaries of books published in 2023 or 2024, and we hire annotators who have fully read each book prior to the annotation task to minimize cost and cognitive burden. We collect FABLES, a dataset of annotations on 3,158 claims made in LLM-generated summaries of 26 books, at a cost of $5.2K USD, which allows us to rank LLM summarizers based on faithfulness: Claude-3-Opus significantly outperforms all closed-source LLMs, while the open-source Mixtral is on par with GPT-3.5-Turbo. An analysis of the annotations reveals that most unfaithful claims relate to events and character states, and they generally require indirect reasoning over the narrative to invalidate. While LLM-based auto-raters have proven reliable for factuality and coherence in other settings, we implement several LLM raters of faithfulness and find that none correlates strongly with human annotations, especially with regard to detecting unfaithful claims. Our experiments suggest that detecting unfaithful claims is an important future direction not only for summarization evaluation but also as a testbed for long-context understanding. Finally, we move beyond faithfulness by exploring content selection errors in book-length summarization: we develop a typology of omission errors related to crucial narrative elements and also identify a systematic over-emphasis on events occurring towards the end of the book.

The LLMJudge challenge is organized as part of the LLM4Eval workshop at SIGIR 2024. Test collections are essential for evaluating information retrieval (IR) systems. The evaluation and tuning of a search system is largely based on relevance labels, which indicate whether a document is useful for a specific search and user. However, collecting relevance judgments on a large scale is costly and resource-intensive. Consequently, typical experiments rely on third-party labelers who may not always produce accurate annotations. The LLMJudge challenge aims to explore an alternative approach by using LLMs to generate relevance judgments. Recent studies have shown that LLMs can generate reliable relevance judgments for search systems. However, it remains unclear which LLMs can match the accuracy of human labelers, which prompts are most effective, how fine-tuned open-source LLMs compare to closed-source LLMs like GPT-4, whether there are biases in synthetically generated data, and if data leakage affects the quality of generated labels. This challenge will investigate these questions, and the collected data will be released as a package to support automatic relevance judgment research in information retrieval and search.

Plaintiffs and defendants in copyright lawsuits over generative AI often make sweeping, opposing claims about the extent to which large language models (LLMs) have memorized plaintiffs' protected expression in their training data. Drawing on both machine learning and copyright law, we show that these polarized positions dramatically oversimplify the relationship between memorization and copyright. To do so, we extend a recent probabilistic extraction technique to measure memorization of 50 books in 17 open-weight LLMs. Through thousands of experiments, we show that the extent of memorization varies both by model and by book. With respect to our specific extraction methodology, we find that most LLMs do not memorize most books -- either in whole or in part. However, we also find that Llama 3.1 70B entirely memorizes some books, like the first Harry Potter book and 1984. In fact, the first Harry Potter is so memorized that, using a seed prompt consisting of just the first few tokens of the first chapter, we can deterministically generate the entire book near-verbatim. We discuss why our results have significant implications for copyright cases, though not ones that unambiguously favor either side.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

Ideally Open-Domain Question Answering models should exhibit a number of competencies, ranging from simply memorizing questions seen at training time, to answering novel question formulations with answers seen during training, to generalizing to completely novel questions with novel answers. However, single aggregated test set scores do not show the full picture of what capabilities models truly have. In this work, we perform a detailed study of the test sets of three popular open-domain benchmark datasets with respect to these competencies. We find that 60-70% of test-time answers are also present somewhere in the training sets. We also find that 30% of test-set questions have a near-duplicate paraphrase in their corresponding training sets. Using these findings, we evaluate a variety of popular open-domain models to obtain greater insight into what extent they can actually generalize, and what drives their overall performance. We find that all models perform dramatically worse on questions that cannot be memorized from training sets, with a mean absolute performance difference of 63% between repeated and non-repeated data. Finally we show that simple nearest-neighbor models out-perform a BART closed-book QA model, further highlighting the role that training set memorization plays in these benchmarks

Passage retrieval and ranking is a key task in open-domain question answering and information retrieval. Current effective approaches mostly rely on pre-trained deep language model-based retrievers and rankers. These methods have been shown to effectively model the semantic matching between queries and passages, also in presence of keyword mismatch, i.e. passages that are relevant to a query but do not contain important query keywords. In this paper we consider the Dense Retriever (DR), a passage retrieval method, and the BERT re-ranker, a popular passage re-ranking method. In this context, we formally investigate how these models respond and adapt to a specific type of keyword mismatch -- that caused by keyword typos occurring in queries. Through empirical investigation, we find that typos can lead to a significant drop in retrieval and ranking effectiveness. We then propose a simple typos-aware training framework for DR and BERT re-ranker to address this issue. Our experimental results on the MS MARCO passage ranking dataset show that, with our proposed typos-aware training, DR and BERT re-ranker can become robust to typos in queries, resulting in significantly improved effectiveness compared to models trained without appropriately accounting for typos.

Synthetic long-context LLM benchmarks (e.g., "needle-in-the-haystack") test only surface-level retrieval capabilities, but how well can long-context LLMs retrieve, synthesize, and reason over information across book-length inputs? We address this question by creating NoCha, a dataset of 1,001 minimally different pairs of true and false claims about 67 recently-published English fictional books, written by human readers of those books. In contrast to existing long-context benchmarks, our annotators confirm that the largest share of pairs in NoCha require global reasoning over the entire book to verify. Our experiments show that while human readers easily perform this task, it is enormously challenging for all ten long-context LLMs that we evaluate: no open-weight model performs above random chance (despite their strong performance on synthetic benchmarks), while GPT-4o achieves the highest accuracy at 55.8%. Further analysis reveals that (1) on average, models perform much better on pairs that require only sentence-level retrieval vs. global reasoning; (2) model-generated explanations for their decisions are often inaccurate even for correctly-labeled claims; and (3) models perform substantially worse on speculative fiction books that contain extensive world-building. The methodology proposed in NoCha allows for the evolution of the benchmark dataset and the easy analysis of future models.

Without accurate transcription of numerical data in scientific documents, a scientist cannot draw accurate conclusions. Unfortunately, the process of copying numerical data from one paper to another is prone to human error. In this paper, we propose to meet this challenge through the novel task of automatic table verification (AutoTV), in which the objective is to verify the accuracy of numerical data in tables by cross-referencing cited sources. To support this task, we propose a new benchmark, arXiVeri, which comprises tabular data drawn from open-access academic papers on arXiv. We introduce metrics to evaluate the performance of a table verifier in two key areas: (i) table matching, which aims to identify the source table in a cited document that corresponds to a target table, and (ii) cell matching, which aims to locate shared cells between a target and source table and identify their row and column indices accurately. By leveraging the flexible capabilities of modern large language models (LLMs), we propose simple baselines for table verification. Our findings highlight the complexity of this task, even for state-of-the-art LLMs like OpenAI's GPT-4. The code and benchmark will be made publicly available.

Evaluating long-form responses to research queries heavily relies on expert annotators, restricting attention to areas like AI where researchers can conveniently enlist colleagues. Yet, research expertise is widespread: survey articles synthesize knowledge distributed across the literature. We introduce ResearchQA, a resource for evaluating LLM systems by distilling survey articles from 75 research fields into 21K queries and 160K rubric items. Each rubric, derived jointly with queries from survey sections, lists query-specific answer evaluation criteria, i.e., citing papers, making explanations, and describing limitations. Assessments by 31 Ph.D. annotators in 8 fields indicate 96% of queries support Ph.D. information needs and 87% of rubric items should be addressed in system responses by a sentence or more. Using our rubrics, we are able to construct an automatic pairwise judge obtaining 74% agreement with expert judgments. We leverage ResearchQA to analyze competency gaps in 18 systems in over 7.6K pairwise evaluations. No parametric or retrieval-augmented system we evaluate exceeds 70% on covering rubric items, and the highest-ranking agentic system shows 75% coverage. Error analysis reveals that the highest-ranking system fully addresses less than 11% of citation rubric items, 48% of limitation items, and 49% of comparison items. We release our data to facilitate more comprehensive multi-field evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs) can correctly answer "When was Einstein born?" yet fail to provide the same date when writing about Einstein's life revealing a fundamental inconsistency in how models access factual knowledge across task complexities. While models display impressive accuracy on factual question-answering benchmarks, the reliability gap between simple and complex queries remains poorly understood, eroding their trustworthiness. In this work, we introduce Short-Long Form Alignment for Factual Question Answering (SLAQ), a controlled evaluation framework that compares LLMs' answers to the same factual questions asked (a) in isolation (short) vs. (b) integrated into complex queries (long). Looking at 16 LLMs across 600 queries, we find a systematic misalignment of answers to the corresponding short and long queries. We further uncover position-dependent accuracy loss and momentum effects where consecutive correct or incorrect answers create self-reinforcing patterns. Through mechanistic analysis, we find that aligned facts activate overlapping model internals, and that metrics based on mechanistic similarity can predict short-long answer alignment with up to 78% accuracy. Our work establishes factual consistency over query complexity as an important aspect of LLMs' trustworthiness and challenges current evaluation practices, which implicitly assume that good performance for simple factual queries implies reliability in more complex knowledge-seeking tasks too.

