aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the limitations of residualization techniques used to correct evaluation scores in large language models, finding that removing surface-level formatting artifacts can inadvertently degrade alignment with actual task quality when features are entangled. The authors propose a reporting protocol that treats adjusted scores as diagnostic audit tools rather than replacements for raw metrics, emphasizing the need to transparently report the construct-alignment costs incurred by such adjustments.
When Residualization Helps an Audit: Format Effects, Slice Gains, and Their Limits
arXiv:2609.24194v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluation scores used around LLM systems -- including reward models, rerankers, and LLM judges -- can track surface form instead of the quality they claim to measure. When presented with a terse correct solution and a commented buggy solution for the same MBPP problem, a public preference reward model selects the correct one no better than a coin flip (0.507). Subtracting the predictable surface component from such scores is increasingly common, but removal alone does not yield a more valid measurement: the removed component may carry construct-relevant signal, and residualization cannot tell which is which. Under designed interventions -- unit-test labels with comment-only edits -- residualization attenuates the reward model's format effects by about 0.12 on both correct and buggy code, while the correct-versus-buggy margins move by less than 0.01. In observational NLI and QA settings, we freeze a held-out replication before scoring and re-evaluate it using labels from disjoint annotators; this supports only a narrower conclusion: better agreement with the construct labels on a pre-declared slice where a surface-only predictor errs, not a repaired score. Full-population agreement falls in every observational setting with a reported positive slice gain, and within-question ranking falls in every such QA setting. When construct and surface features are entangled, residualization can decorrelate a score while degrading construct alignment, and, in a controlled model, configurations just as damaging to construct alignment pass every pre-adjustment check, so no committed gate is a guarantee. We assemble these distinctions into a reporting protocol whose outcomes, refusal included, state what an adjusted score may be claimed to show: an audit-time diagnostic reported beside the construct-alignment cost it incurs, never a replacement for the raw score.
Abstract:Evaluation scores used around LLM systems -- including reward models, rerankers, and LLM judges -- can track surface form instead of the quality they claim to measure. When presented with a terse correct solution and a commented buggy solution for the same MBPP problem, a public preference reward model selects the correct one no better than a coin flip (0.507). Subtracting the predictable surface component from such scores is increasingly common, but removal alone does not yield a more valid measurement: the removed component may carry construct-relevant signal, and residualization cannot tell which is which. Under designed interventions -- unit-test labels with comment-only edits -- residualization attenuates the reward model's format effects by about 0.12 on both correct and buggy code, while the correct-versus-buggy margins move by less than 0.01. In observational NLI and QA settings, we freeze a held-out replication before scoring and re-evaluate it using labels from disjoint annotators; this supports only a narrower conclusion: better agreement with the construct labels on a pre-declared slice where a surface-only predictor errs, not a repaired score. Full-population agreement falls in every observational setting with a reported positive slice gain, and within-question ranking falls in every such QA setting. When construct and surface features are entangled, residualization can decorrelate a score while degrading construct alignment, and, in a controlled model, configurations just as damaging to construct alignment pass every pre-adjustment check, so no committed gate is a guarantee. We assemble these distinctions into a reporting protocol whose outcomes, refusal included, state what an adjusted score may be claimed to show: an audit-time diagnostic reported beside the construct-alignment cost it incurs, never a replacement for the raw score.
61 pages, 4 figures, 40 tables. Code: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.24194 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.24194v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.24194 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 381 words
