arXiv:2607. 07040v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How can we measure intelligence beyond human capability?
arXiv:2607. 26064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI systems are becoming autonomous research agents that generate hypotheses, design experiments, and produce discoveries at scales beyond human oversight.
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: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.
Claims about AI safety reach audiences well beyond the AI community, yet many rely on opaque evidence or static assessments, when supporting evidence is accessible at all. We present the Systemic Risk...
arXiv:2510. 26518v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Human feedback is critical for aligning AI systems to human values.
arXiv:2502. 20502v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have yielded powerful computational models that, by learning from vast amounts of human-generated data, are increasingly posited as approximate models of human cognition.
arXiv:2607. 26191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results.
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
The paper introduces the Systemic Risk Index, an open pipeline and dashboard that aggregates evidence from 19 public AI benchmarks into four systemic‑risk categories defined by the EU GPAI Code of Practice. It evaluates 18 models using harm‑preserving perturbations and simulated deployment contexts, offering users the ability to switch between average and worst‑case aggregation and to trace each risk rating back to its benchmark evidence. The study finds that worst‑case scores can be 14 to 37 points lower than average scores, and that LLM judges agree with human graders at a level comparable to human‑human agreement.
arXiv:2602. 14307v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly saturate new benchmarks shortly after they are published, benchmarking itself is at a juncture: if frontier models keep improving, it will become increasingly hard for humans to generate discriminative tasks, provide accurate ground-truth answers, or evaluate complex solutions.
Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results. When these signals are aggregated via averaging, evaluation confidence can then substantially exceed the reliability of the weakest signal: a phenomenon we call trust inflation in evaluation.
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.