Lost in Translation: Do LVLM Judges Generalize Across Languages?

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric benchmarks, leaving open the question of how well these evaluators generalize across languages. To answer this question, we introduce MM-JudgeBench, the first large-scale benchmark for multilingual and multimodal judge model evaluation, which includes over 60K pairwise preference instances spanning 25 typologically diverse languages. MM-JudgeBench integrates two complementary subsets: a general vision-language preference evaluation subset extending VL-RewardBench, and a chart-centric visual-text reasoning subset derived from OpenCQA, enabling systematic analysis of reward models (i.e., LVLM judges) across diverse settings. We additionally release a multilingual training set derived from MM-RewardBench, disjoint from our evaluation data, to support domain adaptation. By evaluating 22 LVLMs (15 open-source, 7 proprietary), we uncover substantial cross-lingual performance variance in our proposed benchmark. Our analysis further shows that model size and architecture are poor predictors of multilingual robustness, and that even state-of-the-art LVLM judges exhibit inconsistent behavior across languages. Together, these findings expose fundamental limitations of current reward modeling and underscore the necessity of multilingual, multimodal benchmarks for developing reliable automated evaluators.

Assessing the Quality of Mental Health Support in LLM Responses through Multi-Attribute Human Evaluation

The escalating global mental health crisis, marked by persistent treatment gaps, availability, and a shortage of qualified therapists, positions Large Language Models (LLMs) as a promising avenue for scalable support. While LLMs offer potential for accessible emotional assistance, their reliability, therapeutic relevance, and alignment with human standards remain challenging to address. This paper introduces a human-grounded evaluation methodology designed to assess LLM generated responses in therapeutic dialogue. Our approach involved curating a dataset of 500 mental health conversations from datasets with real-world scenario questions and evaluating the responses generated by nine diverse LLMs, including closed source and open source models. More specifically, these responses were evaluated by two psychiatric trained experts, who independently rated each on a 5 point Likert scale across a comprehensive 6 attribute rubric. This rubric captures Cognitive Support and Affective Resonance, providing a multidimensional perspective on therapeutic quality. Our analysis reveals that LLMs provide strong cognitive reliability by producing safe, coherent, and clinically appropriate information, but they demonstrate unstable affective alignment. Although closed source models (e.g., GPT-4o) offer balanced therapeutic responses, open source models show greater variability and emotional flatness. We reveal a persistent cognitive-affective gap and highlight the need for failure aware, clinically grounded evaluation frameworks that prioritize relational sensitivity alongside informational accuracy in mental health oriented LLMs. We advocate for balanced evaluation protocols with human in the loop that center on therapeutic sensitivity and provide a framework to guide the responsible design and clinical oversight of mental health oriented conversational AI.

Stop Taking Tokenizers for Granted: They Are Core Design Decisions in Large Language Models

Tokenization underlies every large language model, yet it remains an under-theorized and inconsistently designed component. Common subword approaches such as Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) offer scalability but often misalign with linguistic structure, amplify bias, and waste capacity across languages and domains. This paper reframes tokenization as a core modeling decision rather than a preprocessing step. We argue for a context-aware framework that integrates tokenizer and model co-design, guided by linguistic, domain, and deployment considerations. Standardized evaluation and transparent reporting are essential to make tokenization choices accountable and comparable. Treating tokenization as a core design problem, not a technical afterthought, can yield language technologies that are fairer, more efficient, and more adaptable.

Aligning Text, Code, and Vision: A Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning Framework for Text-to-Visualization

Text-to-Visualization (Text2Vis) systems translate natural language queries over tabular data into concise answers and executable visualizations. While closed-source LLMs generate functional code, the resulting charts often lack semantic alignment and clarity, qualities that can only be assessed post-execution. Open-source models struggle even more, frequently producing non-executable or visually poor outputs. Although supervised fine-tuning can improve code executability, it fails to enhance overall visualization quality, as traditional SFT loss cannot capture post-execution feedback. To address this gap, we propose RL-Text2Vis, the first reinforcement learning framework for Text2Vis generation. Built on Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), our method uses a novel multi-objective reward that jointly optimizes textual accuracy, code validity, and visualization quality using post-execution feedback. By training Qwen2.5 models (7B and 14B), RL-Text2Vis achieves a 22% relative improvement in chart quality over GPT-4o on the Text2Vis benchmark and boosts code execution success from 78% to 97% relative to its zero-shot baseline. Our models significantly outperform strong zero-shot and supervised baselines and also demonstrate robust generalization to out-of-domain datasets like VIS-Eval and NVBench. These results establish GRPO as an effective strategy for structured, multimodal reasoning in visualization generation. We release our code at https://github.com/vis-nlp/RL-Text2Vis.