We present an empirical evaluation of various outputs generated by nine of the most widely-available large language models (LLMs). Our analysis is done with off-the-shelf, readily-available tools. We find a correlation between percentage of memorized text, percentage of unique text, and overall output quality, when measured with respect to output pathologies such as counterfactual and logically-flawed statements, and general failures like not staying on topic. Overall, 80.0% of the outputs evaluated contained memorized data, but outputs containing the most memorized content were also more likely to be considered of high quality. We discuss and evaluate mitigation strategies, showing that, in the models evaluated, the rate of memorized text being output is reduced. We conclude with a discussion on potential implications around what it means to learn, to memorize, and to evaluate quality text.

Summarizing book-length documents (>100K tokens) that exceed the context window size of large language models (LLMs) requires first breaking the input document into smaller chunks and then prompting an LLM to merge, update, and compress chunk-level summaries. Despite the complexity and importance of this task, it has yet to be meaningfully studied due to the challenges of evaluation: existing book-length summarization datasets (e.g., BookSum) are in the pretraining data of most public LLMs, and existing evaluation methods struggle to capture errors made by modern LLM summarizers. In this paper, we present the first study of the coherence of LLM-based book-length summarizers implemented via two prompting workflows: (1) hierarchically merging chunk-level summaries, and (2) incrementally updating a running summary. We obtain 1193 fine-grained human annotations on GPT-4 generated summaries of 100 recently-published books and identify eight common types of coherence errors made by LLMs. Because human evaluation is expensive and time-consuming, we develop an automatic metric, BooookScore, that measures the proportion of sentences in a summary that do not contain any of the identified error types. BooookScore has high agreement with human annotations and allows us to systematically evaluate the impact of many other critical parameters (e.g., chunk size, base LLM) while saving $15K USD and 500 hours in human evaluation costs. We find that closed-source LLMs such as GPT-4 and Claude 2 produce summaries with higher BooookScore than those generated by open-source models. While LLaMA 2 falls behind other models, Mixtral achieves performance on par with GPT-3.5-Turbo. Incremental updating yields lower BooookScore but higher level of detail than hierarchical merging, a trade-off sometimes preferred by annotators.

We propose a new benchmark to measure a language model's linguistic reasoning skills without relying on pre-existing language-specific knowledge. The test covers 894 questions grouped in 160 problems across 75 (mostly) extremely low-resource languages, extracted from the International Linguistic Olympiad corpus. To attain high accuracy on this benchmark, models don't need previous knowledge of the tested language, as all the information needed to solve the linguistic puzzle is presented in the context. We find that, while all analyzed models rank below 25% accuracy, there is a significant gap between open and closed models, with the best-performing proprietary model at 24.05% and the best-performing open model at 8.84%.

Scientific research relies on accurate citation for attribution and integrity, yet large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications. Such hallucinated citations have already been observed in submissions and accepted papers at major machine learning venues, exposing vulnerabilities in peer review. Meanwhile, rapidly growing reference lists make manual verification impractical, and existing automated tools remain fragile to noisy and heterogeneous citation formats and lack standardized evaluation. We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing. Our multi-agent verification pipeline decomposes citation checking into claim extraction, evidence retrieval, passage matching, reasoning, and calibrated judgment to assess whether a cited source truly supports its claim. We construct a large-scale human-validated dataset across domains and define unified metrics for citation faithfulness and evidence alignment. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial citation errors and show that our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability. This work provides the first scalable infrastructure for auditing citations in the LLM era and practical tools to improve the trustworthiness of scientific references.

In this paper we introduce a new publicly available dataset for verification against textual sources, FEVER: Fact Extraction and VERification. It consists of 185,445 claims generated by altering sentences extracted from Wikipedia and subsequently verified without knowledge of the sentence they were derived from. The claims are classified as Supported, Refuted or NotEnoughInfo by annotators achieving 0.6841 in Fleiss kappa. For the first two classes, the annotators also recorded the sentence(s) forming the necessary evidence for their judgment. To characterize the challenge of the dataset presented, we develop a pipeline approach and compare it to suitably designed oracles. The best accuracy we achieve on labeling a claim accompanied by the correct evidence is 31.87%, while if we ignore the evidence we achieve 50.91%. Thus we believe that FEVER is a challenging testbed that will help stimulate progress on claim verification against textual sources.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have fueled the vision of automated scientific discovery, often called AI Co-Scientists. To date, prior work casts these systems as generative co-authors responsible for crafting hypotheses, synthesizing code, or drafting manuscripts. In this work, we explore a complementary application: using LLMs as verifiers to automate the academic verification of scientific manuscripts. To that end, we introduce SPOT, a dataset of 83 published papers paired with 91 errors significant enough to prompt errata or retraction, cross-validated with actual authors and human annotators. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs on SPOT, we find that none surpasses 21.1\% recall or 6.1\% precision (o3 achieves the best scores, with all others near zero). Furthermore, confidence estimates are uniformly low, and across eight independent runs, models rarely rediscover the same errors, undermining their reliability. Finally, qualitative analysis with domain experts reveals that even the strongest models make mistakes resembling student-level misconceptions derived from misunderstandings. These findings highlight the substantial gap between current LLM capabilities and the requirements for dependable AI-assisted academic verification.

Why do language models sometimes prefer correct statements even when trained on mixed-quality data? We introduce the Compression--Consistency Principle: next-token prediction favors hypotheses that allow shorter and more internally consistent descriptions of the training data. Truth bias emerges only when false alternatives are structurally harder to compress. We test this using small GPT-2-style character-level transformers (3.5M--86M parameters) on synthetic math corpora with controlled mixtures of correct and incorrect rules. In the random-error setting, models strongly prefer correct completions in paired evaluation: 83.1% accuracy at balanced data and 67.0% even when correct rules appear in only 10% of the corpus. Replacing random errors with a coherent but mathematically incorrect rule system largely eliminates the preference (near-chance accuracy). In a more natural-language-like synthetic world, the effect is weaker but still present (57.7%). Additional experiments show that embedding verification steps can restore preference for correctness even at small scale, while increasing the number of consistent rules produces a graded improvement in accuracy. Our results suggest that what appears as a "truth bias" is largely a side effect of compression pressure and preference for internal consistency, rather than an intrinsic drive toward truth. Full code and data are available at https://github.com/Rai220/compression-drives-truth.

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) is often used to fix hallucinations and provide up-to-date knowledge for large language models (LLMs). However, in cases when the LLM alone incorrectly answers a question, does providing the correct retrieved content always fix the error? Conversely, in cases where the retrieved content is incorrect, does the LLM know to ignore the wrong information, or does it recapitulate the error? To answer these questions, we systematically analyze the tug-of-war between a LLM's internal knowledge (i.e. its prior) and the retrieved information in settings when they disagree. We test GPT-4 and other LLMs on question-answering abilities across datasets with and without reference documents. As expected, providing the correct retrieved information fixes most model mistakes (94% accuracy). However, when the reference document is perturbed with increasing levels of wrong values, the LLM is more likely to recite the incorrect, modified information when its internal prior is weaker but is more resistant when its prior is stronger. Similarly, we also find that the more the modified information deviates from the model's prior, the less likely the model is to prefer it. These results highlight an underlying tension between a model's prior knowledge and the information presented in reference documents.

Despite strong performance on existing benchmarks, it remains unclear whether large language models can reason over genuinely novel scientific information. Most evaluations score end-to-end RAG pipelines, where reasoning is confounded with retrieval and toolchain choices, and the signal is further contaminated by parametric memorization and open-web volatility. We introduce DeR2, a controlled deep-research sandbox that isolates document-grounded reasoning while preserving core difficulties of deep search: multi-step synthesis, denoising, and evidence-based conclusion making. DeR2 decouples evidence access from reasoning via four regimes--Instruction-only, Concepts (gold concepts without documents), Related-only (only relevant documents), and Full-set (relevant documents plus topically related distractors)--yielding interpretable regime gaps that operationalize retrieval loss vs. reasoning loss and enable fine-grained error attribution. To prevent parametric leakage, we apply a two-phase validation that requires parametric failure without evidence while ensuring oracle-concept solvability. To ensure reproducibility, each instance provides a frozen document library (drawn from 2023-2025 theoretical papers) with expert-annotated concepts and validated rationales. Experiments across a diverse set of state-of-the-art foundation models reveal substantial variation and significant headroom: some models exhibit mode-switch fragility, performing worse with the Full-set than with Instruction-only, while others show structural concept misuse, correctly naming concepts but failing to execute them as procedures.

One of the main drivers of the recent advances in authorship verification is the PAN large-scale authorship dataset. Despite generating significant progress in the field, inconsistent performance differences between the closed and open test sets have been reported. To this end, we improve the experimental setup by proposing five new public splits over the PAN dataset, specifically designed to isolate and identify biases related to the text topic and to the author's writing style. We evaluate several BERT-like baselines on these splits, showing that such models are competitive with authorship verification state-of-the-art methods. Furthermore, using explainable AI, we find that these baselines are biased towards named entities. We show that models trained without the named entities obtain better results and generalize better when tested on DarkReddit, our new dataset for authorship verification.

