arXiv AI

Does Capability Transfer to Subjective Behavior -- and Would Our Instruments Tell Us? A Self-Evolving, Trust-by-Construction Evaluation Paradigm

arXiv:2605. 27914v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Benchmarking is mature where answers are verifiable -- math, code, reasoning -- but the fastest-growing uses of LLMs are subjective and human-facing: companionship, emotional support, counseling.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents

GAUGE is a new offline protocol that evaluates whether the common practice of using an LLM-as-a-judge to rank task‑oriented agents actually aligns with a verifiable reward. Across 25 agents from six providers on two benchmarks, GAUGE finds that user satisfaction scores are largely uncorrelated with task success, and that the judge’s ranking loses precision when agents are closely matched in performance. The study highlights a gap between ranking validity and construct validity in current evaluation practices.

By Umesh Bodhwani, Thanh Tran, Kai Wei
arXiv AI
Sep 24

Ask Which, Not How Good: Sizing Benchmarks Scored by an LLM

The study analyzes 373,019 judgments from LLM‑scored benchmarks, decomposing variance into system, item, judge, and interaction components via generalizability theory. It finds that with a single judge, generalizability converges to a ceiling determined by the system‑by‑judge variance, which is substantially lower in pairwise preference settings, allowing one judge to suffice. The research also reveals significant biases in presentation order and highlights that many published win‑rate claims fall below the measured floor of the benchmarks.

By Atul Anand
arXiv AI
Aug 26

How much of a measured AI preference is the model, and how much is the instrument?

The paper investigates how much of an AI model’s expressed preferences are due to the model itself versus the instrument (prompt) used to elicit those preferences. By fixing the set of outcomes and models while varying five different prompting instruments across 15 welfare-related outcomes, the study finds that the ranking of outcomes is only moderately generalizable (coefficient 0.348) and that a single instrument’s preference provides little insight into another instrument’s results. The analysis shows that even after removing any single instrument, model, or a subset of outcomes, the overall preference estimate remains robust, yet the variability across instruments remains significant.

By Jason Hung
arXiv AI
Aug 17

Inducing Reward-Free Judging Rubrics that Reduce Over-Crediting in Agent Evaluation

arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.

By Darragh Quinn, David Dylan, Roisin Healy, Fionn Carroll, Maeve Donnelly, Cormac Sheehan