While many studies of Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning capabilities emphasize mathematical or technical tasks, few address reasoning about social concepts: the abstract ideas shaping social norms, culture, and institutions. This understudied capability is essential for modern models acting as social agents, yet no systematic evaluation methodology targets it. We introduce SCRuB (Social Concept Reasoning under Rubric-Based Evaluation), a framework designed for this setting of task indeterminacy. Our goal is to measure the degree to which a model reasons about social concepts with the depth and critical rigor of a human expert. SCRuB proceeds in three phases: prompt construction from established sources, response generation by experts and models, and comparative evaluation using a five-dimensional critical thinking rubric. To enable generalization of the pipeline, we introduce a Panel of Disciplinary Perspectives ensemble validated against independent expert judges. We release SCRuBEval (n=4,711 evaluation prompts) and SCRuBAnnotations (300 expert-authored responses and 150 expert comparative judgments from 45 PhD-level scholars). Our results show that frontier models consistently outperform human experts across all five rubric dimensions. Across 1,170 pairwise comparisons, expert judges ranked a model response first in 80.8% of judgments and preferred model responses overall 74.4% of the time. Ultimately, this study provides the first expert-grounded demonstration of evaluation saturation for social concept reasoning: the single-turn exam-style format has reached its ceiling for models and humans alike.

Existing evaluation methods largely rely on clean, static benchmarks, which can overestimate true model performance by failing to capture the noise and variability inherent in real-world user inputs. This is especially true for language models, which can face human-generated text queries containing mistakes, typos, or alternative ways of phrasing the same question. In this work, we introduce a theoretical framework for quantifying model sensitivity to prompt variants, or brittleness, that can enable us to disentangle data-induced difficulty from prompt-related variability. Using this framework, we design a novel evaluation pipeline, Brittlebench, to holistically evaluate the sensitivity of frontier models. We apply semantics-preserving perturbations to a suite of popular benchmarks, and observe model performance to degrade as much as 12

Impressive advances in text-to-image (T2I) generative models have yielded a plethora of high performing models which are able to generate aesthetically appealing, photorealistic images. Despite the progress, these models still struggle to produce images that are consistent with the input prompt, oftentimes failing to capture object quantities, relations and attributes properly. Existing solutions to improve prompt-image consistency suffer from the following challenges: (1) they oftentimes require model fine-tuning, (2) they only focus on nearby prompt samples, and (3) they are affected by unfavorable trade-offs among image quality, representation diversity, and prompt-image consistency. In this paper, we address these challenges and introduce a T2I optimization-by-prompting framework, OPT2I, which leverages a large language model (LLM) to improve prompt-image consistency in T2I models. Our framework starts from a user prompt and iteratively generates revised prompts with the goal of maximizing a consistency score. Our extensive validation on two datasets, MSCOCO and PartiPrompts, shows that OPT2I can boost the initial consistency score by up to 24.9% in terms of DSG score while preserving the FID and increasing the recall between generated and real data. Our work paves the way toward building more reliable and robust T2I systems by harnessing the power of LLMs.

Existing benchmarks for assessing the spatio-temporal understanding and reasoning abilities of video language models are susceptible to score inflation due to the presence of shortcut solutions based on superficial visual or textual cues. This paper mitigates the challenges in accurately assessing model performance by introducing the Minimal Video Pairs (MVP) benchmark, a simple shortcut-aware video QA benchmark for assessing the physical understanding of video language models. The benchmark is comprised of 55K high-quality multiple-choice video QA examples focusing on physical world understanding. Examples are curated from nine video data sources, spanning first-person egocentric and exocentric videos, robotic interaction data, and cognitive science intuitive physics benchmarks. To mitigate shortcut solutions that rely on superficial visual or textual cues and biases, each sample in MVP has a minimal-change pair – a visually similar video accompanied by an identical question but an opposing answer. To answer a question correctly, a model must provide correct answers for both examples in the minimal-change pair; as such, models that solely rely on visual or textual biases would achieve below random performance. Human performance on MVP is 92.9%, while the best open-source state-of-the-art video-language model achieves 40.2% compared to random performance at 25%.

Recent advances in text-to-image (T2I) models have achieved impressive quality and consistency. However, this has come at the cost of representation diversity. While automatic evaluation methods exist for benchmarking model diversity, they either require reference image datasets or lack specificity about the kind of diversity measured, limiting their adaptability and interpretability. To address this gap, we introduce the Does-it/Can-it framework, DIM-CIM, a reference-free measurement of default-mode diversity ("Does" the model generate images with expected attributes?) and generalization capacity ("Can" the model generate diverse attributes for a particular concept?). We construct the COCO-DIMCIM benchmark, which is seeded with COCO concepts and captions and augmented by a large language model. With COCO-DIMCIM, we find that widely-used models improve in generalization at the cost of default-mode diversity when scaling from 1.5B to 8.1B parameters. DIMCIM also identifies fine-grained failure cases, such as attributes that are generated with generic prompts but are rarely generated when explicitly requested. Finally, we use DIMCIM to evaluate the training data of a T2I model and observe a correlation of 0.85 between diversity in training images and default-mode diversity. Our work provides a flexible and interpretable framework for assessing T2I model diversity and generalization, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of model performance.