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs and verify moderate agreements. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality. A thorough disagreement analysis further supports a potential of fully automated ReviewScore evaluation.

We introduce FinCriticalED (Financial Critical Error Detection), a visual benchmark for evaluating OCR and vision language models on financial documents at the fact level. Financial documents contain visually dense and table heavy layouts where numerical and temporal information is tightly coupled with structure. In high stakes settings, small OCR mistakes such as sign inversion or shifted dates can lead to materially different interpretations, while traditional OCR metrics like ROUGE and edit distance capture only surface level text similarity. \ficriticaled provides 500 image-HTML pairs with expert annotated financial facts covering over seven hundred numerical and temporal facts. It introduces three key contributions. First, it establishes the first fact level evaluation benchmark for financial document understanding, shifting evaluation from lexical overlap to domain critical factual correctness. Second, all annotations are created and verified by financial experts with strict quality control over signs, magnitudes, and temporal expressions. Third, we develop an LLM-as-Judge evaluation pipeline that performs structured fact extraction and contextual verification for visually complex financial documents. We benchmark OCR systems, open source vision language models, and proprietary models on FinCriticalED. Results show that although the strongest proprietary models achieve the highest factual accuracy, substantial errors remain in visually intricate numerical and temporal contexts. Through quantitative evaluation and expert case studies, FinCriticalED provides a rigorous foundation for advancing visual factual precision in financial and other precision critical domains.

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Long-context models (LCMs) have made remarkable strides in recent years, offering users great convenience for handling tasks that involve long context, such as document summarization. As the community increasingly prioritizes the faithfulness of generated results, merely ensuring the accuracy of LCM outputs is insufficient, as it is quite challenging for humans to verify the results from the extremely lengthy context. Yet, although some efforts have been made to assess whether LCMs respond truly based on the context, these works either are limited to specific tasks or heavily rely on external evaluation resources like GPT-4.In this work, we introduce L-CiteEval, a comprehensive multi-task benchmark for long-context understanding with citations, aiming to evaluate both the understanding capability and faithfulness of LCMs. L-CiteEval covers 11 tasks from diverse domains, spanning context lengths from 8K to 48K, and provides a fully automated evaluation suite. Through testing with 11 cutting-edge closed-source and open-source LCMs, we find that although these models show minor differences in their generated results, open-source models substantially trail behind their closed-source counterparts in terms of citation accuracy and recall. This suggests that current open-source LCMs are prone to responding based on their inherent knowledge rather than the given context, posing a significant risk to the user experience in practical applications. We also evaluate the RAG approach and observe that RAG can significantly improve the faithfulness of LCMs, albeit with a slight decrease in the generation quality. Furthermore, we discover a correlation between the attention mechanisms of LCMs and the citation generation process.

Academic citations are widely used for evaluating research and tracing knowledge flows. Such uses typically rely on raw citation counts and neglect variability in citation types. In particular, citations can vary in their fidelity as original knowledge from cited studies may be paraphrased, summarized, or reinterpreted, possibly wrongly, leading to variation in how much information changes from cited to citing paper. In this study, we introduce a computational pipeline to quantify citation fidelity at scale. Using full texts of papers, the pipeline identifies citations in citing papers and the corresponding claims in cited papers, and applies supervised models to measure fidelity at the sentence level. Analyzing a large-scale multi-disciplinary dataset of approximately 13 million citation sentence pairs, we find that citation fidelity is higher when authors cite papers that are 1) more recent and intellectually close, 2) more accessible, and 3) the first author has a lower H-index and the author team is medium-sized. Using a quasi-experiment, we establish the "telephone effect" - when citing papers have low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite the citing paper and the original have lower fidelity to the original. Our work reveals systematic differences in citation fidelity, underscoring the limitations of analyses that rely on citation quantity alone and the potential for distortion of evidence.

Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable. To address this, we investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction. We parse all papers of OpenReview and augment each submission with its citation count, reference, and research hypothesis. Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper. Furthermore, we show that a simple prediction model based solely on title and abstract outperforms LLM-based reviewers, though it still falls short of human-level consistency.

There is a practically unlimited amount of natural language data available. Still, recent work in text comprehension has focused on datasets which are small relative to current computing possibilities. This article is making a case for the community to move to larger data and as a step in that direction it is proposing the BookTest, a new dataset similar to the popular Children's Book Test (CBT), however more than 60 times larger. We show that training on the new data improves the accuracy of our Attention-Sum Reader model on the original CBT test data by a much larger margin than many recent attempts to improve the model architecture. On one version of the dataset our ensemble even exceeds the human baseline provided by Facebook. We then show in our own human study that there is still space for further improvement.

We address the problem of detecting and mapping all books in a collection of images to entries in a given book catalogue. Instead of performing independent retrieval for each book detected, we treat the image-text mapping problem as a many-to-many matching process, looking for the best overall match between the two sets. We combine a state-of-the-art segmentation method (SAM) to detect book spines and extract book information using a commercial OCR. We then propose a two-stage approach for text-image matching, where CLIP embeddings are used first for fast matching, followed by a second slower stage to refine the matching, employing either the Hungarian Algorithm or a BERT-based model trained to cope with noisy OCR input and partial text matches. To evaluate our approach, we publish a new dataset of annotated bookshelf images that covers the whole book collection of a public library in Spain. In addition, we provide two target lists of book metadata, a closed-set of 15k book titles that corresponds to the known library inventory, and an open-set of 2.3M book titles to simulate an open-world scenario. We report results on two settings, on one hand on a matching-only task, where the book segments and OCR is given and the objective is to perform many-to-many matching against the target lists, and a combined detection and matching task, where books must be first detected and recognised before they are matched to the target list entries. We show that both the Hungarian Matching and the proposed BERT-based model outperform a fuzzy string matching baseline, and we highlight inherent limitations of the matching algorithms as the target increases in size, and when either of the two sets (detected books or target book list) is incomplete. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/llabres/library-dataset

Trustworthy Large Language Models (LLMs) must cite human-verifiable sources in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, academia, and finance, where even small errors can have severe consequences. Practitioners and researchers face a choice: let models generate citations during decoding, or let models draft answers first and then attach appropriate citations. To clarify this choice, we introduce two paradigms: Generation-Time Citation (G-Cite), which produces the answer and citations in one pass, and Post-hoc Citation (P-Cite), which adds or verifies citations after drafting. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation from zero-shot to advanced retrieval-augmented methods across four popular attribution datasets and provide evidence-based recommendations that weigh trade-offs across use cases. Our results show a consistent trade-off between coverage and citation correctness, with retrieval as the main driver of attribution quality in both paradigms. P-Cite methods achieve high coverage with competitive correctness and moderate latency, whereas G-Cite methods prioritize precision at the cost of coverage and speed. We recommend a retrieval-centric, P-Cite-first approach for high-stakes applications, reserving G-Cite for precision-critical settings such as strict claim verification. Our codes and human evaluation results are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Citation_Paradigms-BBB5/

We show that large language models (LLMs) can be used to distinguish the writings of different authors. Specifically, an individual GPT-2 model, trained from scratch on the works of one author, will predict held-out text from that author more accurately than held-out text from other authors. We suggest that, in this way, a model trained on one author's works embodies the unique writing style of that author. We first demonstrate our approach on books written by eight different (known) authors. We also use this approach to confirm R. P. Thompson's authorship of the well-studied 15th book of the Oz series, originally attributed to F. L. Baum.

Wikipedia is the largest open knowledge corpus, widely used worldwide and serving as a key resource for training large language models (LLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Ensuring its accuracy is therefore critical. But how accurate is Wikipedia, and how can we improve it? We focus on inconsistencies, a specific type of factual inaccuracy, and introduce the task of corpus-level inconsistency detection. We present CLAIRE, an agentic system that combines LLM reasoning with retrieval to surface potentially inconsistent claims along with contextual evidence for human review. In a user study with experienced Wikipedia editors, 87.5% reported higher confidence when using CLAIRE, and participants identified 64.7% more inconsistencies in the same amount of time. Combining CLAIRE with human annotation, we contribute WIKICOLLIDE, the first benchmark of real Wikipedia inconsistencies. Using random sampling with CLAIRE-assisted analysis, we find that at least 3.3% of English Wikipedia facts contradict another fact, with inconsistencies propagating into 7.3% of FEVEROUS and 4.0% of AmbigQA examples. Benchmarking strong baselines on this dataset reveals substantial headroom: the best fully automated system achieves an AUROC of only 75.1%. Our results show that contradictions are a measurable component of Wikipedia and that LLM-based systems like CLAIRE can provide a practical tool to help editors improve knowledge consistency at scale.

Evaluating the truthfulness of online content is critical for combating misinformation. This study examines the efficiency and effectiveness of crowdsourced truthfulness assessments through a comparative analysis of two approaches: one involving full-length webpages as evidence for each claim, and another using summaries for each evidence document generated with a large language model. Using an A/B testing setting, we engage a diverse pool of participants tasked with evaluating the truthfulness of statements under these conditions. Our analysis explores both the quality of assessments and the behavioral patterns of participants. The results reveal that relying on summarized evidence offers comparable accuracy and error metrics to the Standard modality while significantly improving efficiency. Workers in the Summary setting complete a significantly higher number of assessments, reducing task duration and costs. Additionally, the Summary modality maximizes internal agreement and maintains consistent reliance on and perceived usefulness of evidence, demonstrating its potential to streamline large-scale truthfulness evaluations.

Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty: LLMs now achieve over 90\% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage. HLE consists of 3,000 questions across dozens of subjects, including mathematics, humanities, and the natural sciences. HLE is developed globally by subject-matter experts and consists of multiple-choice and short-answer questions suitable for automated grading. Each question has a known solution that is unambiguous and easily verifiable, but cannot be quickly answered via internet retrieval. State-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate low accuracy and calibration on HLE, highlighting a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and the expert human frontier on closed-ended academic questions. To inform research and policymaking upon a clear understanding of model capabilities, we publicly release HLE at https://lastexam.ai.

Publishing a large language model (LLM) benchmark on the Internet risks contaminating future LLMs: the benchmark may be unintentionally (or intentionally) used to train or select a model. A common mitigation is to keep the benchmark private and let participants submit their models or predictions to the organizers. However, this strategy will require trust in a single organization and still permits test-set overfitting through repeated queries. To overcome this issue, we propose a way to publish benchmarks without completely disclosing the ground-truth answers to the questions, while still maintaining the ability to openly evaluate LLMs. The main underlying idea is to reduces the best possible accuracy, i.e., Bayes accuracy, by injecting randomness to the answers by preparing several logically correct answers, and only include one of them as the solution in the benchmark. Not only is this helpful to keep us from disclosing the ground truth, but this also offers a test for detecting data contamination. In principle, even fully capable models should not surpass the Bayes accuracy. If a model surpasses this ceiling despite this expectation, this is a strong signal of data contamination. We present experimental evidence that our method can detect data contamination accurately on a wide range of benchmarks, models, and training methodologies.

We introduce Legal RAG Bench, a benchmark and evaluation methodology for assessing the end-to-end performance of legal RAG systems. As a benchmark, Legal RAG Bench consists of 4,876 passages from the Victorian Criminal Charge Book alongside 100 complex, hand-crafted questions demanding expert knowledge of criminal law and procedure. Both long-form answers and supporting passages are provided. As an evaluation methodology, Legal RAG Bench leverages a full factorial design and novel hierarchical error decomposition framework, enabling apples-to-apples comparisons of the contributions of retrieval and reasoning models in RAG. We evaluate three state-of-the-art embedding models (Isaacus' Kanon 2 Embedder, Google's Gemini Embedding 001, and OpenAI's Text Embedding 3 Large) and two frontier LLMs (Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.2), finding that information retrieval is the primary driver of legal RAG performance, with LLMs exerting a more moderate effect on correctness and groundedness. Kanon 2 Embedder, in particular, had the largest positive impact on performance, improving average correctness by 17.5 points, groundedness by 4.5 points, and retrieval accuracy by 34 points. We observe that many errors attributed to hallucinations in legal RAG systems are in fact triggered by retrieval failures, concluding that retrieval sets the ceiling for the performance of many modern legal RAG systems. We document why and how we built Legal RAG Bench alongside the results of our evaluations. We also openly release our code and data to assist with reproduction of our findings.

Retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs) represent a substantial advancement in the capabilities of large language models, notably in reducing factual hallucination by leveraging external knowledge sources. However, the reliability of the retrieved information is not always guaranteed. The retrieval of irrelevant data can lead to misguided responses, and potentially causing the model to overlook its inherent knowledge, even when it possesses adequate information to address the query. Moreover, standard RALMs often struggle to assess whether they possess adequate knowledge, both intrinsic and retrieved, to provide an accurate answer. In situations where knowledge is lacking, these systems should ideally respond with "unknown" when the answer is unattainable. In response to these challenges, we introduces Chain-of-Noting (CoN), a novel approach aimed at improving the robustness of RALMs in facing noisy, irrelevant documents and in handling unknown scenarios. The core idea of CoN is to generate sequential reading notes for retrieved documents, enabling a thorough evaluation of their relevance to the given question and integrating this information to formulate the final answer. We employed ChatGPT to create training data for CoN, which was subsequently trained on an LLaMa-2 7B model. Our experiments across four open-domain QA benchmarks show that RALMs equipped with CoN significantly outperform standard RALMs. Notably, CoN achieves an average improvement of +7.9 in EM score given entirely noisy retrieved documents and +10.5 in rejection rates for real-time questions that fall outside the pre-training knowledge scope.

The fluency and creativity of large pre-trained language models (LLMs) have led to their widespread use, sometimes even as a replacement for traditional search engines. Yet language models are prone to making convincing but factually inaccurate claims, often referred to as 'hallucinations.' These errors can inadvertently spread misinformation or harmfully perpetuate misconceptions. Further, manual fact-checking of model responses is a time-consuming process, making human factuality labels expensive to acquire. In this work, we fine-tune language models to be more factual, without human labeling and targeting more open-ended generation settings than past work. We leverage two key recent innovations in NLP to do so. First, several recent works have proposed methods for judging the factuality of open-ended text by measuring consistency with an external knowledge base or simply a large model's confidence scores. Second, the direct preference optimization algorithm enables straightforward fine-tuning of language models on objectives other than supervised imitation, using a preference ranking over possible model responses. We show that learning from automatically generated factuality preference rankings, generated either through existing retrieval systems or our novel retrieval-free approach, significantly improves the factuality (percent of generated claims that are correct) of Llama-2 on held-out topics compared with RLHF or decoding strategies targeted at factuality. At 7B scale, compared to Llama-2-chat, we observe 58% and 40% reduction in factual error rate when generating biographies and answering medical questions, respectively.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaaJ) now underpins scalable evaluation, yet we lack a decisive test of a judge's qualification: can it recover a conversation's latent objective and know when that inference is trustworthy? LLMs degrade under irrelevant or long context; multi-turn jailbreaks further hide goals across turns. We introduce ObjexMT, a benchmark for objective extraction and metacognition. Given a multi-turn transcript, a model must return a one-sentence base objective and a self-reported confidence. Accuracy is computed via LLM-judge semantic similarity to gold objectives, converted to binary correctness by a single human-aligned threshold calibrated once on N = 100 items (tau^*=0.61). Metacognition is evaluated with ECE, Brier, Wrong-at-High-Conf, and risk-coverage. Across gpt-4.1, claude-sonnet-4, and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 on SafeMTData_Attack600, SafeMTData_1K, MHJ, and CoSafe, claude-sonnet-4 attains the best objective-extraction accuracy (0.515) and calibration (ECE 0.296; Brier 0.324); gpt-4.1 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 tie at 0.441 but are overconfident (mean confidence approx0.88 vs. accuracy approx0.44; Wrong-at-0.90 approx48-52%). Performance varies by dataset (approx0.167-0.865). ObjexMT thus supplies an actionable test for LLM judges: when objectives are not explicit, judges often misinfer them with high confidence. We recommend exposing objectives when feasible and gating decisions by confidence otherwise. Code and data at https://github.com/hyunjun1121/ObjexMT_dataset.

Despite extensive research on a wide range of question answering (QA) systems, most existing work focuses on answer containment-i.e., assuming that answers can be directly extracted and/or generated from documents in the corpus. However, some questions require inference, i.e., deriving answers that are not explicitly stated but can be inferred from the available information. We introduce Inferential QA -- a new task that challenges models to infer answers from answer-supporting passages which provide only clues. To study this problem, we construct QUIT (QUestions requiring Inference from Texts) dataset, comprising 7,401 questions and 2.4M passages built from high-convergence human- and machine-authored hints, labeled across three relevance levels using LLM-based answerability and human verification. Through comprehensive evaluation of retrievers, rerankers, and LLM-based readers, we show that methods effective on traditional QA tasks struggle in inferential QA: retrievers underperform, rerankers offer limited gains, and fine-tuning provides inconsistent improvements. Even reasoning-oriented LLMs fail to outperform smaller general-purpose models. These findings reveal that current QA pipelines are not yet ready for inference-based reasoning. Inferential QA thus establishes a new class of QA tasks that move towards understanding and reasoning from indirect textual evidence.

We introduce BSDetector, a method for detecting bad and speculative answers from a pretrained Large Language Model by estimating a numeric confidence score for any output it generated. Our uncertainty quantification technique works for any LLM accessible only via a black-box API, whose training data remains unknown. By expending a bit of extra computation, users of any LLM API can now get the same response as they would ordinarily, as well as a confidence estimate that cautions when not to trust this response. Experiments on both closed and open-form Question-Answer benchmarks reveal that BSDetector more accurately identifies incorrect LLM responses than alternative uncertainty estimation procedures (for both GPT-3 and ChatGPT). By sampling multiple responses from the LLM and considering the one with the highest confidence score, we can additionally obtain more accurate responses from the same LLM, without any extra training steps. In applications involving automated evaluation with LLMs, accounting for our confidence scores leads to more reliable evaluation in both human-in-the-loop and fully-automated settings (across both GPT 3.5 and 4).

