arXiv Machine Learning
How Many Humans Is a Judge Panel Worth?
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
Related stories
arXiv Machine Learning
6d ago
How Many Humans Are 32 LLM Judges Worth?
The paper investigates how many human annotators are equivalent to a panel of 32 large‑language‑model (LLM) judges. By comparing the panel’s label distributions to empirical human labels on three ChaosNLI tasks, the authors find two distinct effective panel sizes: distribution‑error matching yields effective sizes of 2.304, 3.750, and 3.445, while spectral matching gives 4.242, 6.459, and 6.499, indicating a 1.72–1.89× gap. The study also explores how spectral diversity, participation ratio, and panel composition affect effective size, and demonstrates that carefully chosen panels can outperform baseline accuracy while improving effective size.
arXiv AI
Aug 25
Rank Reversal in Multilingual LLM Judges: A Label-Free Double-Centering Calibrator
arXiv:2608.22432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual LLM judges produce different evaluator-backbone rankings depending on the prompt language: on an eight-language Agent-as-a-Judge benchma...
arXiv Computation and Language
1d ago
Pair Difficulty Matters: Rethinking Pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation and Consistency
Large Language Model judges are commonly used to rank texts via pairwise comparison, with reliability traditionally measured by position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement. This paper argues that these proxies are misleading because they are dominated by close‑rank‑gap pairs, which contribute little to the overall ranking, while far‑gap pairs carry the true ranking signal. Experiments on simulations and human‑rated corpora show weak correlation between the proxies and actual ranking accuracy, suggesting judges should be evaluated using rank‑gap‑conditional metrics against human rankings.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1
LLM Judges as Raters: A Pre-Registered Audit of Severity, Halo, Reliability, and Version Instability in LLM Essay Scoring on Public Corpora
arXiv:2608.29517v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as essay graders in learning analytics, evaluated almost exclusively with agreement statistics. Educ...
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 24
Feed the Panel Dimensions, Not Verdicts: Rubric-Decomposed Fusion of Vision-Language Aesthetic Judges
The paper investigates whether panels of vision‑language models (VLMs) can reliably judge image aesthetics. It shows that a panel of holistic judges rarely outperforms its best member, but when each model scores images on five rubric‑defined dimensions and these dimension scores are fused across model families, the panel consistently beats the best single VLM on two datasets (EVA and PARA). The study demonstrates that the value of a panel depends on the type of input it receives, and that dimension‑based fusion yields measurable gains at the cost of additional labeling and API usage.
arXiv AI
Jun 3
CoEval: Ranking Language Models for Custom Tasks Without Labeled Data or Trustworthy Benchmarks
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.