arXiv subjects

William Walden

Publications and source records attributed to William Walden.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Seeing Through the MiRAGE: Evaluating Multimodal Retrieval Augmented Generation

We introduce MiRAGE, an evaluation framework for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) from multimodal sources. As audiovisual media becomes a more prevalent source of information online, RAG systems must integrate such media into generation. Yet, existing evaluation methods for RAG are largely text-centric and do not readily transfer to multimodal settings. MiRAGE is a claim-centric approach to multimodal RAG evaluation, consisting of InfoF1, which assesses factuality and information coverage, and CiteF1, which assesses citation support and completeness. We show that, when applied by humans, MiRAGE strongly aligns with extrinsic judgments of output quality. We additionally introduce an automatic implementation of MiRAGE and compare it to multimodal variants of three prominent text-centric RAG metrics---ALCE, ARGUE, and RAGAS---finding that MiRAGE outperforms all three on text while being the only one to generalize to multimodal sources. We release open-source implementations and outline evaluation methods for multimodal RAG.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can Coding Agents Reproduce Findings in Computational Materials Science?

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 53%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

On the Threat Model of Weird Generalization and Emergent Misalignment

Narrow fine-tuning on small, domain-specific datasets can produce broad and surprising changes in model behavior-a phenomenon called weird generalization (WG). Yet, it remains unclear what features of the fine-tuning data are necessary for WG to arise. Here, we address this question by investigating a range of plausibly relevant features, including dataset size, composition, language, presentation style, and novelty relative to a model's parametric knowledge. Further, since WG evaluations rely on small question sets that assess the extent of the generalization, we also analyze how sensitive this measurement is to the set of questions used. Experiments with three open-weight models on four datasets show that the degree of WG (1) depends heavily on dataset composition and language (more than on size); (2) is greater for data familiar from pretraining than for novel data; and (3) is sensitive to the set of evaluation questions used. Collectively, these results indicate that WG is a product of quite fragile properties of both training and evaluation data. As such, we argue that WG is more plausible as an adversarial threat-requiring careful data engineering-rather than as a significant hazard inherent to routine fine-tuning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Information Satisfaction: A Reader-Centered Axis for Summarization Evaluation

The majority of work on summarization evaluation focuses on general summary quality (e.g., ROUGE, BERTScore) or specific desired properties (e.g., readability, factuality). However, these metrics fail to measure the utility of a summary to an individual user. For example, a biomedical researcher learning about the latest vaccine research will have different informational needs from a family doctor. Query-focused summarization captures part of this need, but in practice, users rarely state everything relevant in a query: a single short query is likely inadequate to distinguish the needs of a researcher from those of a physician. By contrast, a reader's background or persona (their role and expertise) is comparatively stable across queries and recovers much of this missing context, which makes it a practical signal for assessing whether a summary satisfies that reader's needs. In this work, we assess how sensitive popular summarization metrics are to both informational and persona differences, and find that many popular metrics, including strong LLM-as-judge metrics, fail basic perturbation tests of informational content. We additionally conduct an expert human evaluation, measuring summary preferences based on information satisfaction given a specific person's background and use case. We find that both traditional and LLM-based metrics are insufficient measures of information satisfaction and agree poorly with human judgment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

On the Role of Citations in Preference Data

Many NLP tasks require systems to provide attribution in their outputs--i.e. citations to grounding sources. Attribution serves as a bulwark against model hallucination and as a means for users to verify the credibility of model outputs. Yet, it is unclear how humans and LLMs evaluate citations when comparing outputs, a process central to reward modeling and modern LLM post-training. This paper studies the role of citations in the preferences of human judges and four open-source LLMs within the context of scientific question answering, leveraging mixed effects models to investigate the influence of citations on pairwise judgments. Among our key findings are (1) that humans prefer more diverse citations but fewer overall, and (2) that LLMs show some citation-related preferences compared to humans, despite lacking access to the sources, but these preferences depend on the data and specific models. We further discuss the implications of our findings for preference data collection.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can Reasoning Models Detect Changes to their Chains of Thought?

