arXiv:2607. 05046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating generative AI models is a routine, but resource-intensive, process that is conducted over and over again during the course of model development.
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.
The paper introduces prediction‑powered smoothing (PP‑S) and its taxonomy‑aware extension (PP‑TS) to improve point and interval estimates of domain‑specific AI performance when only a limited sample of labeled units is available. It also proposes a new design‑based cross‑validation score that is approximately unbiased for selecting between direct and smoothed estimators. Experiments on a curated benchmark and real‑world agent traffic show that the proposed methods outperform direct estimators in both accuracy and coverage, and that the new score matches the performance of an independent validation sample while providing more precise error estimates.
arXiv:2605. 23595v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid advancement of machine learning has led to an unprecedented expansion of model ecosystems, making it increasingly difficult to assess the reliability of newly released models on unseen and unlabeled data.
arXiv:2506. 07673v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM) evaluation is increasingly costly, prompting interest in methods that speed up evaluation by shrinking benchmark datasets.
arXiv:2410. 13341v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: High quality annotations are increasingly a bottleneck in the explosively growing machine learning ecosystem.
arXiv:2606. 24020v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A modern model release reports scores on 40+ benchmarks and the same evaluations were run many more times before it: to track training progress, compare design choices, and select the checkpoint for the release.
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...
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 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.
arXiv:2410. 12341v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI-generated content increasingly populates the web, generative AI models are at growing risk of being trained on their own outputs, a process known as AI autophagy.
arXiv:2606. 26836v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run.
arXiv:2607. 02032v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure.