analiza aiqbench
This paper presents a rigorous audit of language model judge panels, quantifying their effective size relative to human judgments through distinct spectral diversity and distributional error metrics. The findings reveal that high spectral diversity does not guarantee better distribution recovery, challenging the assumption that these measures are interchangeable for evaluating panel quality. For researchers building evaluation benchmarks, this work provides essential protocols for auditing model consensus and understanding the specific limitations of automated judges in complex tasks like ChaosNLI.
How Many Humans Is a Judge Panel Worth?
arXiv:2609.21277v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How many human judgments does a panel of language models represent? The answer depends on what is matched. We audit categorical judge panels against empirical human label distributions, retaining disagreement that binary errors relative to one gold label collapse. We measure spectral residual diversity by matching the participation ratio of a normalized residual Gram matrix to conditionally independent human-reference draws, giving nu_H. We separately match distributional squared error, giving nu_MSE. Across three ChaosNLI tasks, the same 32-judge panels have nu_H=4.24--6.50 but nu_MSE=2.30--3.75. A spectral identity separates the eigenvalues, member energies, and averaging-direction weights that determine error. Realizable hard-label panels show that greater spectral diversity can accompany worse distribution recovery even with equal member energies and nonnegative correlations. In the observed panels, within-size ranking agreement varies sharply by task; some member additions produce conflicting changes that persist across two item halves. The consensus-direction share of centered residual variance is gamma_co=43.8% on MNLI-m and 33.7% on SNLI, quantifying shared variation retained by averaging. We provide aligned votes and analysis protocols for auditing these distinctions. Effective size is therefore a target-specific measurement: spectral diversity and distribution recovery should not be treated as interchangeable measures of panel quality or as general human-replacement rates.
Title:How Many Humans Is a Judge Panel Worth?
Abstract:How many human judgments does a panel of language models represent? The answer depends on what is matched. We audit categorical judge panels against empirical human label distributions, retaining disagreement that binary errors relative to one gold label collapse. We measure spectral residual diversity by matching the participation ratio of a normalized residual Gram matrix to conditionally independent human-reference draws, giving nu_H. We separately match distributional squared error, giving nu_MSE. Across three ChaosNLI tasks, the same 32-judge panels have nu_H=4.24--6.50 but nu_MSE=2.30--3.75. A spectral identity separates the eigenvalues, member energies, and averaging-direction weights that determine error. Realizable hard-label panels show that greater spectral diversity can accompany worse distribution recovery even with equal member energies and nonnegative correlations. In the observed panels, within-size ranking agreement varies sharply by task; some member additions produce conflicting changes that persist across two item halves. The consensus-direction share of centered residual variance is gamma_co=43.8% on MNLI-m and 33.7% on SNLI, quantifying shared variation retained by averaging. We provide aligned votes and analysis protocols for auditing these distinctions. Effective size is therefore a target-specific measurement: spectral diversity and distribution recovery should not be treated as interchangeable measures of panel quality or as general human-replacement rates.
18 pages, 10 figures, and 8 tables. Code and data: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.21277 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.21277v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.21277 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 · 318 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · 21 iul. 2026
Does preservation make sense before we know how to revive?
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026
On Slop
LessWrong · 9 iun. 2026