When Can We Trust LLMs in Mental Health? Large-Scale Benchmarks for Reliable LLM Evaluation

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

Evolution of ReID: From Early Methods to LLM Integration

Person re-identification (ReID) has evolved from handcrafted feature-based methods to deep learning approaches and, more recently, to models incorporating large language models (LLMs). Early methods struggled with variations in lighting, pose, and viewpoint, but deep learning addressed these issues by learning robust visual features. Building on this, LLMs now enable ReID systems to integrate semantic and contextual information through natural language. This survey traces that full evolution and offers one of the first comprehensive reviews of ReID approaches that leverage LLMs, where textual descriptions are used as privileged information to improve visual matching. A key contribution is the use of dynamic, identity-specific prompts generated by GPT-4o, which enhance the alignment between images and text in vision-language ReID systems. Experimental results show that these descriptions improve accuracy, especially in complex or ambiguous cases. To support further research, we release a large set of GPT-4o-generated descriptions for standard ReID datasets. By bridging computer vision and natural language processing, this survey offers a unified perspective on the field's development and outlines key future directions such as better prompt design, cross-modal transfer learning, and real-world adaptability.

Judging the Judges: Can Large Vision-Language Models Fairly Evaluate Chart Comprehension and Reasoning?

Charts are ubiquitous as they help people understand and reason with data. Recently, various downstream tasks, such as chart question answering, chart2text, and fact-checking, have emerged. Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) show promise in tackling these tasks, but their evaluation is costly and time-consuming, limiting real-world deployment. While using LVLMs as judges to assess the chart comprehension capabilities of other LVLMs could streamline evaluation processes, challenges like proprietary datasets, restricted access to powerful models, and evaluation costs hinder their adoption in industrial settings. To this end, we present a comprehensive evaluation of 13 open-source LVLMs as judges for diverse chart comprehension and reasoning tasks. We design both pairwise and pointwise evaluation tasks covering criteria like factual correctness, informativeness, and relevancy. Additionally, we analyze LVLM judges based on format adherence, positional consistency, length bias, and instruction-following. We focus on cost-effective LVLMs (<10B parameters) suitable for both research and commercial use, following a standardized evaluation protocol and rubric to measure the LVLM judge's accuracy. Experimental results reveal notable variability: while some open LVLM judges achieve GPT-4-level evaluation performance (about 80% agreement with GPT-4 judgments), others struggle (below ~10% agreement). Our findings highlight that state-of-the-art open-source LVLMs can serve as cost-effective automatic evaluators for chart-related tasks, though biases such as positional preference and length bias persist.

ChartQAPro: A More Diverse and Challenging Benchmark for Chart Question Answering

Charts are ubiquitous, as people often use them to analyze data, answer questions, and discover critical insights. However, performing complex analytical tasks with charts requires significant perceptual and cognitive effort. Chart Question Answering (CQA) systems automate this process by enabling models to interpret and reason with visual representations of data. However, existing benchmarks like ChartQA lack real-world diversity and have recently shown performance saturation with modern large vision-language models (LVLMs). To address these limitations, we introduce ChartQAPro, a new benchmark that includes 1,341 charts from 157 diverse sources, spanning various chart types, including infographics and dashboards, and featuring 1,948 questions in various types, such as multiple-choice, conversational, hypothetical, and unanswerable questions, to better reflect real-world challenges. Our evaluations with 21 models show a substantial performance drop for LVLMs on ChartQAPro; e.g., Claude Sonnet 3.5 scores 90.5% on ChartQA but only 55.81% on ChartQAPro, underscoring the complexity of chart reasoning. We complement our findings with detailed error analyses and ablation studies, identifying key challenges and opportunities for advancing LVLMs in chart understanding and reasoning. We release ChartQAPro at https://github.com/vis-nlp/ChartQAPro.

DataNarrative: Automated Data-Driven Storytelling with Visualizations and Texts

Data-driven storytelling is a powerful method for conveying insights by combining narrative techniques with visualizations and text. These stories integrate visual aids, such as highlighted bars and lines in charts, along with textual annotations explaining insights. However, creating such stories requires a deep understanding of the data and meticulous narrative planning, often necessitating human intervention, which can be time-consuming and mentally taxing. While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various NLP tasks, their ability to generate coherent and comprehensive data stories remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce a novel task for data story generation and a benchmark containing 1,449 stories from diverse sources. To address the challenges of crafting coherent data stories, we propose a multiagent framework employing two LLM agents designed to replicate the human storytelling process: one for understanding and describing the data (Reflection), generating the outline, and narration, and another for verification at each intermediary step. While our agentic framework generally outperforms non-agentic counterparts in both model-based and human evaluations, the results also reveal unique challenges in data story generation.

A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendations

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained significant attention due to their remarkable capabilities in performing diverse tasks across various domains. However, a thorough evaluation of these models is crucial before deploying them in real-world applications to ensure they produce reliable performance. Despite the well-established importance of evaluating LLMs in the community, the complexity of the evaluation process has led to varied evaluation setups, causing inconsistencies in findings and interpretations. To address this, we systematically review the primary challenges and limitations causing these inconsistencies and unreliable evaluations in various steps of LLM evaluation. Based on our critical review, we present our perspectives and recommendations to ensure LLM evaluations are reproducible, reliable, and robust.