arXiv AI By Robbie Goldfarb, Andrew B. Hall, Jillian Fisher, Kathryn Salam, Matt Wilde

Distilling Expert Judgment at Scale

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper proposes a method to capture expert human judgment and reasoning for automated evaluation systems that can scale across high‑stakes domains such as healthcare, defense, finance, governance, and politics. By assembling expert networks and encoding their reasoning into structured editorial standards, the authors demonstrate that automated judges trained on these standards outperform uncalibrated frontier models on source‑quality and neutrality metrics in AI news reporting. The study validates the approach with strong inter‑annotator agreement and high F1 scores, suggesting a viable framework for expert‑calibrated evaluation in any domain where expertise is scarce.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 6

SAGE: Scalable AI Governance & Evaluation

arXiv:2602. 07840v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating relevance in large-scale search systems is fundamentally constrained by the governance gap between nuanced, resource-constrained human oversight and the high-throughput requirements of production systems.

By Benjamin Le, Xueying Lu, Nick Stern, Wenqiong Liu, Igor Lapchuk, Xiang Li, Baofen Zheng, Kevin Rosenberg, Jiewen Huang, Zhe Zhang, Abraham Cabangbang, Satej Milind Wagle, Jianqiang Shen, Raghavan Muthuregunathan, Abhinav Gupta, Mathew Teoh, Andrew Kirk, Thomas Kwan, Jingwei Wu, Wenjing Zhang
arXiv AI
Sep 7

Measuring AI Accountability Through Argumentation Analysis: Can Model Reasoning Withstand Scrutiny?

The paper proposes a new method for evaluating AI accountability by analyzing the structural quality of a model’s defense for its decisions, using a four‑phase dialectical protocol based on Walton’s argumentation schemes and Govier’s criteria. Applied to nine large language models and 200 ambiguous moral-choice items, the study finds that models generally defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum, though failures cluster on grounds and sufficiency and correlate with epistemic hedging. The protocol also reveals that models often present different argument schemes in justification than in reasoning, detects indefensible defenses, and highlights challenges in assessing retraction in AI alignment.

By Daan R. Henselmans, Derck W. E. Prinzhorn, Arno Libert