There are many reasons one may want to edit a model's chain of thought (CoT) -- e.g., to prefill it with reasoning from a stronger model or to remove steps that may yield unsafe outputs. The success of these interventions plausibly depends on a model's inability to notice them, as the model may alter its behavior if it suspects tampering. In this work, we study whether recent reasoning models are able to detect such interventions on their CoTs under a variety of conditions: both during reasoning and after it, and when prefilled both with their own CoTs and with those of other models. Broadly, we find that (i) models exhibit only very modest detection accuracy; (ii) models struggle to identify *how* their CoT was modified; and (iii) models are about as good at detecting changes to their own CoTs as to those of other models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

DoGMaTiQ: Automated Generation of Question-and-Answer Nuggets for Report Evaluation

Evaluation of long-form, citation-backed reports has lately received significant attention due to the wide-scale adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Core to many evaluation frameworks is the use of atomic facts, or nuggets, to assess a report's coverage of query-relevant information attested in the underlying collection. While nuggets have traditionally been represented as short statements, recent work has used question-answer (QA) representations, enabling fine-grained evaluations that decouple the information need (i.e. the question) from the potentially diverse content that satisfies it (i.e. its answers). A persistent challenge for nugget-based evaluation is the need to manually curate sets of nuggets for each topic in a test collection -- a laborious process that scales poorly to novel information needs. This challenge is acute in cross-lingual settings, where information is found in multilingual source documents. Accordingly, we introduce DoGMaTiQ, a pipeline for generating high-quality QA-based nugget sets in three stages: (1) document-grounded nugget generation, (2) paraphrase clustering, and (3) nugget subselection based on principled quality criteria. We integrate DoGMaTiQ nuggets with AutoArgue -- a recent nugget-based evaluation framework -- to enable fully automatic evaluation of generated reports. We conduct extensive experiments on two cross-lingual TREC shared tasks, NeuCLIR and RAGTIME, showing strong rank correlations with both human-in-the-loop and fully manual judgments. Finally, detailed analysis of our pipeline reveals that a strong LLM nugget generator is key, and that the system rankings induced by DoGMaTiQ are robust to outlier systems. We facilitate future research in report evaluation by publicly releasing our code and artifacts at https://github.com/manestay/dogmatiq.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Weird Generalization is Weirdly Brittle

Weird generalization is a phenomenon in which models fine-tuned on data from a narrow domain (e.g. insecure code) develop surprising traits that manifest even outside that domain (e.g. broad misalignment)-a phenomenon that prior work has highlighted as a critical safety concern. Here, we present an extended replication study of key weird generalization results across an expanded suite of models and datasets. We confirm that surprising (and dangerous) traits can emerge under certain circumstances, but we find that weird generalization is exceptionally brittle: it emerges only for specific models on specific datasets, and it vanishes under simple training-time, prompt-based interventions. We find that the most effective interventions provide prompt context that makes the generalized behavior the expected behavior. However, we show that even very generic interventions that do not anticipate specific generalized traits can still be effective in mitigating weird generalization's effects. Our findings thus help clarify the nature of the safety threat that weird generalization poses and point toward an easily implemented set of solutions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Auto-ARGUE: LLM-Based Report Generation Evaluation

Generation of citation-backed reports is a primary use case for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. While open-source evaluation tools exist for various RAG tasks, tools designed for report generation are lacking. Accordingly, we introduce Auto-ARGUE, a robust LLM-based implementation of the recently proposed ARGUE framework for report generation evaluation. We present analysis of Auto-ARGUE on the report generation pilot task from the TREC 2024 NeuCLIR track and on two tasks from the TREC 2024 RAG track, showing good system-level correlations with human judgments. Additionally, we release ARGUE-Viz, a web app for visualization and fine-grained analysis of Auto-ARGUE judgments and scores.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Reasoning Models Will Sometimes Lie About Their Reasoning

