The paper proposes a calibration-first framework that generates supervision scores without ground-truth labels or a shared annotation space. It aligns subset-specific scorers by mapping them onto a synthetic ordinal reference space built from ordered calibration features, enabling the fusion of otherwise incomparable outputs. Experiments on three benchmark datasets show that this method consistently outperforms uncalibrated averaging and matches or exceeds the best individual scorer, with significant improvements after Bonferroni correction.
arXiv:2609.38705v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Foundation models for computational pathology are usually evaluated using AUC and accuracy, while calibration is often left untested. This matters beca...
The paper introduces a label‑free method called AURCC for selecting the best foundational model for medical image classification when the target domain lacks labels. AURCC uses a pseudo‑label discrepancy computed by the SUDO framework to score models without fine‑tuning. Experiments on chest X‑ray data across three inter‑hospital shifts show that AURCC closely matches the true model ranking, outperforming simple source‑accuracy baselines especially when source data are limited.
AlphaRAD introduces a grounded zero‑shot classification framework for chest radiology that leverages structured medical concepts extracted from reports and a novel α‑Corrected Binary Cross‑Entropy loss to reduce in‑batch noise. It also presents FLaS, a lightweight cross‑modal fusion module that factorizes VLPM representations into independent subspaces, improving spatial grounding without adding parameters. The method achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on 16 classification benchmarks and sets new records on several grounding, phrase‑grounding, and segmentation datasets.
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:2609.26468v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A key factor in deciding whether to trust an automatic prediction is its confidence score, which should be calibrated to match the actual probability o...
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.
The paper introduces NAPHA, a lightweight post‑hoc alignment method that improves large language model (LLM) predictions of human judgment distributions (HJD) by matching LLM output distributions to HJD through entropy‑based class assignment and specialized alignment models. Experiments on five datasets show that while LLMs perform near human‑level on hard‑label tasks, they struggle with soft‑label predictions, and NAPHA consistently enhances soft‑label accuracy, especially on high‑entropy instances. The study also demonstrates that better entropy class prediction can further boost NAPHA’s effectiveness.
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.
arXiv:2606. 15029v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges are used to reduce the need for costly human labor in evaluating open-ended text generation.
arXiv:2511. 21140v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators.
arXiv:2408.07988v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Despite significant research efforts and advancements, cancer remains a leading cause of mortality. Early cancer prediction has become a crucial fo...
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.