analiza aiqbench
This research exposes a critical flaw in AI evaluation where agreement between scores and proxy labels often stems from shared surface text rather than semantic validity. By enforcing strict off-span validation contracts, the authors demonstrate that many current benchmarks fail to genuinely rank model correctness, urging the community to adopt more rigorous reporting standards for future studies.
Auditing Proxy-Based Validation Across Text Spans
arXiv:2609.25808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluation scores are often validated by their agreement with inexpensive proxy labels. When the score and the proxy are computed from the same text span, however, that agreement can arise from surface evidence the two share rather than from the semantic construct the proxy is meant to represent. We make the distinction explicit by declaring the score, its span, the proxy and the target construct as a validation contract, then re-evaluating that proxy rule strictly outside the scored span. In a controlled HotpotQA correctness experiment varying only the shared text boundary, the score agrees with its proxy far better than with correctness at a 50-character prefix: the gap is +0.184, collapsing to at most +0.045 from 120 characters onward. At that short prefix the score still predicts whether the answer string appears later (AUC 0.634) while an equivalence test places its agreement with correctness at chance, so the reported proxy agreement does not establish that the score ranks correctness. On OR-Bench, suppressing each model's recurring opening templates removes most of the score's association with the refusal proxy, while matched-volume deletion removes almost none and construct agreement stays at chance. Only three of eleven external contracts support the off-span control, and none of the routing studies we sampled released the generations it needs. We therefore ask that a proxy-based validation claim declare the span each label is read from, report the construct agreement beside the proxy agreement, and release the generations that let the proxy be re-read off the scored span.
Abstract:Evaluation scores are often validated by their agreement with inexpensive proxy labels. When the score and the proxy are computed from the same text span, however, that agreement can arise from surface evidence the two share rather than from the semantic construct the proxy is meant to represent. We make the distinction explicit by declaring the score, its span, the proxy and the target construct as a validation contract, then re-evaluating that proxy rule strictly outside the scored span. In a controlled HotpotQA correctness experiment varying only the shared text boundary, the score agrees with its proxy far better than with correctness at a 50-character prefix: the gap is +0.184, collapsing to at most +0.045 from 120 characters onward. At that short prefix the score still predicts whether the answer string appears later (AUC 0.634) while an equivalence test places its agreement with correctness at chance, so the reported proxy agreement does not establish that the score ranks correctness. On OR-Bench, suppressing each model's recurring opening templates removes most of the score's association with the refusal proxy, while matched-volume deletion removes almost none and construct agreement stays at chance. Only three of eleven external contracts support the off-span control, and none of the routing studies we sampled released the generations it needs. We therefore ask that a proxy-based validation claim declare the span each label is read from, report the construct agreement beside the proxy agreement, and release the generations that let the proxy be re-read off the scored span.
63 pages, 7 figures, 38 tables. Code: this https URL
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.25808 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.25808v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.25808 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 358 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026

What We Learned Trying to Catch AI Liars: An Aletheia's Quest Retrospective
EleutherAI · 25 aug. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026

Govern AI agent tool access with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Gateway
AWS · 21 aug. 2026