In any ranking system, the retrieval model outputs a single score for a document based on its belief on how relevant it is to a given search query. While retrieval models have continued to improve with the introduction of increasingly complex architectures, few works have investigated a retrieval model's belief in the score beyond the scope of a single value. We argue that capturing the model's uncertainty with respect to its own scoring of a document is a critical aspect of retrieval that allows for greater use of current models across new document distributions, collections, or even improving effectiveness for down-stream tasks. In this paper, we address this problem via an efficient Bayesian framework for retrieval models which captures the model's belief in the relevance score through a stochastic process while adding only negligible computational overhead. We evaluate this belief via a ranking based calibration metric showing that our approximate Bayesian framework significantly improves a retrieval model's ranking effectiveness through a risk aware reranking as well as its confidence calibration. Lastly, we demonstrate that this additional uncertainty information is actionable and reliable on down-stream tasks represented via cutoff prediction.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are notorious for blending fact with fiction and generating non-factual content, known as hallucinations. To tackle this challenge, we propose an interactive system that helps users obtain insights into the reliability of the generated text. Our approach is based on the idea that the self-consistency of multiple samples generated by the same LLM relates to its confidence in individual claims in the generated texts. Using this idea, we design RELIC, an interactive system that enables users to investigate and verify semantic-level variations in multiple long-form responses. This allows users to recognize potentially inaccurate information in the generated text and make necessary corrections. From a user study with ten participants, we demonstrate that our approach helps users better verify the reliability of the generated text. We further summarize the design implications and lessons learned from this research for inspiring future studies on reliable human-LLM interactions.

Closed large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 have set state-of-the-art results across a number of NLP tasks and have become central to NLP and machine learning (ML)-driven solutions. Closed LLMs' performance and wide adoption has sparked considerable debate about their accessibility in terms of availability, cost, and transparency. In this study, we perform a rigorous comparative analysis of nine leading LLMs, spanning closed, open, and open-source LLM ecosystems, across text assessment and generation tasks related to automated essay scoring. Our findings reveal that for few-shot learning-based assessment of human generated essays, open LLMs such as Llama 3 and Qwen2.5 perform comparably to GPT-4 in terms of predictive performance, with no significant differences in disparate impact scores when considering age- or race-related fairness. Moreover, Llama 3 offers a substantial cost advantage, being up to 37 times more cost-efficient than GPT-4. For generative tasks, we find that essays generated by top open LLMs are comparable to closed LLMs in terms of their semantic composition/embeddings and ML assessed scores. Our findings challenge the dominance of closed LLMs and highlight the democratizing potential of open LLMs, suggesting they can effectively bridge accessibility divides while maintaining competitive performance and fairness.

Neural networks -- especially those that use large, pre-trained language models -- have improved search engines in various ways. Most prominently, they can estimate the relevance of a passage or document to a user's query. In this work, we depart from this direction by exploring whether neural networks can effectively predict which of a document's passages are unlikely to be relevant to any query submitted to the search engine. We refer to this query-agnostic estimation of passage relevance as a passage's quality. We find that our novel methods for estimating passage quality allow passage corpora to be pruned considerably while maintaining statistically equivalent effectiveness; our best methods can consistently prune >25% of passages in a corpora, across various retrieval pipelines. Such substantial pruning reduces the operating costs of neural search engines in terms of computing resources, power usage, and carbon footprint -- both when processing queries (thanks to a smaller index size) and when indexing (lightweight models can prune low-quality passages prior to the costly dense or learned sparse encoding step). This work sets the stage for developing more advanced neural "learning-what-to-index" methods.

Evaluating the quality of search, ranking and RAG systems traditionally requires a significant number of human relevance annotations. In recent times, several deployed systems have explored the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated judges for this task while their inherent biases prevent direct use for metric estimation. We present a statistical framework extending Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that combines minimal human annotations with LLM judgments to produce reliable estimates of metrics which require sub-instance annotations. Our method requires as few as 100 human-annotated queries and 10,000 unlabeled examples, reducing annotation requirements significantly compared to traditional approaches. We formulate our proposed framework (PRECISE) for inference of relevance uplift for an LLM-based query reformulation application, extending PPI to sub-instance annotations at the query-document level. By reformulating the metric-integration space, we reduced the computational complexity from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K), where |C| represents corpus size (in order of millions). Detailed experiments across prominent retrieval datasets demonstrate that our method reduces the variance of estimates for the business-critical Precision@K metric, while effectively correcting for LLM bias in low-resource settings.

Providing constructive feedback to paper authors is a core component of peer review. With reviewers increasingly having less time to perform reviews, automated support systems are required to ensure high reviewing quality, thus making the feedback in reviews useful for authors. To this end, we identify four key aspects of review comments (individual points in weakness sections of reviews) that drive the utility for authors: Actionability, Grounding & Specificity, Verifiability, and Helpfulness. To enable evaluation and development of models assessing review comments, we introduce the RevUtil dataset. We collect 1,430 human-labeled review comments and scale our data with 10k synthetically labeled comments for training purposes. The synthetic data additionally contains rationales, i.e., explanations for the aspect score of a review comment. Employing the RevUtil dataset, we benchmark fine-tuned models for assessing review comments on these aspects and generating rationales. Our experiments demonstrate that these fine-tuned models achieve agreement levels with humans comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, those of powerful closed models like GPT-4o. Our analysis further reveals that machine-generated reviews generally underperform human reviews on our four aspects.

Generating accurate and calibrated confidence estimates is critical for deploying LLMs in high-stakes or user-facing applications, and remains an open challenge. Prior research has often framed confidence as a problem of eliciting a model's "self-knowledge", i.e., the ability of an LLM to judge whether its own answers are correct; this approach implicitly assumes that there is some privileged information about the answer's correctness that is accessible to the model itself. However, our experiments reveal that an LLM attempting to predict the correctness of its own outputs generally performs no better than an unrelated LLM. Moreover, we hypothesize that a key factor in building a "Correctness Model" (CM) is exposure to a target model's historical predictions. We propose multiple methods to inject this historical correctness information, creating a Generalized Correctness Model (GCM). We first show that GCMs can be trained on the correctness data from many LLMs and learn patterns for correctness prediction applicable across datasets and models. We then use CMs as a lens for studying the source of correctness prediction ability and its generalization, systematically controlling their training data and finding that answer phrasing is a strong predictor for correctness. We further explore alternative methods of injecting history without training an LLM, finding that including history as in-context examples can help improve correctness prediction, and post-hoc calibration can provide complementary reductions in calibration error. We evaluate GCMs based on Qwen3-8B across 5 model families and the MMLU and TriviaQA datasets, as well as on a downstream selective prediction task, finding that reliable LLM confidence estimation is a generalizable and model-agnostic skill learned by systematically encoding correctness history rather than a model-specific skill reliant on self-introspection.

Large language models are increasingly used in scientific writing, yet they can fabricate citation-shaped references that appear plausible but fail bibliographic verification. Existing detectors often reduce verification to binary found/not-found decisions and rely on brittle parsing or incomplete retrieval, offering little field-level signal to auditors. We reframe citation hallucination detection as taxonomy-aligned field-level adjudication and introduce a 12-code taxonomy spanning Real, Potential, and Hallucinated citations. Based on this taxonomy, we build CiteTracer, a cascading multi-agent detector that extracts structured citations from PDF and BibTeX, retrieves evidence through cache lookup, URL fetch, scholar connectors, and web search, applies deterministic field matching, and routes ambiguous cases to class-specialist judgers. We release a benchmark of 2,450 synthetic citations built from real seeds with controlled LLM mutations, paired with 957 real-world fabricated citations drawn from ICLR 2026 and an anonymous conference desk-rejected submissions. CiteTracer reaches 97.1% accuracy on the synthetic benchmark, with class-level F1 scores of 97.0, 95.8, and 98.5 for Real, Potential, and Hallucinated, respectively, and detects 97.1% of fabrications on the real-world set without abstaining. Code: https://github.com/aaFrostnova/CiteTracer.

Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa

We introduce WIQA, the first large-scale dataset of "What if..." questions over procedural text. WIQA contains three parts: a collection of paragraphs each describing a process, e.g., beach erosion; a set of crowdsourced influence graphs for each paragraph, describing how one change affects another; and a large (40k) collection of "What if...?" multiple-choice questions derived from the graphs. For example, given a paragraph about beach erosion, would stormy weather result in more or less erosion (or have no effect)? The task is to answer the questions, given their associated paragraph. WIQA contains three kinds of questions: perturbations to steps mentioned in the paragraph; external (out-of-paragraph) perturbations requiring commonsense knowledge; and irrelevant (no effect) perturbations. We find that state-of-the-art models achieve 73.8% accuracy, well below the human performance of 96.3%. We analyze the challenges, in particular tracking chains of influences, and present the dataset as an open challenge to the community.

