arXiv AI By Lining Hu, Ting Liu, Yuzhuo Fu

Pooled Leaderboards Hide System-Specific Winners: A Reporting-Protocol Audit of Offline Root-Cause Analysis Benchmarks

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 29159v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Offline root-cause-analysis (RCA) benchmarks commonly rank methods by a single pooled top-1 accuracy across multiple subsystems, and engineers often read the pooled winner as a recommendation for their own subsystem.

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 Machine Learning
4d ago

Frozen Judges, Moving Agents: Version-Dependent LLM-Judge Error and the Limits of Judge-Assisted Agent Evaluation

The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.

By Jiapeng Li
arXiv AI
Sep 25

How Reproducible Are Evaluation Conclusions? A Self-Audit of LLM-Inferred Prompt Structure

The paper investigates the reliability of ranking tables produced by small-sample evaluations of large language models (LLMs). Using LLM‑inferred prompt structure across eight model variants, the authors find that prompt‑structure recovery is highly unstable, with only the bottom of the ranking consistently reproducible. They demonstrate that standard evaluation practices can misrepresent model performance and propose reporting practices to improve transparency.

By Dipankar Sarkar
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Counterfactual Tool Ranking under Utility, Cost, and Privilege Constraints

The paper introduces a counterfactual tool ranking framework that accounts for authority, historical support, and estimation nuances. Using eleven enterprise-inspired tools, synthetic and real-world experiments on the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard, the study compares direct regression and doubly robust (DR) methods, finding that DR performs better in shifted environments while direct regression excels in linear settings. The authors also evaluate Qwen2.5 models on held-out tasks, analyze policy differences under missing support, and present a falsifiable evaluation method with publicly available evidence.

By Jiapeng Li