arXiv:2607. 26191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results. When these signals are aggregated via averaging, evaluation confidence can then substantially exceed the reliability of the weakest signal: a phenomenon we call trust inflation in evaluation.
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.
arXiv:2608. 17183v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Small Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly deployed in resource-constrained, privacy-sensitive settings, where safety and bias failures can cause security and societal risks.
arXiv:2606. 07897v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user.
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. 07897v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user.