analiza aiqbench
This research addresses critical challenges in modeling human and LLM evaluator preferences by relaxing restrictive linearity assumptions often found in existing frameworks. The authors propose a robust algorithm capable of learning coordinate-wise non-decreasing preference functions, theoretically guaranteeing performance even when standard models fail. Empirical results on synthetic data and real-world datasets demonstrate the method's ability to accurately capture reviewer biases, offering a pathway toward fairer peer review processes and more reliable evaluation systems in admissions and healthcare.
Learning What Evaluators Value: A Reliable Approach to Modeling Evaluator Preferences
arXiv:2605.16615v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In many applications, human and LLM evaluators use assessments of relevant criteria to create an overall evaluation for an item or individual. For example, in admissions, committees assess candidates on attributes such as test scores, GPA, and research experience to evaluate their overall fit for the program. Another example arises in medical care, where clinicians use patient reports of symptoms to consider preliminary diagnoses and assess risks. Each setting involves mapping multiple criteria to an overall evaluation---a process that reflects the evaluator's underlying preferences. We focus on the fundamental question of learning these preferences. Many applications of this problem make specific modeling assumptions on evaluator preferences that may be substantially violated in the real world. We make the minimal assumption that the preference function is coordinate-wise non-decreasing, which is reasonable in a large number of evaluation settings. We theoretically characterize the severity of model mismatch for many common assumptions and show that it can lead to significant issues for learning evaluator preferences and other important downstream tasks. We then present an algorithm for learning evaluators' preferences that is robust to model mismatch. We prove theoretically that our algorithm can learn any preference function without sacrificing performance when the linearity assumption holds. Evaluations of our algorithm with synthetic simulations and real-world data confirm its ability to learn preferences robustly and illustrate key aspects of LLM and human preferences. To conclude, we present a case study of how to use our method to provide insights into reviewer preferences and increase fairness in the peer review process.
Abstract:In many applications, human and LLM evaluators use assessments of relevant criteria to create an overall evaluation for an item or individual. For example, in admissions, committees assess candidates on attributes such as test scores, GPA, and research experience to evaluate their overall fit for the program. Another example arises in medical care, where clinicians use patient reports of symptoms to consider preliminary diagnoses and assess risks. Each setting involves mapping multiple criteria to an overall evaluation---a process that reflects the evaluator's underlying preferences. We focus on the fundamental question of learning these preferences. Many applications of this problem make specific modeling assumptions on evaluator preferences that may be substantially violated in the real world. We make the minimal assumption that the preference function is coordinate-wise non-decreasing, which is reasonable in a large number of evaluation settings. We theoretically characterize the severity of model mismatch for many common assumptions and show that it can lead to significant issues for learning evaluator preferences and other important downstream tasks. We then present an algorithm for learning evaluators' preferences that is robust to model mismatch. We prove theoretically that our algorithm can learn any preference function without sacrificing performance when the linearity assumption holds. Evaluations of our algorithm with synthetic simulations and real-world data confirm its ability to learn preferences robustly and illustrate key aspects of LLM and human preferences. To conclude, we present a case study of how to use our method to provide insights into reviewer preferences and increase fairness in the peer review process.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2605.16615 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2605.16615v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.16615 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 346 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Amazon Research Awards recipients announced
Amazon Science · 27 mai 2026

34 Amazon Research Awards Build on Trainium recipients announced
Amazon Science · 5 aug. 2026
Amazon is investing in the Lean Focused Research Organization
Amazon Science · 26 iul. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026