The paper introduces prediction‑powered evaluation, a framework that blends limited human judgments with large‑scale automatic scores to produce unbiased, data‑efficient system comparisons. It offers both parametric and non‑parametric methods, examines the trade‑off between paired and unpaired designs, and validates the approach on six WMT datasets. Additionally, the authors propose the Prediction‑Powered Saving Ratio (PPSR), a meta‑metric that quantifies how much human annotation can be saved by using an automatic metric within this framework, providing more discriminative and stable metric rankings than existing system‑level meta‑metrics.
By Mingqi Gao, Anthony Sicilia, Weiyan Shi
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.
By Dae Woong (David), Ham, Xuejun Zhao, Stefanus Jasin, Fenghua Yang
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
By Zejun Xie, Xintong Li, Guang Wang, Desheng Zhang
Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features.
arXiv:2606. 26429v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current LLM evaluation relies on two complementary but often disconnected signals: static benchmarks with objective correctness labels and arena-style preference data that better reflect open-ended user interactions.
By Aaron J. Li, Hao Huang, Youngmin Park, Yitong Ma, Wei-Lin Chiang, Li Chen, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Bin Yu, Ion Stoica
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.
By Akash Bonagiri, Gerard Janno Anderias, Saee Patil, Angelina Lai, Devang Borkar, Gezheng Kang, Ishant Gandhi, Setareh Rafatirad, Houman Homayoun
arXiv:2606. 29784v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reliable generative AI models critically rely on expert human annotations to evaluate output quality, yet these "gold" labels are expensive to collect and limited in quantity.
By Xinrui Ruan, Zhenyu Zhao, Waverly Wei, Yueshan Zhang, Zeyu Zheng, Sui Huang, Jingshen Wang
arXiv:2604. 14575v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Marketing research often relies on parameters estimated from costly human-generated data, such as conjoint survey responses, purchase decisions, and field experiment outcomes.
By Cheng Lu, Mengxin Wang, Dennis J. Zhang, Heng Zhang
arXiv:2607. 15190v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models, particularly item response theory (IRT), to estimate model capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality.
By Han Jiang, Sunbeom Kwon, Jinwen Luo, Ziang Xiao, Susu Zhang
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:2605. 28882v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important.
By Yihang Lin, Yunze Gao, Zeyang Lin, Dongbo Li, Kun Peng, Yue Liu
arXiv:2605. 13801v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI models such as large language models (LLMs) become more pervasive, ensuring the safety, robustness, and overall trustworthiness of these systems is paramount.
By Deepak Pandita, Flip Korn, Chris Welty, Christopher M. Homan