arXiv Machine Learning

Conditional Evaluation of Language Models with Cheap Auxiliary Signals

arXiv:2608. 16210v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aggregate accuracy hides where models succeed and fail.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.

By Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar, Sadid Hasan, Sulaiman Vesal
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Debiased Inference for AI-Generated Data without Gold-Standard Labels: Identification via Multiple Imperfect Measurements

The paper introduces Debiased Inference with Multiple Imperfect Measurements (DMM), a framework that uses several error‑prone AI measurements to perform valid downstream statistical inference without requiring costly gold‑standard labels. By assuming conditional independence of the measurements given the true label and unit‑level features, DMM leverages CP decomposition and semiparametric theory to prove consistency and asymptotic normality of its estimator. Simulations demonstrate that DMM yields valid inference and can improve efficiency when additional imperfect measurements are available, and the authors provide diagnostics for the key independence assumption.

By Naoki Egami, Sooahn Shin