Questions of fair use of copyright-protected content to train Large Language Models (LLMs) are being very actively debated. Document-level inference has been proposed as a new task: inferring from black-box access to the trained model whether a piece of content has been seen during training. SOTA methods however rely on naturally occurring memorization of (part of) the content. While very effective against models that memorize a lot, we hypothesize--and later confirm--that they will not work against models that do not naturally memorize, e.g. medium-size 1B models. We here propose to use copyright traps, the inclusion of fictitious entries in original content, to detect the use of copyrighted materials in LLMs with a focus on models where memorization does not naturally occur. We carefully design an experimental setup, randomly inserting traps into original content (books) and train a 1.3B LLM. We first validate that the use of content in our target model would be undetectable using existing methods. We then show, contrary to intuition, that even medium-length trap sentences repeated a significant number of times (100) are not detectable using existing methods. However, we show that longer sequences repeated a large number of times can be reliably detected (AUC=0.75) and used as copyright traps. We further improve these results by studying how the number of times a sequence is seen improves detectability, how sequences with higher perplexity tend to be memorized more, and how taking context into account further improves detectability.

Text-to-SQL technology has become crucial for translating natural language into SQL queries in various industries, enabling non-technical users to perform complex data operations. The need for accurate evaluation methods has increased as these systems have grown more sophisticated. However, we found that the Execution Accuracy (EX), the most promising evaluation metric, still shows a substantial portion of false positives and negatives compared to human evaluation. Thus, this paper introduces FLEX (False-Less EXecution), a novel approach to evaluating text-to-SQL systems using large language models (LLMs) to emulate human expert-level evaluation of SQL queries. Our method shows significantly higher agreement with human expert judgments, improving Cohen's kappa from 61 to 78.17. Re-evaluating top-performing models on the Spider and BIRD benchmarks using FLEX reveals substantial shifts in performance rankings, with an average performance decrease of 3.15 due to false positive corrections and an increase of 6.07 from addressing false negatives. This work contributes to a more accurate and nuanced evaluation of text-to-SQL systems, potentially reshaping our understanding of state-of-the-art performance in this field.

A LaTeX manuscript that compiles without error is not necessarily publication-ready. The resulting PDFs frequently suffer from misplaced floats, overflowing equations, inconsistent table scaling, widow and orphan lines, and poor page balance, forcing authors into repetitive compile-inspect-edit cycles. Rule-based tools are blind to rendered visuals, operating only on source code and log files. Text-only LLMs perform open-loop text editing, unable to predict or verify the two-dimensional layout consequences of their changes. Reliable typesetting optimization therefore requires a visual closed loop with verification after every edit. We formalize this problem as Visual Typesetting Optimization (VTO), the task of transforming a compilable LaTeX paper into a visually polished, page-budget-compliant PDF through iterative visual verification and source-level revision, and introduce a five-category taxonomy of typesetting defects to guide diagnosis. We present PaperFit, a vision-in-the-loop agent that iteratively renders pages, diagnoses defects, and applies constrained repairs. To benchmark VTO, we construct PaperFit-Bench with 200 papers across 10 venue templates and 13 defect types at different difficulty. Extensive experiments show that PaperFit outperforms all baselines by a large margin, establishing that bridging the gap from compilable source to publication-ready PDF requires vision-in-the-loop optimization and that VTO constitutes a critical missing stage in the document automation pipeline.

We set out to train behavioral dispositions (self-verification, uncertainty acknowledgment, feedback integration) into small language models (0.6B to 2.3B effective parameters) through a four-stage all-MIT distillation pipeline, with follow-on experiments on inference-time attention-head interventions and a frozen-base confidence-gated sidecar. An internal draft reported +33.9-point MCAS and +15.3-point HumanEval gains on a Qwen3-0.6B student; a second-pass sanity check falsified both numbers before publication. The HumanEval delta was a truncation artifact (n_predict=512) that inverted to -8.0 points at n_predict=1024; the MCAS gain disappeared under apples-to-apples scoring. That falsification triggered three subsequent arcs. Across (1) SFT/DPO LoRA on three model families and two domains, (2) inference-time attention-head tempering on o_proj, and (3) a training-free frozen-base sidecar reading the final-token hidden state h_last, we find no operator that moves judge-measured disposition without damaging content or collapsing into stylistic mimicry. The failure is consistent across five models (Qwen3-0.6B, Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3.5-0.8B, Gemma 4 E2B, and SmolLM2-1.7B-Instruct). A within-distribution cross-validation pass (AUC=0.683) collapsed to chance on fresh prompts (AUC=0.516). We contribute a three-arc negative result with mechanism, a two-failure-mode taxonomy for linear h_last probes, and an honest falsification pipeline that converts the class of false positives we ourselves produced into publishable negatives. As an independent finding, Gemma 4 E2B exhibits near-complete confidence-correctness decoupling on the Chef domain (assertion asymmetry -0.009; the model asserts at 91% regardless of correctness).

In natural language processing, a recently popular line of work explores how to best report the experimental results of neural networks. One exemplar publication, titled "Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Results," advocates for reporting the expected validation effectiveness of the best-tuned model, with respect to the computational budget. In the present work, we critically examine this paper. As far as statistical generalizability is concerned, we find unspoken pitfalls and caveats with this approach. We analytically show that their estimator is biased and uses error-prone assumptions. We find that the estimator favors negative errors and yields poor bootstrapped confidence intervals. We derive an unbiased alternative and bolster our claims with empirical evidence from statistical simulation. Our codebase is at http://github.com/castorini/meanmax.

Summarization models often generate text that is poorly calibrated to quality metrics because they are trained to maximize the likelihood of a single reference (MLE). To address this, recent work has added a calibration step, which exposes a model to its own ranked outputs to improve relevance or, in a separate line of work, contrasts positive and negative sets to improve faithfulness. While effective, much of this work has focused on how to generate and optimize these sets. Less is known about why one setup is more effective than another. In this work, we uncover the underlying characteristics of effective sets. For each training instance, we form a large, diverse pool of candidates and systematically vary the subsets used for calibration fine-tuning. Each selection strategy targets distinct aspects of the sets, such as lexical diversity or the size of the gap between positive and negatives. On three diverse scientific long-form summarization datasets (spanning biomedical, clinical, and chemical domains), we find, among others, that faithfulness calibration is optimal when the negative sets are extractive and more likely to be generated, whereas for relevance calibration, the metric margin between candidates should be maximized and surprise--the disagreement between model and metric defined candidate rankings--minimized. Code to create, select, and optimize calibration sets is available at https://github.com/griff4692/calibrating-summaries

Frontier LLM companies have repeatedly assured courts and regulators that their models do not store copies of training data. They further rely on safety alignment strategies via RLHF, system prompts, and output filters to block verbatim regurgitation of copyrighted works, and have cited the efficacy of these measures in their legal defenses against copyright infringement claims. We show that finetuning bypasses these protections: by training models to expand plot summaries into full text, a task naturally suited for commercial writing assistants, we cause GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.1 to reproduce up to 85-90% of held-out copyrighted books, with single verbatim spans exceeding 460 words, using only semantic descriptions as prompts and no actual book text. This extraction generalizes across authors: finetuning exclusively on Haruki Murakami's novels unlocks verbatim recall of copyrighted books from over 30 unrelated authors. The effect is not specific to any training author or corpus: random author pairs and public-domain finetuning data produce comparable extraction, while finetuning on synthetic text yields near-zero extraction, indicating that finetuning on individual authors' works reactivates latent memorization from pretraining. Three models from different providers memorize the same books in the same regions (r ge 0.90), pointing to an industry-wide vulnerability. Our findings offer compelling evidence that model weights store copies of copyrighted works and that the security failures that manifest after finetuning on individual authors' works undermine a key premise of recent fair use rulings, where courts have conditioned favorable outcomes on the adequacy of measures preventing reproduction of protected expression.

Recent advancements in open-domain question answering (ODQA), i.e., finding answers from large open-domain corpus like Wikipedia, have led to human-level performance on many datasets. However, progress in QA over book stories (Book QA) lags behind despite its similar task formulation to ODQA. This work provides a comprehensive and quantitative analysis about the difficulty of Book QA: (1) We benchmark the research on the NarrativeQA dataset with extensive experiments with cutting-edge ODQA techniques. This quantifies the challenges Book QA poses, as well as advances the published state-of-the-art with a sim7\% absolute improvement on Rouge-L. (2) We further analyze the detailed challenges in Book QA through human studies.\url{https://github.com/gorov/BookQA.} Our findings indicate that the event-centric questions dominate this task, which exemplifies the inability of existing QA models to handle event-oriented scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs) still produce plausible-sounding but ungrounded factual claims, a problem that worsens in multi-turn dialogue as context grows and early errors cascade. We introduce HalluHard, a challenging multi-turn hallucination benchmark with 950 seed questions spanning four high-stakes domains: legal cases, research questions, medical guidelines, and coding. We operationalize groundedness by requiring inline citations for factual assertions. To support reliable evaluation in open-ended settings, we propose a judging pipeline that iteratively retrieves evidence via web search. It can fetch, filter, and parse full-text sources (including PDFs) to assess whether cited material actually supports the generated content. Across a diverse set of frontier proprietary and open-weight models, hallucinations remain substantial even with web search (approx 30% for the strongest configuration, Opus-4.5 with web search), with content-grounding errors persisting at high rates. Finally, we show that hallucination behavior is shaped by model capacity, turn position, effective reasoning, and the type of knowledge required.