Hint-based faithfulness evaluations have established that Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) may not say what they think: they do not always volunteer information about how key parts of the input (e.g. answer hints) influence their reasoning. Yet, these evaluations also fail to specify what models should do when confronted with hints or other unusual prompt content -- even though versions of such instructions are standard security measures (e.g. for countering prompt injections). Here, we study faithfulness under this more realistic setting in which models are explicitly alerted to the possibility of unusual inputs. We find that such instructions can yield strong results on faithfulness metrics from prior work. However, results on new, more granular metrics proposed in this work paint a mixed picture: although models may acknowledge the presence of hints, they will often deny intending to use them -- even when permitted to use hints and even when it can be demonstrated that they are using them. Our results thus raise broader challenges for CoT monitoring and interpretability.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Incorporating Q&A Nuggets into Retrieval-Augmented Generation

RAGE systems integrate ideas from automatic evaluation (E) into Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG). As one such example, we present Crucible, a Nugget-Augmented Generation System that preserves explicit citation provenance by constructing a bank of Q&A nuggets from retrieved documents and uses them to guide extraction, selection, and report generation. Reasoning on nuggets avoids repeated information through clear and interpretable Q&A semantics - instead of opaque cluster abstractions - while maintaining citation provenance throughout the entire generation process. Evaluated on the TREC NeuCLIR 2024 collection, our Crucible system substantially outperforms Ginger, a recent nugget-based RAG system, in nugget recall, density, and citation grounding.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Insider Knowledge: How Much Can RAG Systems Gain from Evaluation Secrets?

RAG systems are increasingly evaluated and optimized using LLM judges, an approach that is rapidly becoming the dominant paradigm for system assessment. Nugget-based approaches in particular are now embedded not only in evaluation frameworks but also in the architectures of RAG systems themselves. While this integration can lead to genuine improvements, it also creates a risk of faulty measurements due to circularity. In this paper, we investigate this risk through comparative experiments with nugget-based RAG systems, including Ginger and Crucible, against strong baselines such as GPT-Researcher. By deliberately modifying Crucible to generate outputs optimized for an LLM judge, we show that near-perfect evaluation scores can be achieved when elements of the evaluation - such as prompt templates or gold nuggets - are leaked or can be predicted. Our results highlight the importance of blind evaluation settings and methodological diversity to guard against mistaking metric overfitting for genuine system progress.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

How Grounded is Wikipedia? A Study on Structured Evidential Support and Retrieval

Wikipedia is a critical resource for modern NLP, serving as a rich repository of up-to-date and citation-backed information on a wide variety of subjects. The reliability of Wikipedia -- its groundedness in its cited sources -- is vital to this purpose. This work analyzes both how grounded Wikipedia is and how readily fine-grained grounding evidence can be retrieved. To this end, we introduce PeopleProfiles -- a large-scale, multi-level dataset of claim support annotations on biographical Wikipedia articles. We show that: (1) ~22% of claims in Wikipedia lead sections are unsupported by the article body; (2) ~30% of claims in the article body are unsupported by their publicly accessible sources; and (3) real-world Wikipedia citation practices often differ from documented standards. Finally, we show that complex evidence retrieval remains a challenge -- even for recent reasoning rerankers.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Cross-Document Event-Keyed Summarization

Event-keyed summarization (EKS) requires summarizing a specific event described in a document given the document text and an event representation extracted from it. In this work, we extend EKS to the cross-document setting (CDEKS), in which summaries must synthesize information from accounts of the same event as given by multiple sources. We introduce SEAMUS (Summaries of Events Across Multiple Sources), a high-quality dataset for CDEKS based on an expert reannotation of the FAMUS dataset for cross-document argument extraction. We present a suite of baselines on SEAMUS -- covering both smaller, fine-tuned models, as well as zero- and few-shot prompted LLMs -- along with detailed ablations and a human evaluation study, showing SEAMUS to be a valuable benchmark for this new task.

cs.CL↗