SVG-Score: Human-Aligned Evaluation of Text-to-SVG Generation

Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) generation is attracting increasing attention as generative models improve in expressiveness and controllability. Progress, however, is held back by the lack of domain-specific evaluation protocols: current practice relies on metrics designed for natural images, most notably CLIPScore, which was never trained on vector graphics and aligns only partially with human judgment. We introduce \textbf{\ours}, a human-aligned evaluation framework for text-to-SVG generation. Through controlled caption and image perturbations, we first show that CLIP-based scores barely react to the errors SVG generators actually make, such as wrong colors, counts, and spatial relations, and that off-the-shelf Vision-Language Model (VLM) judges, while more sensitive, respond unevenly across error types and SVG styles. We then introduce a human-annotated dataset for \textit{Semantic Alignment}, measuring how faithfully a generated SVG reflects its caption. Building on it, we develop two complementary evaluators: CLIP scorers adapted to vector graphics and then aligned to human preferences, for fast large-scale evaluation, and a VLM judge trained with supervised fine-tuning and reward-shaped reinforcement learning, for more expressive and interpretable assessment. Using both, we benchmark major open-source, commercial, and optimization-based SVG generators on an independent caption set.

Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.

Human-Anchored Factuality Evaluation with Strategic Annotation

LLM-based factuality judges provide scalable evaluation signals, but their metrics are often systematically biased relative to human judgments. We study human-anchored factuality evaluation under limited annotation budgets, where judge predictions on the full dataset are combined with human labels on a small selectively sampled subset to obtain statistically valid estimates. The efficiency of this approach depends critically on which examples receive human annotation: in factuality evaluation, judge-human misalignment is not driven solely by low confidence, but also by structured failure modes such as incomplete evidence, temporal mismatch, unverifiable claims, and rubric misalignment. To exploit this structure, we introduce a factuality-specific annotation policy design pipeline that uses failure-space analysis (FSA) to derive diverse predictive signals for modeling human-judge misalignment. On an internal reference-based factuality evaluation system (AutoFA) and RAGTruth, where judge-predicted estimates substantially underestimate human-annotated factual accuracy, our FSA-guided policy improves annotation efficiency over uniform sampling and uncertainty-driven baselines, achieving effective-sample-size gains of 40.3% on AutoFA and 27.1% on RAGTruth.

Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluation

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. However, for subjective rubric-based scoring, inter-agent agreement does not guarantee alignment with human judgments. In this paper, we compare a single-judge baseline against a consensus-based MAD protocol on subjective evaluation tasks and design three ablations to isolate the impact of role prompting, multi-round interaction, and explicit score sharing. Evaluations across six LLMs show that the single-judge baseline achieves the strongest human alignment on average across six judge models, whereas MAD shows degradation in human alignment on both tasks. Our ablations demonstrate that this performance drop stems primarily from asymmetric role prompting rather than the interaction itself. Specifically, assigning a strict judge role introduces a systematic downward bias that the consensus process fails to correct. The central finding is that this bias reflects strict-stance dominance beyond averaging: the consensus score falls well beyond the arithmetic midpoint of the standalone strict and lenient conditions, rather than averaging them out. Removing role asymmetry (Symmetric MAD) largely recovers baseline performance, while masking peer scores widens inter-agent disagreement on average and worsens average human alignment. These findings demonstrate that multi-agent consensus can enforce artificial agreement at the expense of true human alignment, revealing a structural limitation in consensus-style, role-specialized MAD protocols for subjective scoring.

Designing a Robust LLM-Based Evaluation System for Agentic AI in Drug Discovery Through Human Alignment

Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are reshaping scientific workflows in chemistry and drug discovery, but evaluating their open-ended, tool-augmented outputs remains a fundamental bottleneck. Reference-based metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE fail to capture semantic correctness, while expert human evaluation does not scale to the iteration speed these systems demand. The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative, but existing drug discovery benchmarks deploy LLM judges without validating their alignment with human experts. In this work, we present an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework for ChatInvent, an agentic drug discovery assistant deployed at AstraZeneca, with four contributions. First, we define four output-quality evaluation dimensions---Completeness, Relevancy, Structural Clarity, and Scope Adherence---alongside deterministic Tool Call Correctness checks. Second, we validate the judge through a human alignment study with five expert annotators, comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, and Llama 3.1 70B as candidate judges. Third, we optimize the best-performing judge using few-shot demonstrations of human-annotated examples, improving alignment with the human majority vote from 0.80 to 0.86. Fourth, applying the optimized judge to 70 held-out questions, we surface concrete limitations and find that informal phrasings do not systematically degrade output quality; if anything, it is helpful to have the LLM rewrite the original question before querying the agent. Our framework provides a reusable template for human-aligned evaluation of agentic systems in scientific domains.