Large language models often generate homogeneous outputs, but whether this is problematic depends on the specific task. For objective math tasks, responses may vary in terms of problem-solving strategy but should maintain the same verifiable answer. Whereas, for creative writing tasks, we often expect variation in key narrative components (e.g. plot, setting, etc.) beyond mere vocabulary diversity. Prior work on homogenization rarely conceptualizes diversity in a task-dependent way. We address this gap with four contributions: (1) a task taxonomy with distinct notions of functional diversity – whether a user would perceive two responses as meaningfully different for a given task; (2) a small user study validating that the taxonomy aligns with human perception of functional diversity; (3) a task-dependent sampling technique that increases diversity only where homogenization is undesired; (4) evidence challenging the perceived diversity-quality trade-off, showing it may stem from mis-conceptualizing both diversity and quality in a task-agnostic way.

One of the most challenging problems facing NLP today is evaluation. Some of the most pressing issues pertain to benchmark saturation, data contamination, and diversity in the quality of test examples. To address these concerns, we propose Selection Methodology for Accurate, Reduced, and Targeted (SMART) filtering, a novel approach to select a high-quality subset of examples from existing benchmark datasets by systematically removing less informative and less challenging examples. Our approach applies three filtering criteria, removing (i) easy examples, (ii) data-contaminated examples, and (iii) examples that are similar to each other based on distance in an embedding space. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SMART on three multiple choice QA datasets, where our methodology increases efficiency by reducing dataset size by 48\% on average, while increasing Pearson correlation with rankings from ChatBot Arena, a more open-ended human evaluation setting. Our method enables us to be more efficient, whether using SMART to make new benchmarks more challenging or to revitalize older datasets, while still preserving the relative model rankings.

The rapid proliferation of benchmarks has created significant challenges in reproducibility, transparency, and informed decision-making. However, unlike datasets and models – which benefit from structured documentation frameworks like Datasheets and Model Cards – evaluation methodologies lack systematic documentation standards. We introduce Eval Factsheets, a structured, descriptive framework for documenting AI system evaluations through a comprehensive taxonomy and questionnaire-based approach. Our framework organizes evaluation characteristics across five fundamental dimensions: Context (Who made the evaluation and when?), Scope (What does it evaluate?), Structure (With what the evaluation is built?), Method (How does it work?) and Alignment (In what ways is it reliable/valid/robust?). We implement this taxonomy as a practical questionnaire spanning five sections with mandatory and recommended documentation elements. Through case studies on multiple benchmarks, we demonstrate that Eval Factsheets effectively captures diverse evaluation paradigms – from traditional benchmarks to LLM-as-judge methodologies – while maintaining consistency and comparability. We hope Eval Factsheets are incorporated into both existing and newly released evaluation frameworks and lead to more transparency and reproducibility.

The steady improvements of text-to-image (T2I) generative models lead to slow deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks that rely on static datasets, motivating researchers to seek alternative ways to evaluate T2I progress. We present Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE), an evaluation framework in which a single multimodal large language model (MLLM) acts as an evaluator agent, iteratively generating the evaluation prompts and scoring the resulting images. We show that MT2IE's image-text consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than metrics previously introduced in the literature. MT2IE generates prompts that are efficient at probing T2I model performance: closely recovering the official T2I model rankings of three structurally distinct benchmarks from just 20 generated evaluation prompts, 28-105x fewer than the benchmarks' own prompt sets. When compared to existing evaluation metrics such as CLIPScore, VIEScore, and VQAScore, MT2IE's T2I model rankings are more faithful and far more consistent across multiple evaluation seeds when using the same number of prompts. MT2IE can also adapt evaluation to the model being tested: rewriting each prompt based on the model's own measured performance to produce a bespoke per-model benchmark that still recovers the official rankings and keeps the evaluated model in an informative scoring range. We hope that these results will encourage the development of dynamic and interactive evaluation frameworks, and mitigate the deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks.

