Recommendations and Reporting Checklist for Rigorous & Transparent Human Baselines in Model Evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13776v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:08:16 GMT
• Title: Recommendations and Reporting Checklist for Rigorous & Transparent Human Baselines in Model Evaluations
• Authors: Kevin L. Wei, Patricia Paskov, Sunishchal Dev, Michael J. Byun, Anka Reuel, Xavier Roberts-Gaal, Rachel Calcott, Evie Coxon, Chinmay Deshpande,
• Abstract summary: Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations.<n>Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences.<n>We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines in foundation model evaluations.
• Score: 0.5828231493848942
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: In this position paper, we argue that human baselines in foundation model evaluations must be more rigorous and more transparent to enable meaningful comparisons of human vs. AI performance, and we provide recommendations and a reporting checklist towards this end. Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations. Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences. Based on a meta-review of the measurement theory and AI evaluation literatures, we derive a framework with recommendations for designing, executing, and reporting human baselines. We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines (studies) in foundation model evaluations and thus identify shortcomings in existing baselining methods; our checklist can also assist researchers in conducting human baselines and reporting results. We hope our work can advance more rigorous AI evaluation practices that can better serve both the research community and policymakers. Data is available at: https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines

Related papers

• From Rankings to Insights: Evaluation Should Shift Focus from Leaderboard to Feedback [36.68929551237421]
  We introduce bftextFeedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results.<n>Our project homepage and dataset are available at https://liudan193.io/Feedbacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-10T16:52:40Z)
• Maximizing Signal in Human-Model Preference Alignment [0.0]
  This paper argues that in cases in which end users need to agree with the decisions made by ML models, models should be trained and evaluated on data that represent their preferences.<n>We show that noise in labeling disagreement can be minimized by adhering to proven methodological best practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T19:10:57Z)
• Objective Metrics for Human-Subjects Evaluation in Explainable Reinforcement Learning [0.47355466227925036]
  Explanation is a fundamentally human process. Understanding the goal and audience of the explanation is vital.<n>Existing work on explainable reinforcement learning (XRL) routinely does not consult humans in their evaluations.<n>This paper calls on researchers to use objective human metrics for explanation evaluations based on observable and actionable behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T16:12:23Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs.<n> Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets.<n>We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• Learning and Evaluating Human Preferences for Conversational Head Generation [101.89332968344102]
  We propose a novel learning-based evaluation metric named Preference Score (PS) for fitting human preference according to the quantitative evaluations across different dimensions. PS can serve as a quantitative evaluation without the need for human annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T07:04:16Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
• Counterfactually Evaluating Explanations in Recommender Systems [14.938252589829673]
  We propose an offline evaluation method that can be computed without human involvement. We show that, compared to conventional methods, our method can produce evaluation scores more correlated with the real human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T18:55:29Z)
• Dynamic Human Evaluation for Relative Model Comparisons [8.843915018287476]
  We present a dynamic approach to measure the required number of human annotations when evaluating generated outputs in relative comparison settings. We propose an agent-based framework of human evaluation to assess multiple labelling strategies and methods to decide the better model in a simulation and a crowdsourcing case study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T11:32:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.