AlignFace: Human-Aligned Face Similarity Metric with Interpretable Concept Relations

Computer vision models for generated facial content, such as face editing and privacy protection, increasingly affect people, requiring similarity metrics that serve as faithful proxies for human perception. While perceptual evaluation has progressed from signal-based heuristics to representation-based metrics, current approaches are limited to behavioral modeling without cognitive alignment. They rely on implicit and spurious relations while assuming a universal observer, failing to account for inherent variations across diverse human populations. This leads to inaccurate evaluative models of stakeholders and misleading guidance for generative model debugging. Rather than treating perception as a black box, we leverage scientific findings from cognitive psychology of human face similarity perception: dependence on facial featural and configural attributes, nonlinear psychophysical response scaling, and own-group biases. We introduce the FACETS dataset and propose AlignFace, an interpretable, human-aligned, face similarity metric that encodes these cognitive principles through ante-hoc modeling. It employs visual-language modeling (VLM) to encode paired face images and text-based attributes, gated cross-attention (CA) to extract attribute-specific facial difference representations, concept bottleneck modeling (CBM) to constrain reasoning via interpretable face attributes, and neural generalized additive model (GAM) to model their nonlinear influence. Experiments found AlignFace significantly improves alignment with human subpopulation perceptions compared to baseline metrics, including recent domain-free learned perceptual metrics. By bridging learned representations and human cognitive processes, this work enables more transparent and aligned perceptual evaluation metrics for face images.

A Framework for Designing Reward Functions: From Objectives to Features to Human-Aligned Reward Functions

We present a formal process to enable non-experts to instantiate and iterate on human-aligned reward functions, i.e. reward functions that adhere to a given preference ordering over trajectories. Given a task described in natural language, our process produces a linear reward function in three steps: distill the task's objectives into a set of fundamental objectives and derive measurable outcome variables that capture those fundamental objectives, select a causally representative subset of outcome variables as the reward terms, and fit weights to those reward terms via preference elicitation. Our contributions describe the first step and formalize the latter two steps. The first is a guided workflow for deriving outcome variables. The second is a reduction of reward term selection to minimum-cost partial cover on a causal DAG, solved in polynomial time via max-flow. The third is a geometric framing of weight fitting as a convex feasibility problem iteratively narrowed by preference queries, solved by existing separation oracle methods. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reward-design method that maintains a deterministically conflict-free feasible weight region, narrowed to a desired tolerance via a separation oracle with O(n log κ) preference queries.

More Accurate, Less Human: Gestalt Grouping in Vision Models

Human vision organizes what it sees into wholes: same-colored points group into series, similar marks cohere into categories, and shapes complete into recognizable objects. These are the Gestalt operations that visualization design builds on. Whether vision models organize visual content this way has not been systematically tested. We introduce a behavioral battery that scores models against human data from prior perception studies on four grouping tasks: mark-color odd-one-out, color-series counting, silhouette recognition, and object odd-one-out. We apply it to 45 models across five training families: supervised, self-supervised, and contrastive vision-language encoders, open-weight VLMs, and closed foundation models. The battery reveals that agreement with human responses captures aspects of perceptual organization that conventional performance metrics fail to distinguish, with several closed models exhibiting substantially lower alignment than their benchmark accuracy would suggest. Scoring against published perception data therefore gives visualization research a reusable yardstick, requiring no new user study, for auditing whether the models now entering visualization pipelines organize what they see the way their human audience does.

Sidewalk Moments: Are Richer Representations Always More Human-Aligned? Evidence from City-Walk Videos

We examine whether richer visual representations yield more human-aligned measures of urban engagement, using 61 first-person city-walk videos from YouTube segmented into over 50,000 ten-second clips and represented across four modalities: spatiotemporal video features, temporally averaged images (TAIs), audio embeddings, and text-based semantic descriptions. Spearman correlation analysis reveals the expected ordering along the temporal-richness continuum, with video features showing the strongest continuous alignment. However, this ordering breaks down under binary classification of high- versus low-engagement moments (the paradigm most commonly used to train perceptual scoring models), where TAIs consistently match or outperform video across most classifiers and quantile thresholds. An independent two-alternative forced-choice study on Amazon Mechanical Turk confirms that this parity reflects human judgment: participants identified engaging moments with comparable accuracy from TAIs and full video clips, while text performed substantially worse and audio remained near chance. Gap analysis reveals a functional dissociation: video features are advantaged in activity-driven scenes with dynamic content, whereas TAIs better align with human judgments in composition-driven scenes dominated by stable spatial structure. These findings challenge the assumption that richer representations are inherently more human-aligned, and suggest that perceptually grounded temporal compression can be a principled alternative to full video encoding.

LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform

Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspects of research utility depend on expert judgment rather than reference-overlap metrics. We introduce LitReview Arena, a battle-style evaluation platform with a structured protocol tailored to literature review quality: domain experts with AI paper-writing experience compare anonymized drafts, are matched to topics within their expertise, and provide dimension-wise outcomes over five literature-review-specific criteria. From this protocol, we collect approximately 3k expert judgments, each containing five dimension-wise outcomes, and show that even the strongest current systems win only 23.0% of decisive matches against human drafts on overall utility, while agentic LLMs such as Sonar Deep Research substantially outperform base language models by over 60%. We further find that existing LLM-as-a-judge methods are substantially misaligned with human experts (Spearman's rho=0.467), especially on synthesis-heavy criteria such as paper structure and research suggestions. Using the collected preference data, we provide an expert-calibrated evaluator, LitJudge, which improves alignment to Spearman's rho=0.78, comparable to inter-expert consistency; code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/VanellopeAsher/LitReview-Arena.

Can MLLMs Critique Like Humans? Evaluating Open-Ended Aesthetic Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models

Open-ended aesthetic critique is a challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs): unlike multiple-choice aesthetic benchmarks, it has no single correct answer, and most aesthetic evaluation has measured models against numeric scores rather than the written critiques people actually give. We evaluate MLLM critiques against ranked human references and ask whether they are close to human ones. Using the Reddit Photo Critique Dataset, we score five open-weight MLLMs against multiple ranked human critiques per photo with reference-based similarity metrics, under six prompt conditions that disentangle persona framing, aspect hinting, length control, and single- versus multi-pass generation, and add an image-grounding control that feeds each model the wrong photograph. We find that reference-based similarity gives a misleading picture. Stricter lexical and learned metrics show only weak alignment with human critiques, while a coarse embedding cosine reports broad topical overlap that the grounding control traces to a stable house style rather than image-specific observation. Behaviorally, the models diverge from humans in consistent ways the scores do not surface: even under a length cap they write two to three times as much, cover nearly every aesthetic aspect where humans are selective, engage each aspect more uniformly and at greater depth, and repeat themselves across critiques of the same photo where humans vary. We argue that reference-based similarity rewards a fluent, comprehensive critique style rather than the selectivity and specificity of human critique, and discuss implications for evaluating and training open-ended multimodal generation.

Phonological Perception of Sign Language Models

Sign languages are compositional systems where meaning arises by combining sublexical phonological parameters, such as handshape, location, and movement. While deep learning models for Sign Language Recognition (SLR) have achieved increased performance on translation benchmarks, it remains unclear whether these models distinguish abstract phonological features or merely rely on low-level statistical correlations. This work evaluates the phonological perception of SLR models trained on American Sign Language (ASL) by probing phonological sensitivity using minimal pairs and evaluating representational alignment with human behavioral data. Our results reveal that SLR models exhibit emergent phonological sensitivity, but with clear architectural trade-offs: pose-based models are sensitive to handshape contrasts, while pixel-based models better capture location changes. Furthermore, pose-based models learn latent representations that correlate with human perceptual similarity judgments (r~0.49). These findings suggest that while SLR models exhibit emergent phonology, current training paradigms are insufficient to scale them beyond their architectural inductive biases.

