analiza aiqbench
OSCAR introduces a novel order-aware framework to calibrate AI rankings by accounting for systematic presentation effects like response position, significantly reducing error rates in aggregated LLM evaluations. By integrating judge-specific variables such as prompt length and identity, this method addresses critical biases that previously distorted pairwise comparison results across diverse datasets. This advancement is essential for improving the reliability of automated evaluation pipelines used in model development and benchmarking.
OSCAR: Order-aware Scoring and Calibration for AI Rankings
arXiv:2609.24128v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Judge-specific sensitivity is useful for aggregating pairwise LLM evaluations, but its interpretation depends on which systematic presentation effects the ranking model includes. We introduce OSCAR, an order-aware framework for scoring and calibrating AI rankings, and study position as one such effect. In released judgments from 18 evaluators, the all-response A-minus-B score difference ranges from $-63.11$ to $98.31$ percentage points. Matching question text, response texts, candidate identities, and judge within the released table gives an overall difference of $24.22$ points (95% interval $[22.90,25.54]$), conditional on the released text mapping. A controlled calculation isolates the potential consequence: with true sensitivity fixed at one, omitting a position intercept of four reduces the population-optimal slope to $0.0771$. We extend sensitivity-based ranking with judge-specific position, length, and family terms, characterize local omission-induced displacement and an identification failure, and propagate prompt-cluster uncertainty to adjusted comparisons. Across four released datasets, position provides the largest stand-alone predictive improvement. Refitting bootstrap comparisons show more selective gains from the full model over position-only adjustment. In dependent binary simulations, adjusting both the mean and covariance yields 94.4--95.2% coverage; correcting either alone is insufficient. At $N=10{,}000$, OSCAR reduces mean neutral-target RMSE from $0.1158$ under the sensitivity-only model to $0.0237$.
Abstract:Judge-specific sensitivity is useful for aggregating pairwise LLM evaluations, but its interpretation depends on which systematic presentation effects the ranking model includes. We introduce OSCAR, an order-aware framework for scoring and calibrating AI rankings, and study position as one such effect. In released judgments from 18 evaluators, the all-response A-minus-B score difference ranges from $-63.11$ to $98.31$ percentage points. Matching question text, response texts, candidate identities, and judge within the released table gives an overall difference of $24.22$ points (95% interval $[22.90,25.54]$), conditional on the released text mapping. A controlled calculation isolates the potential consequence: with true sensitivity fixed at one, omitting a position intercept of four reduces the population-optimal slope to $0.0771$. We extend sensitivity-based ranking with judge-specific position, length, and family terms, characterize local omission-induced displacement and an identification failure, and propagate prompt-cluster uncertainty to adjusted comparisons. Across four released datasets, position provides the largest stand-alone predictive improvement. Refitting bootstrap comparisons show more selective gains from the full model over position-only adjustment. In dependent binary simulations, adjusting both the mean and covariance yields 94.4--95.2% coverage; correcting either alone is insufficient. At $N=10{,}000$, OSCAR reduces mean neutral-target RMSE from $0.1158$ under the sensitivity-only model to $0.0237$.
Machine Learning (stat.ML); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Applications (stat.AP)
arXiv:2609.24128 [stat.ML]
(or arXiv:2609.24128v1 [stat.ML] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.24128 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 · 296 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026
Right Order, Wrong Scale: Auditing LLM Judges for Occupational AI Measurement
arXiv · 6 oct. 2026

Handling Imbalanced Classification: What Works Better Than SMOTE
Analytics Vidhya · 12 iul. 2026