arXiv AI By Prajjwal Gupta, Prasang Gupta, Vishal Bhutani, Apoorva Sharma, Sumanth Chundru, Waqar Sarguroh, Kevin Paul

Litmus: Zero-Label, Code-Driven Metric Specification for Evaluating AI Systems

Read the original on arXiv AI →

Litmus is a zero-label system that automatically designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines by extracting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation. It identifies what must be measured and why, then generates a justified, per-stage metric portfolio. In experiments on three real code-defined pipelines, Litmus outperforms AutoMetrics and DynamicRubric baselines in concern coverage, stage span, redundancy, and validity against per-row quality labels, especially on scientific QA.

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
4d ago

Benchmarking Code LLM-as-a-Judge via Constrained Perturbation and Calibration

The paper introduces AXIOM, a perturbation-based framework for creating a balanced benchmark of code evaluation problems. AXIOM refines program quality by applying controlled semantic perturbations and then calibrates scores through selective manual annotation, resulting in the multilingual AXIOMBENCH dataset with 1,962 problems. This approach addresses limitations of prior benchmarks that rely on coarse binary labels or subjective human scoring.

By Ruiqi Wang, Xinchen Wang, Cuiyun Gao, Chun Yong Chong, Xin Xia, Qing Liao
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25

An Empirical Study of Automating Agent Evaluation

The paper presents EvalAgent, an AI assistant that automates agent evaluation by encoding domain expertise into evaluation skills such as procedural instructions, reusable code, and dynamic API retrieval. EvalAgent constructs a trace-based pipeline that outputs metrics, executable code, and reports, and is evaluated using a new meta-evaluation framework and AgentEvalBench. Results show that EvalAgent improves the Eval@1 metric from 17.5% to 65% and receives 79.5% human expert preference, while ablation studies confirm the importance of evaluation skills.

By Kang Zhou, Sangmin Woo, Haibo Ding, Kiran Ramnath, Subramanian Chidambaram, Aosong Feng, Vinayak Arannil, Muhyun Kim, Ishan Singh, Darren Wang, Zhichao Xu, Megha Gandhi, Nirmal Prabhu, Soumya Smruti Mishra, Smeet Dhakecha, Vivek Singh, Gouri Pandeshwar, Lin Lee Cheong
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 15

The geometry of AI validation: From structural blindness to reusable audits

The paper investigates how AI systems that perform best‑of‑n search require different validation strategies as the search width changes. It shows that auditing only small search widths leaves a gap in reliability estimates for larger widths, and proposes retaining candidate ranks and truth labels to estimate reliability across all widths up to N. The authors derive theoretical bounds on the minimax mean‑squared error, design procedures that achieve these bounds, and demonstrate that a shared audit can significantly reduce maximum error across many widths in practical CodeRM pools.

By Ricardo Fitas
arXiv AI
1d ago

EvalResearchBench: Can AI Agents Build Their Own Feedback for Recursive Self-Improvement?

EvalResearchBench (ERB) is a benchmark that tests whether AI agents can autonomously design evaluation tasks for recursive self‑improvement. In ERB, a researcher agent selects or synthesizes tasks, builds graders, and refines them through pilot tests before producing a final evaluator that runs within fixed time and API budgets. Experiments with nine researchers and thirteen candidate models show that the best automated evaluators achieve about 75% concordance with target benchmarks, below the 91% ceiling set by target disagreements, and that human‑designed task samples still outperform many automated approaches.

By Yaolun Zhang, Tianyi Xu, Yujie Zhao, Jishen Zhao, Qingyun Wu, Huazheng Wang