Language models are known to hallucinate incorrect information, and it is unclear if they are sufficiently accurate and reliable for use in scientific research. We developed a rigorous human-AI comparison methodology to evaluate language model agents on real-world literature search tasks covering information retrieval, summarization, and contradiction detection tasks. We show that PaperQA2, a frontier language model agent optimized for improved factuality, matches or exceeds subject matter expert performance on three realistic literature research tasks without any restrictions on humans (i.e., full access to internet, search tools, and time). PaperQA2 writes cited, Wikipedia-style summaries of scientific topics that are significantly more accurate than existing, human-written Wikipedia articles. We also introduce a hard benchmark for scientific literature research called LitQA2 that guided design of PaperQA2, leading to it exceeding human performance. Finally, we apply PaperQA2 to identify contradictions within the scientific literature, an important scientific task that is challenging for humans. PaperQA2 identifies 2.34 +/- 1.99 contradictions per paper in a random subset of biology papers, of which 70% are validated by human experts. These results demonstrate that language model agents are now capable of exceeding domain experts across meaningful tasks on scientific literature.

Recently, there has been a trend of evaluating the Large Language Model (LLM) quality in the flavor of LLM-as-a-Judge, namely leveraging another LLM to evaluate the current output quality. However, existing judges are proven to be biased, namely they would favor answers which present better superficial quality (such as verbosity, fluency) while ignoring the instruction following ability. In this work, we propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, for closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality, both on probability level and prompt level. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality. We apply our methods on the bias evaluation benchmark, and experiment results show our methods mitigate the bias by a large margin while maintaining a satisfactory evaluation accuracy.

Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as pre-review agents, if not as fully autonomous peer-review agents. While incredibly beneficial, automating academic peer-review, as a concept, raises concerns surrounding safety, research integrity, and the validity of the academic peer-review process. The majority of the studies performing a systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs generating reviews across science disciplines miss the mark on addressing the alignment/misalignment of reviews along with the utility of LLM generated reviews when compared against publication outcomes such as Citations, Hit-papers, Novelty, and Disruption. This paper presents an experimental study in which we gathered ground-truth reviewer ratings from OpenReview and used various frontier open-weight LLMs to generate reviews of papers to gauge the safety and reliability of incorporating LLMs into the scientific review pipeline. Our findings demonstrate the utility of frontier open-weight LLMs as pre-review screening agents despite highlighting fundamental misalignment risks when deployed as autonomous reviewers. Our results show that all models exhibit weak correlation with human peer reviewers (0.15), with systematic overestimation bias of 3-5 points and uniformly high confidence scores (8.0-9.0/10) despite prediction errors. However, we also observed that LLM reviews correlate more strongly with post-publication metrics than with human scores, suggesting potential utility as pre-review screening tools. Our findings highlight the potential and address the pitfalls of automating peer reviews with language models. We open-sourced our dataset D_{LMRSD} to help the research community expand the safety framework of automating scientific reviews.

With large language models (LLMs) poised to become embedded in our daily lives, questions are starting to be raised about the data they learned from. These questions range from potential bias or misinformation LLMs could retain from their training data to questions of copyright and fair use of human-generated text. However, while these questions emerge, developers of the recent state-of-the-art LLMs become increasingly reluctant to disclose details on their training corpus. We here introduce the task of document-level membership inference for real-world LLMs, i.e. inferring whether the LLM has seen a given document during training or not. First, we propose a procedure for the development and evaluation of document-level membership inference for LLMs by leveraging commonly used data sources for training and the model release date. We then propose a practical, black-box method to predict document-level membership and instantiate it on OpenLLaMA-7B with both books and academic papers. We show our methodology to perform very well, reaching an AUC of 0.856 for books and 0.678 for papers. We then show our approach to outperform the sentence-level membership inference attacks used in the privacy literature for the document-level membership task. We further evaluate whether smaller models might be less sensitive to document-level inference and show OpenLLaMA-3B to be approximately as sensitive as OpenLLaMA-7B to our approach. Finally, we consider two mitigation strategies and find the AUC to slowly decrease when only partial documents are considered but to remain fairly high when the model precision is reduced. Taken together, our results show that accurate document-level membership can be inferred for LLMs, increasing the transparency of technology poised to change our lives.

Standard factuality evaluations of LLMs treat all errors alike, obscuring whether failures arise from missing knowledge (empty shelves) or from limited access to encoded facts (lost keys). We propose a behavioral framework that profiles factual knowledge at the level of facts rather than questions, characterizing each fact by whether it is encoded, and then by how accessible it is: cannot be recalled, can be directly recalled, or can only be recalled with inference-time computation (thinking). To support such profiling, we introduce WikiProfile, a new benchmark constructed via an automated pipeline with a prompted LLM grounded in web search. Across 4 million responses from 13 LLMs, we find that encoding is nearly saturated in frontier models on our benchmark, with GPT-5 and Gemini-3 encoding 95--98% of facts. However, recall remains a major bottleneck: many errors previously attributed to missing knowledge instead stem from failures to access it. These failures are systematic and disproportionately affect long-tail facts and reverse questions. Finally, we show that thinking improves recall and can recover a substantial fraction of failures, indicating that future gains may rely less on scaling and more on methods that improve how models utilize what they already encode.

Multi-hop reasoning over financial disclosures is often a retrieval problem before it becomes a reasoning or generation problem: relevant facts are dispersed across sections, filings, companies, and years, and LLMs often expend excessive tokens navigating noisy context. Without precise Knowledge Graph (KG)-guided selection of relevant context, even strong reasoning models either fail to answer or consume excessive tokens, whereas KG-linked evidence enables models to focus their reasoning on composing already retrieved facts. We present FinReflectKG - MultiHop, a benchmark built on FinReflectKG, a temporally indexed financial KG that links audited triples to source chunks from S&P 100 filings (2022-2024). Mining frequent 2-3 hop subgraph patterns across sectors (via GICS taxonomy), we generate financial analyst style questions with exact supporting evidence from the KG. A two-phase pipeline first creates QA pairs via pattern-specific prompts, followed by a multi-criteria quality control evaluation to ensure QA validity. We then evaluate three controlled retrieval scenarios: (S1) precise KG-linked paths; (S2) text-only page windows centered on relevant text spans; and (S3) relevant page windows with randomizations and distractors. Across both reasoning and non-reasoning models, KG-guided precise retrieval yields substantial gains on the FinReflectKG - MultiHop QA benchmark dataset, boosting correctness scores by approximately 24 percent while reducing token utilization by approximately 84.5 percent compared to the page window setting, which reflects the traditional vector retrieval paradigm. Spanning intra-document, inter-year, and cross-company scopes, our work underscores the pivotal role of knowledge graphs in efficiently connecting evidence for multi-hop financial QA. We also release a curated subset of the benchmark (555 QA Pairs) to catalyze further research.

This paper presents OpenCLAW-P2P v6.0, a comprehensive evolution of the decentralized collective-intelligence platform in which autonomous AI agents publish, peer-review, score, and iteratively improve scientific research papers without any human gatekeeper. Building on v5.0 foundations -- tribunal-gated publishing, multi-LLM granular scoring, calibrated deception detection, the Silicon Chess-Grid FSM, and the AETHER containerized inference engine -- this release introduces four major new subsystems: (1) a multi-layer paper persistence architecture with four storage tiers (in-memory cache, Cloudflare R2, Gun.js, GitHub) ensuring zero paper loss across redeployments; (2) a multi-layer retrieval cascade with automatic backfill reducing lookup latency from >3s to <50ms; (3) live reference verification querying CrossRef, arXiv, and Semantic Scholar during scoring to detect fabricated citations with >85% accuracy; and (4) a scientific API proxy providing rate-limited cached access to seven public databases. The platform operates with 14 real autonomous agents producing 50+ scored papers (word counts 2,072-4,073, leaderboard scores 6.4-8.1) alongside 23 labeled simulated citizens. We present honest production statistics, failure-mode analysis, a paper recovery protocol that salvaged 25 lost papers, and lessons learned from operating the system at scale. All pre-existing subsystems -- 17-judge multi-LLM scoring, 14-rule calibration with 8 deception detectors, tribunal cognitive examination, Proof of Value consensus, Laws-of-Form eigenform verification, and tau-normalized agent coordination -- are retained and further hardened. All code is open-source at https://github.com/Agnuxo1/p2pclaw-mcp-server.

Retrieval-augmented generation stores all content indiscriminately, degrading accuracy as noise accumulates. Parametric approaches compress knowledge into weights, precluding selective updates. Neither mirrors biological memory, which gates encoding based on salience and archives rather than deletes superseded information. We introduce write-time gating that filters incoming knowledge objects using composite salience scores (source reputation, novelty, reliability) while maintaining version chains that preserve prior states. Using real LLM evaluation without oracle access to quality labels, write gating achieves 100 percent accuracy versus 13 percent for ungated stores. The critical finding emerges under distractor scaling: at 8:1 distractor ratios, read-time filtering (Self-RAG) collapses to 0 percent while write gating maintains 100 percent, revealing a structural advantage of write-time over read-time curation. Validation on Wikipedia (20 entities), procedurally generated pharmacology data, and 2026 arXiv papers confirms these findings. The gating advantage scales inversely with parametric memory support: +25pp for Wikipedia, +48pp for post-cutoff arXiv, +65pp for procedural data with zero training knowledge. Signal ablation confirms the method does not depend on oracle-correlated metadata. Write gating matches Self-RAG accuracy at one-ninth the query-time cost.