Multimodal language models possess a remarkable ability to handle an open-vocabulary's worth of objects. Yet the best models still suffer from hallucinations when reasoning about scenes in the real world, revealing a gap between their seemingly strong performance on existing perception benchmarks that are saturating and their reasoning in the real world. To address this gap, we build a novel benchmark of in-the-wild scenes that we call Common-O. With more than 10.5k examples using exclusively new images not found in web training data to avoid contamination, Common-O goes beyond just perception, inspired by cognitive tests for humans, to probe reasoning across scenes by asking "what's in common?". We evaluate leading multimodal language models, including models specifically trained to perform chain-of-thought reasoning. We find that perceiving objects in single images is tractable for most models, yet reasoning across scenes is very challenging even for the best models, including reasoning models. Despite saturating many leaderboards focusing on perception, the best performing model only achieves 35% on Common-O -- and on Common-O Complex, consisting of more complex scenes, the best model achieves only 1%. Curiously, we find models are more prone to hallucinate when similar objects are present in the scene, suggesting models may be relying on object co-occurrence seen during training. Among the models we evaluated, we found scale can provide modest improvements while models explicitly trained with multi-image inputs show bigger improvements, suggesting scaled multi-image training may offer promise. We make our benchmark publicly available to spur research into the challenge of hallucination when reasoning across scenes.

Large language models demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities through chain-of-thought prompting, but whether this reasoning quality transfers across languages remains underexplored. We introduce a human-validated framework to evaluate whether model-generated reasoning traces logically support their conclusions across languages. Analyzing 65k reasoning traces from GlobalMMLU questions across 6 languages and 6 frontier models, we uncover a critical blind spot: while models achieve high task accuracy, their reasoning can fail to support their conclusions. Reasoning traces in non-Latin scripts show at least twice as much misalignment between their reasoning and conclusions than those in Latin scripts. We develop an error taxonomy through human annotation to characterize these failures, finding they stem primarily from evidential errors (unsupported claims, ambiguous facts) followed by illogical reasoning steps. Our findings demonstrate that current multilingual evaluation practices provide an incomplete picture of model reasoning capabilities and highlight the need for reasoning-aware evaluation frameworks.

BabyLM aims to dissolve the boundaries between cognitive modeling and language modeling. We call for both workshop papers and for researchers to join the 3rd BabyLM competition. As in previous years, we call for participants in the data-efficient pretraining challenge in the general track. This year, we also offer a new track: INTERACTION. This new track encourages interactive behavior, learning from a teacher, and adapting the teaching material to the student. We also call for papers outside the competition in any relevant areas. These include training efficiency, cognitively plausible research, weak model evaluation, and more.

The unprecedented photorealistic results achieved by recent text-to-image generative systems and their increasing use as plug-and-play content creation solutions make it crucial to understand their potential biases. In this work, we introduce three indicators to evaluate the realism, diversity and prompt-generation consistency of text-to-image generative systems when prompted to generate objects from across the world. Our indicators complement qualitative analysis of the broader impact of such systems by enabling automatic and efficient benchmarking of geographic disparities, an important step towards building responsible visual content creation systems. We use our proposed indicators to analyze potential geographic biases in state-of-the-art visual content creation systems and find that: (1) models have less realism and diversity of generations when prompting for Africa and West Asia than Europe, (2) prompting with geographic information comes at a cost to prompt-consistency and diversity of generated images, and (3) models exhibit more region-level disparities for some objects than others. Perhaps most interestingly, our indicators suggest that progress in image generation quality has come at the cost of real-world geographic representation. Our comprehensive evaluation constitutes a crucial step towards ensuring a positive experience of visual content creation for everyone.

Following the recent popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs), several attempts have been made to extend them to the visual domain. From having a visual assistant that could guide us through unfamiliar environments to generative models that produce images using only a high-level text description, the vision-language model (VLM) applications will significantly impact our relationship with technology. However, there are many challenges that need to be addressed to improve the reliability of those models. While language is discrete, vision evolves in a much higher dimensional space in which concepts cannot always be easily discretized. To better understand the mechanics behind mapping vision to language, we present this introduction to VLMs which we hope will help anyone who would like to enter the field. First, we introduce what VLMs are, how they work, and how to train them. Then, we present and discuss approaches to evaluate VLMs. Although this work primarily focuses on mapping images to language, we also discuss extending VLMs to videos.

Language models are increasingly being incorporated as components in larger AI systems for various purposes, from prompt optimization to automatic evaluation. In this work, we analyze the construct validity of four recent, commonly used methods for measuring text-to-image consistency---CLIPScore, TIFA, VPEval, and DSG---which rely on language models and/or VQA models as components. We define construct validity for text-image consistency metrics as a set of desiderata that text-image consistency metrics should have, and find that no tested metric satisfies all of them. We find that metrics lack sufficient sensitivity to language and visual properties. Next, we find that TIFA, VPEval and DSG contribute novel information above and beyond CLIPScore, but also that they correlate highly with each other. We also ablate different aspects of the text-image consistency metrics and find that not all model components are strictly necessary, also a symptom of insufficient sensitivity to visual information. Finally, we show that all three VQA-based metrics likely rely on familiar text shortcuts (such as yes-bias in QA) that call their aptitude as quantitative evaluations of model performance into question.

