The paper introduces a framework for hypothesis testing that combines inexpensive AI judgments with selective human verification to control type‑I and type‑II errors while minimizing cost. It derives an information‑theoretic lower bound on the minimum cost and proposes the SCALE policy, a sequential, cost‑aware strategy that adapts AI scoring and human escalation. SCALE is proven valid for finite samples and asymptotically matches the lower bound, achieving significant savings when both AI and human inputs are valuable.
arXiv:2607. 16239v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI judges offer a scalable, low-cost alternative to human evaluation, but their outputs can be biased relative to human preferences and highly item-dependent, varying across judges, tasks, and domains.
arXiv:2609.38860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Learning from human preferences is central to large language model (LLM) alignment, but human preference annotation is costly. Active preference lear...
The paper investigates how AI systems that perform best‑of‑n search require different validation strategies as the search width changes. It shows that auditing only small search widths leaves a gap in reliability estimates for larger widths, and proposes retaining candidate ranks and truth labels to estimate reliability across all widths up to N. The authors derive theoretical bounds on the minimax mean‑squared error, design procedures that achieve these bounds, and demonstrate that a shared audit can significantly reduce maximum error across many widths in practical CodeRM pools.
arXiv:2606. 12587v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Traditionally, decision support studies how humans use machine learning models to make better decisions.
arXiv:2605. 17609v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Many inference-time language-model pipelines combine a cheap reward signal with an expensive verifier, such as exact answer checking in mathematical reasoning or hidden-test execution in code generation.
arXiv:2603. 27049v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-assisted task delegation is increasingly common, yet human effort in such systems is costly and typically unobserved.
arXiv:2509. 17314v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Software increasingly relies on the emergent capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), from natural language understanding to program analysis and generation.
arXiv:2605. 02122v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Human evaluation remains the primary standard for assessing modern AI systems, yet annotator disagreement, bias, and variability make system rankings fragile under standard majority vote aggregation.
arXiv:2604. 17267v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models can generate synthetic survey responses at low cost, but their accuracy varies unpredictably across questions.
The paper introduces a risk‑controlled framework for using large language models (LLMs) as judges in tasks without reference answers. By calibrating uncertainty thresholds on a held‑out set, the method ensures that the false discovery rate of accepted verdicts stays below a user‑specified level α with high probability, using finite‑sample Clopper–Pearson intervals. When the parametric judge lacks confidence, the instance is routed to a retrieval‑augmented mode with a second calibrated threshold, preserving the error guarantee while achieving higher coverage than single‑mode baselines.
arXiv:2609.35815v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers across academia increasingly base significance claims on LLM judge scores and small-sample AI evaluations. Yet without well-calibrated co...
The paper presents a new scaling law for reward optimization in AI alignment, showing that performance scales as Θ(√min{log(M), K}), where M is the number of preference comparisons used to train a proxy reward model and K is the KL‑divergence budget relative to a reference policy. The authors derive this law using an information‑theoretic model, prove its tightness, and validate it with extensive experiments involving a 70B gold reward model and smaller proxy models (0.6B–4B). The empirical results demonstrate a strong fit (R² 97–99 %) across different model sizes, noise levels, and optimization methods, suggesting that reward optimization behaves like a simple selection task over IID Gaussian variables with noisy feedback.