While large language models (LLMs) have proven to be effective on a large variety of tasks, they are also known to hallucinate information. To measure whether an LLM prefers factually consistent continuations of its input, we propose a new benchmark called FIB(Factual Inconsistency Benchmark) that focuses on the task of summarization. Specifically, our benchmark involves comparing the scores an LLM assigns to a factually consistent versus a factually inconsistent summary for an input news article. For factually consistent summaries, we use human-written reference summaries that we manually verify as factually consistent. To generate summaries that are factually inconsistent, we generate summaries from a suite of summarization models that we have manually annotated as factually inconsistent. A model's factual consistency is then measured according to its accuracy, i.e.\ the proportion of documents where it assigns a higher score to the factually consistent summary. To validate the usefulness of FIB, we evaluate 23 large language models ranging from 1B to 176B parameters from six different model families including BLOOM and OPT. We find that existing LLMs generally assign a higher score to factually consistent summaries than to factually inconsistent summaries. However, if the factually inconsistent summaries occur verbatim in the document, then LLMs assign a higher score to these factually inconsistent summaries than factually consistent summaries. We validate design choices in our benchmark including the scoring method and source of distractor summaries. Our code and benchmark data can be found at https://github.com/r-three/fib.

Execution Accuracy (EX), the widely used metric for evaluating the effectiveness of Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL) solutions, is becoming increasingly unreliable. It is sensitive to syntactic variation, ignores that questions may admit multiple interpretations, and is easily misled by erroneous ground-truth SQL. To address this, we introduce ROSE, an intent-centered metric that focuses on whether the predicted SQL answers the question, rather than consistency with the ground-truth SQL under the reference-dependent paradigm. ROSE employs an adversarial Prover-Refuter cascade: SQL Prover assesses the semantic correctness of a predicted SQL against the user's intent independently, while Adversarial Refuter uses the ground-truth SQL as evidence to challenge and refine this judgment. On our expert-aligned validation set ROSE-VEC, ROSE achieves the best agreement with human experts, outperforming the next-best metric by nearly 24% in Cohen's Kappa. We also conduct a largescale re-evaluation of 19 NL2SQL methods, revealing four valuable insights. We release ROSE and ROSE-VEC to facilitate more reliable NL2SQL research.

Despite the remarkable coherence of Large Language Models (LLMs), existing evaluation methods often suffer from fluency bias and rely heavily on multiple-choice formats, making it difficult to assess factual accuracy and complex reasoning effectively. LLMs thus frequently generate factually inaccurate responses, especially in complex reasoning tasks, highlighting two prominent challenges: (1) the inadequacy of existing methods to evaluate reasoning and factual accuracy effectively, and (2) the reliance on human evaluators for nuanced judgment, as illustrated by Williams and Huckle (2024)[1], who found manual grading indispensable despite automated grading advancements. To address evaluation gaps in open-ended reasoning tasks, we introduce the EQUATOR Evaluator (Evaluation of Question Answering Thoroughness in Open-ended Reasoning). This framework combines deterministic scoring with a focus on factual accuracy and robust reasoning assessment. Using a vector database, EQUATOR pairs open-ended questions with human-evaluated answers, enabling more precise and scalable evaluations. In practice, EQUATOR significantly reduces reliance on human evaluators for scoring and improves scalability compared to Williams and Huckle's (2004)[1] methods. Our results demonstrate that this framework significantly outperforms traditional multiple-choice evaluations while maintaining high accuracy standards. Additionally, we introduce an automated evaluation process leveraging smaller, locally hosted LLMs. We used LLaMA 3.2B, running on the Ollama binaries to streamline our assessments. This work establishes a new paradigm for evaluating LLM performance, emphasizing factual accuracy and reasoning ability, and provides a robust methodological foundation for future research.

This article presents an experiment in fine-tuning a pretrained causal language model (Meta's Llama 3.1 8B Instruct) for aiding in three fundamental tasks of philological research: chronological and geographic attribution as well as text restoration in ancient Greek inscriptions and documentary papyri. Using a prompt-based instruct approach, the fine-tuned models surpass the state of the art in key metrics. For inscriptions, the models achieve a lower average character error rate (CER) of 22.5% (vs. 26.3%), while closely matching top-1 accuracy (60.9% vs. 61.8%) and top-20 accuracy (77.5% vs. 78.3%) for sequences up to 10 characters. They also provide a practical advantage by ignoring spaces during reconstruction, aligning better with the scriptio continua typically used in ancient written artifacts. In geographic attribution, the model outperforms previous benchmarks with a top-1 accuracy of 75.0% (vs. 70.8%) and a top-3 accuracy of 83.7% (vs. 82.1%). For dating, it achieves an average deviation of 26.2 years (vs. 29.3) and a median deviation of 1 year (vs. 3) from the actual date range. The models also set new baselines for documentary papyri, with a CER of 16.3%, a top-1 accuracy of 71.3%, and top-20 of 85.0% in text reconstruction; a top-1 accuracy of 66.4% and top-3 of 79.9% in geographic attribution; and, in chronological attribution, a deviation of 21.7 years from the actual termini post/ante quem, with a median deviation of 0 years.

Multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets like Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) are widely used to evaluate the commonsense, understanding, and problem-solving abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, the open-source nature of these benchmarks and the broad sources of training data for LLMs have inevitably led to benchmark contamination, resulting in unreliable evaluation results. To alleviate this issue, we propose a contamination-free and more challenging MCQ benchmark called MMLU-CF. This benchmark reassesses LLMs' understanding of world knowledge by averting both unintentional and malicious data leakage. To avoid unintentional data leakage, we source data from a broader domain and design three decontamination rules. To prevent malicious data leakage, we divide the benchmark into validation and test sets with similar difficulty and subject distributions. The test set remains closed-source to ensure reliable results, while the validation set is publicly available to promote transparency and facilitate independent verification. Our evaluation of mainstream LLMs reveals that the powerful GPT-4o achieves merely a 5-shot score of 73.4% and a 0-shot score of 71.9% on the test set, which indicates the effectiveness of our approach in creating a more rigorous and contamination-free evaluation standard. The GitHub repository is available at https://github.com/microsoft/MMLU-CF and the dataset refers to https://huggingface.co/datasets/microsoft/MMLU-CF.

The training data for many Large Language Models (LLMs) is contaminated with test data. This means that public benchmarks used to assess LLMs are compromised, suggesting a performance gap between benchmark scores and actual capabilities. Ideally, a private holdout set could be used to accurately verify scores. Unfortunately, such datasets do not exist for most benchmarks, and post-hoc construction of sufficiently similar datasets is non-trivial. To address these issues, we introduce a systematic methodology for (i) retrospectively constructing a holdout dataset for a target dataset, (ii) demonstrating the statistical indistinguishability of this retro-holdout dataset, and (iii) comparing LLMs on the two datasets to quantify the performance gap due to the dataset's public availability. Applying these methods to TruthfulQA, we construct and release Retro-Misconceptions, on which we evaluate twenty LLMs and find that some have inflated scores by as much as 16 percentage points. Our results demonstrate that public benchmark scores do not always accurately assess model properties, and underscore the importance of improved data practices in the field.

Quantifying bias in retrieval functions through document retrievability scores is vital for assessing recall-oriented retrieval systems. However, many studies investigating retrieval model bias lack validation of their query generation methods as accurate representations of retrievability for real users and their queries. This limitation results from the absence of established criteria for query generation in retrievability assessments. Typically, researchers resort to using frequent collocations from document corpora when no query log is available. In this study, we address the issue of reproducibility and seek to validate query generation methods by comparing retrievability scores generated from artificially generated queries to those derived from query logs. Our findings demonstrate a minimal or negligible correlation between retrievability scores from artificial queries and those from query logs. This suggests that artificially generated queries may not accurately reflect retrievability scores as derived from query logs. We further explore alternative query generation techniques, uncovering a variation that exhibits the highest correlation. This alternative approach holds promise for improving reproducibility when query logs are unavailable.

Automated summary quality assessment falls into two categories: reference-based and reference-free. Reference-based metrics, historically deemed more accurate due to the additional information provided by human-written references, are limited by their reliance on human input. In this paper, we hypothesize that the comparison methodologies used by some reference-based metrics to evaluate a system summary against its corresponding reference can be effectively adapted to assess it against its source document, thereby transforming these metrics into reference-free ones. Experimental results support this hypothesis. After being repurposed reference-freely, the zero-shot BERTScore using the pretrained DeBERTa-large-MNLI model of <0.5B parameters consistently outperforms its original reference-based version across various aspects on the SummEval and Newsroom datasets. It also excels in comparison to most existing reference-free metrics and closely competes with zero-shot summary evaluators based on GPT-3.5.