Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research addresses the reproducibility crisis in generative AI by proposing a multi-level bootstrapping method to model human annotator variance during evaluation. By leveraging persistent rater identifiers, the study quantifies the tradeoffs between dataset size and annotation count needed for statistically significant results without relying on small sample biases. This work is critical for establishing robust safety benchmarks as LLMs become more pervasive in real-world applications.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Improving Reproducibility in Evaluation through Multi-Level Annotator Modeling

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2605.13801v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As generative AI models such as large language models (LLMs) become more pervasive, ensuring the safety, robustness, and overall trustworthiness of these systems is paramount. However, AI is currently facing a reproducibility crisis driven by unreliable evaluations and unrepeatable experimental results. While human raters are often used to assess models for utility and safety, they introduce divergent biases and subjective opinions into their annotations. Overcoming this variance is exceptionally challenging because very little data exists to study how experimental repeatability actually improves as the annotator pool grows. Standard evaluation practices typically rely on a small number of annotations per item (often 3 to 5) and lack the persistent rater identifiers necessary to model individual variance across items. In this work, we introduce a multi-level bootstrapping approach to model annotator behavior realistically. Leveraging datasets with a large number of ratings and persistent rater identifiers, we analyze the tradeoffs between the number of items ($N$) and the number of responses per item ($K$) required to achieve statistical significance.

Abstract:As generative AI models such as large language models (LLMs) become more pervasive, ensuring the safety, robustness, and overall trustworthiness of these systems is paramount. However, AI is currently facing a reproducibility crisis driven by unreliable evaluations and unrepeatable experimental results. While human raters are often used to assess models for utility and safety, they introduce divergent biases and subjective opinions into their annotations. Overcoming this variance is exceptionally challenging because very little data exists to study how experimental repeatability actually improves as the annotator pool grows. Standard evaluation practices typically rely on a small number of annotations per item (often 3 to 5) and lack the persistent rater identifiers necessary to model individual variance across items. In this work, we introduce a multi-level bootstrapping approach to model annotator behavior realistically. Leveraging datasets with a large number of ratings and persistent rater identifiers, we analyze the tradeoffs between the number of items ($N$) and the number of responses per item ($K$) required to achieve statistical significance.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2605.13801 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2605.13801v2 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.13801 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 261 words

Related coverage