As the use of text-to-image generative models increases, so does the adoption of automatic benchmarking methods used in their evaluation. However, while metrics and datasets abound, there are few unified benchmarking libraries that provide a framework for performing evaluations across many datasets and metrics. Furthermore, the rapid introduction of increasingly robust benchmarking methods requires that evaluation libraries remain flexible to new datasets and metrics. Finally, there remains a gap in synthesizing evaluations in order to deliver actionable takeaways about model performance. To enable unified, flexible, and actionable evaluations, we introduce EvalGIM (pronounced ”EvalGym”), a library for evaluating generative image models. EvalGIM contains broad support for datasets and metrics used to measure quality, diversity, and consistency of text-to-image generative models. In addition, EvalGIM is designed with flexibility for user customization as a top priority and contains a structure that allows plug-and-play additions of new datasets and metrics. To enable actionable evaluation insights, we introduce ”Evaluation Exercises” that highlight takeaways for specific evaluation questions. The Evaluation Exercises contain easy-to-use and reproducible implementations of two state-of-the-art evaluation methods of text-to-image generative models: consistency-diversity-realism Pareto Fronts and disaggregated measurements of performance disparities across groups. EvalGIM also contains Evaluation Exercises that introduce two new analysis methods for text-to-image generative models: robustness analyses of model rankings and balanced evaluations across different prompt styles. We encourage text-to-image model exploration with EvalGIM and invite contributions at https://github.com/facebookresearch/EvalGIM/.

As large language models (LLMs) have grown in prevalence, particular benchmarks have become essential for the evaluation of these models and for understanding model capabilities. Most commonly, we use test accuracy averaged across multiple subtasks in order to rank models on leaderboards, to determine which model is best for our purposes. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of the accuracy measurement on a widely used multiple choice question answering dataset, MMLU. When shuffling the answer label contents, we find that all explored models decrease in accuracy on MMLU, but not every model is equally sensitive. These findings suggest a possible adjustment to the standard practice of leaderboard testing, where we additionally consider the percentage of examples each model answers correctly by random chance.

Rapid progress in text-to-image generative models coupled with their deployment for visual content creation has magnified the importance of thoroughly evaluating their performance and identifying potential biases. In pursuit of models that generate images that are realistic, diverse, visually appealing, and consistent with the given prompt, researchers and practitioners often turn to automated metrics to facilitate scalable and cost-effective performance profiling. However, commonly-used metrics often fail to account for the full diversity of human preference; often even in-depth human evaluations face challenges with subjectivity, especially as interpretations of evaluation criteria vary across regions and cultures. In this work, we conduct a large, cross-cultural study to study how much annotators in Africa, Europe, and Southeast Asia vary in their perception of geographic representation, visual appeal, and consistency in real and generated images from state-of-the art public APIs. We collect over 65,000 image annotations and 20 survey responses. We contrast human annotations with common automated metrics, finding that human preferences vary notably across geographic location and that current metrics do not fully account for this diversity. For example, annotators in different locations often disagree on whether exaggerated, stereotypical depictions of a region are considered geographically representative. In addition, the utility of automatic evaluations is dependent on assumptions about their set-up, such as the alignment of feature extractors with human perception of object similarity or the definition of “appeal” captured in reference datasets used to ground evaluations. We recommend steps for improved automatic and human evaluations. This includes collecting annotations from people located inside and outside the region of interest, instructing annotators on whether they should follow specific definitions of evaluation criteria or utilize their own interpretation, and reporting assumptions underlying automatic evaluations.

Computer vision models have been known to encode harmful biases, leading to the potentially unfair treatment of historically marginalized groups, such as people of color. However, there remains a lack of datasets balanced along demographic traits that can be used to evaluate the downstream fairness of these models. In this work, we demonstrate that diffusion models can be leveraged to create such a dataset. We first use a diffusion model to generate a large set of images depicting various occupations. Subsequently, each image is edited using inpainting to generate multiple variants, where each variant refers to a different perceived race. Using this dataset, we benchmark several vision-language models on a multi-class occupation classification task. We find that images generated with non-Caucasian labels have a significantly higher occupation misclassification rate than images generated with Caucasian labels, and that several misclassifications are suggestive of racial biases. We measure a model's downstream fairness by computing the standard deviation in the probability of predicting the true occupation label across the different perceived identity groups. Using this fairness metric, we find significant disparities between the evaluated vision-and-language models. We hope that our work demonstrates the potential value of diffusion methods for fairness evaluations.