Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guarantees

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02455v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 16:30:30 GMT
• Title: Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guarantees
• Abstract summary: Methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales.<n>We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources.<n>AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments.
• Score: 15.471672928989138
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features. We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources. Stage-1 aggregates heterogeneous comparative judgments into a consensus ranking using a rank-aggregation model that accounts for annotator reliability. Stage-2 calibrates any predictive model's scores by an isotonic projection onto the order, enforcing ordinal consistency while preserving as much of the model's quantitative information as possible. Theoretically, we show: (1) modeling annotator heterogeneity yields strictly more efficient consensus estimation than homogeneity; (2) isotonic calibration enjoys risk bounds even when the consensus ranking is misspecified; and (3) AtC asymptotically outperforms model-only assessment. Across semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments. Our results bridge judgment aggregation with model-free calibration, providing a principled recipe for human-centered assessment when ground truth is costly, scarce, or unverifiable.

Related papers

• Calibration-Aware Uncertainty Cascades for Efficient Heterogeneous Model Collaboration [18.045450334322545]
  Heterogeneous model collaboration seeks to exploit the complementary strengths of different models to balance predictive performance and inference cost.<n>Existing approaches typically rely on trained routers, which tie routing decisions to a fixed task and model pool, or on raw-confidence cascades, whose thresholds lack consistent reliability semantics across heterogeneous models.<n>We propose-Aware Uncertainty Cascades (CAUC), a simple post-hoc framework that independently calibrates each model's confidence and selects deployment policies using validation data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T12:14:54Z)
• Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Ranking [60.00410111594536]
  We formalize multi-model human evaluation as a best-arm identification problem in a multi-armed bandit setup with correlated arms.<n>We show that it improves discrimination between top-performing models.<n>This makes evaluations faster, cheaper and more aligned with large-scale competition evaluation goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T10:33:04Z)
• 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)
• Multimodal Learning on Low-Quality Data with Conformal Predictive Self-Calibration [72.0672328514289]
  Multimodal learning often grapples with the challenge of low-quality data.<n>We propose a unified framework, termed Conformal Predictive Self-Calibration.<n>Our framework consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T14:48:52Z)
• K-Sort Eval: Efficient Preference Evaluation for Visual Generation via Corrected VLM-as-a-Judge [51.93484138861584]
  The rapid development of visual generative models raises the need for more scalable and human-aligned evaluation methods.<n>We propose K-Sort Eval, a reliable and efficient VLM-based evaluation framework that integrates posterior correction and dynamic matching.<n>Experiments show that K-Sort Eval delivers evaluation results consistent with K-Sort Arena, typically requiring fewer than 90 model runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T05:07:46Z)
• Improving Minimax Estimation Rates for Contaminated Mixture of Multinomial Logistic Experts via Expert Heterogeneity [49.809923981964715]
  Contaminated mixture of experts (MoE) is motivated by transfer learning methods where a pre-trained model, acting as a frozen expert, is integrated with an adapter model, functioning as a trainable expert, in order to learn a new task.<n>In this work, we characterize uniform convergence rates for estimating parameters under challenging settings where ground-truth parameters vary with the sample size.<n>We also establish corresponding minimax lower bounds to ensure that these rates are minimax optimal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T23:45:50Z)
• The Catastrophic Paradox of Human Cognitive Frameworks in Large Language Model Evaluation: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis of the CHC-LLM Incompatibility [0.0]
  Models achieving above-average human IQ scores simultaneously exhibit binary accuracy rates approaching zero on crystallized knowledge tasks.<n>This disconnect appears most strongly in the crystallized intelligence domain.<n>We propose a framework for developing native machine cognition assessments that recognize the non-human nature of artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-23T05:49:57Z)
• What Does It Take to Build a Performant Selective Classifier? [30.90225954725644]
  Bayes noise, approximation error, ranking error, statistical noise, and implementation- or shift-induced slack are studied.<n>We validate our decomposition on synthetic two-moons data and on real-world vision and language benchmarks.<n>Our results confirm that (i) Bayes noise and limited model capacity can account for substantial gaps, (ii) only richer, feature-aware calibrators meaningfully improve score ordering, and (iii) data shift introduces a separate slack that demands distributionally robust training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T05:48:40Z)
• B-RIGHT: Benchmark Re-evaluation for Integrity in Generalized Human-Object Interaction Testing [18.822653709976784]
  Human-object interaction (HOI) is an essential problem in artificial intelligence (AI)<n>Current benchmarks such as HICO-DET face the following limitations.<n>We propose a new class-balanced dataset, Benchmark Re-evaluation for Integrity in Generalized Human-object Interaction Testing (B-RIGHT)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T06:04:08Z)
• 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)
• An Epistemic and Aleatoric Decomposition of Arbitrariness to Constrain the Set of Good Models [7.620967781722717]
  Recent research reveals that machine learning (ML) models are highly sensitive to minor changes in their training procedure.<n>We show that stability decomposes into epistemic and aleatoric components, capturing the consistency and confidence in prediction.<n>We propose a model selection procedure that includes epistemic and aleatoric criteria alongside existing accuracy and fairness criteria, and show that it successfully narrows down a large set of good models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T09:35:36Z)

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.