Counsel: A Meta-Evaluation Dataset for Agentic Tasks

As agentic systems tackle increasingly complex multi-step tasks, evaluating their trajectories presents a major bottleneck - human annotation of a single trajectory on popular agentic benchmarks can take hours, making it difficult to scale evaluations for measuring performance or curating training data. This has driven widespread reliance on automated approaches such as LLM-as-a-judge (LLMJ) to critique agents at the process and outcome-levels at scale, however, the soundness of LLMJ critiques often goes unmeasured. Here, we introduce Counsel, the first public dataset of meta-evaluations for agentic tasks. Counsel consists of process-level critiques from open-weight LLMJs on two agent benchmarks: tau-bench (customer support agents) and DA-Code (coding agents), and human meta-evaluations of these critiques. Human annotators label critiques on each flagged error as "spot on", "correct location but poor reasoning", or "should not have flagged", achieving reliable inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's alpha of 0.78). The resulting dataset stratifies LLMJ critiques by human alignment across both error location within a trajectory and reasoning quality, serving as valuable data to calibrate, improve, or train LLMJs for agents. Comparing open-weight judges, we find that more capable judge models and more reasoning effort both enabled improved human agreement, with the strongest judge reaching ~88% agreement on location and ~65% on reasoning. Counsel is generated using open-weight models and is permissively licensed for broad community use, which we hope will enable rigorous study and improved alignment of LLM-based evaluators for agentic systems.

TimeVista: Exploring and Exploiting Vision-Language Models as Judges for Time Series Forecasting

High-quality time series forecasting is pivotal for real-world decision-making. However, traditional point-wise metrics often fail to reveal complex temporal patterns and align poorly with human intuitive preferences. While the ''LLM-as-a-Judge'' paradigm has revolutionized text evaluation by providing flexible, human-aligned judgment, its application to time series remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we leverage Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as judges for time series forecasting, harnessing their ability to comprehend time series plots grounded in textual information. Specifically, we propose a novel framework integrating micro- and macro-level judgments informed by contextual information to evaluate time series forecasting. To this end, we introduce TimeVista, a comprehensive VLM-as-a-Judge benchmark comprising 5563 time series samples paired with detailed evaluation rubrics. Extensive meta-evaluations demonstrate that VLMs are highly reliable judges, achieving significantly higher consistency with human preferences than conventional metrics. Building upon our benchmark, we comprehensively assess recent Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) under the VLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. Our results demonstrate that VLMs serve as robust and interpretable judges, providing a comprehensive, human-aligned standard for evaluating time series models.

LLMs Can Better Capture Human Judgments--With the Right Prompts

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

DB-3DME: From Dataset to Benchmark for Human-aligned Automatic 3D Mesh Evaluation

Recent advances in 3D generation have led to substantial improvements in realism, controllability, and efficiency, yet the evaluation of 3D assets remains underexplored. Existing evaluation paradigms, including human evaluation, learned metrics, and vision-language models (VLMs) as judges, suffer from limitations in cost, scalability, resolution handling, or task-specific alignment. In this work, we focus on 3D mesh evaluation and introduce DB-3DME, the Dataset and Benchmark for 3D Mesh Evaluation. DB-3DME contains 2,619 synthetic 3D meshes paired with human ratings on Geometry and Prompt Adherence. Using this dataset, we systematically benchmark state-of-the-art VLMs and identify visual encoding of 3D representations as a key factor for human-aligned evaluation performance. Motivated by this finding, we fine-tune an open-weight VLM, Qwen-2.5-VL-7B, for 3D mesh evaluation by adapting the visual encoder while freezing the language model. The fine-tuned model substantially outperforms existing pre-trained VLMs across multiple evaluation dimensions, establishing a new benchmark for automatic 3D mesh evaluation. We publicly release the benchmark dataset on GitHub and Hugging Face to facilitate future research.

LEVANTE-bench: Multi-Scale Comparison of VLMs to Children Using Cognitive Tasks (or, "Is Your VLM Smarter Than a 5th Grader?")

Given the inherently multimodal nature of human experience, vision-language models (VLMs) hold substantial promise for modeling human cognition as it grows and develops with experience. Realizing their potential requires tools for comparing VLMs with human cognitive development across tasks, ages, and populations. We present LEVANTE-bench, a benchmark based on tasks and data from the Learning Variability Network (LEVANTE), which distributes open-source tasks and data measuring children's cognition across languages and cultures. In LEVANTE-bench, we systematically assess VLMs on six tasks, comparing their alignment with children aged 5-12 ($N$ = 1547) across three countries. We compare models at multiple scales, assessing their overall accuracy, their task- and item-level alignment with children, and how well they match children's trial-level error distributions. Alignment was heterogeneous across scales: at the level of tasks and items, more capable models aligned better with humans. However, match to human error distributions varied widely across tasks, and for several tasks, smaller models matched younger children's errors better. In addition, even the best-performing VLMs struggled on matrix reasoning and mental rotation tasks. Thus, current VLM architectures align only partially with the cognitive abilities of children.