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.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
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. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
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.
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.
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.