Position: Evaluation Scores Are Perishable Knowledge Claims

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26191v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:50:39 GMT
• Title: Position: Evaluation Scores Are Perishable Knowledge Claims
• Abstract summary: We argue that evaluation scores should be treated as claims with three properties: formality, scope, and validity windows.<n>We illustrate the cost of mean aggregation on the public HELM leaderboard.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results. When these signals are aggregated via averaging, evaluation confidence can then substantially exceed the reliability of the weakest signal: a phenomenon we call trust inflation in evaluation. We argue that evaluation scores should be treated as epistemic claims with three properties: formality (human evaluation provides stronger evidence than an automated metric), scope (a benchmark result applies to the tested distribution, not universally), and validity windows (benchmark results expire as contamination accumulates and distributions shift). Several converging research traditions (chain-of-thought analysis, possibilistic logic, and algebraic theory) establish weakest-link aggregation as the conservative endpoint of a parameterized operator family controlled by a single pessimism parameter. Drawing on those traditions, and on concrete lessons from building an evaluation harness for agentic AI, we propose that evaluation results carry explicit metadata (formality tier, scope declaration, and expiration date) to make their epistemic status transparent. We illustrate the cost of mean aggregation on the public HELM leaderboard: across 54 frontier models on ten scenarios, the top-five models ranked by mean score and by weakest-link are completely disjoint.

Related papers

• The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean [2.822987192839875]
  Agent benchmarks are increasingly used to compare large language models (LLMs) and guide deployment decisions.<n>We identify a double measurement confound: execution-critical decisions are performed by a fixed scaffold instead of the model, while the scorer evaluates outputs using criteria that may not reflect task correctness.<n>We unify these issues within a measurement-theoretic framework that characterizes when benchmark scores can be interpreted as evidence of model capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-06T21:23:11Z)
• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics [21.555357444628044]
  We propose DREAM (Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics), a framework that makes evaluation itself agentic.<n> DREAM structures assessment through an evaluation protocol combining query-agnostic metrics with adaptive metrics generated by a tool-calling agent.<n>Controlled evaluations demonstrate DREAM is significantly more sensitive to factual and temporal decay than existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T19:14:31Z)
• Adaptive and Robust Cost-Aware Proof of Quality for Decentralized LLM Inference Networks [2.621929201001929]
  We extend a cost-aware Proof of Quality mechanism by adding adversary-resilient consensus formation.<n>We quantify evaluator reliability and show strong variance across evaluators, including task-dependent misalignment that can invert correlations.<n>These findings motivate robust consensus as a default component for cost-aware Proof of Quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T02:39:40Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Garbage In, Reasoning Out? Why Benchmark Scores are Unreliable and What to Do About It [1.6261897792391753]
  We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi.<n>We uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T13:57:28Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Where is this coming from? Making groundedness count in the evaluation of Document VQA models [12.951716701565019]
  We argue that common evaluation metrics do not account for the semantic and multimodal groundedness of a model's outputs.<n>We propose a new evaluation methodology that accounts for the groundedness of predictions.<n>Our proposed methodology is parameterized in such a way that users can configure the score according to their preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T20:14:46Z)
• A Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attributions [60.06461883533697]
  We first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill.<n>We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.<n>Our analysis also offers insights into defending against neural Trojans by utilizing the attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• 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)

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.