evalstats: Eliminating False Positives in LLM Judging with PPI-Corrected Tests
IanArawjo · x · 2026-07-24
The author shouts from the rooftops that you should never trust LLM judges without human calibration, as it is likely totally bogus. To properly mitigate this bias, the team is pioneering the only implementations of standard hypothesis tests via evalstats, utilizing PPI-corrected statistical tests that require only a small amount of human labels.
Related event: Eliminating LLM Evaluation False Positives with PPI-Corrected Tests(5 posts)→
More from Research
- AI slop is already clogging PR review and weakening the credit system behind science — rbhar90 · 2026-07-27
- ICML 2026 oral paper replication scores stay middling after a stricter re-scoring — profjamesevans · 2026-07-27
- Long-running agents will need immutable event logs, this thread argues — sebpaquet · 2026-07-27
- Seed IQ navigates Doom II, prompting questions about benchmarks beyond ARC-AGI — Fit_Transition8824 · 2026-07-27
- Agentic Data Science in Practice: Agents Write Code but Answer Wrong Questions — hugobowne · 2026-07-27
- A concise canon of foundational papers in ML, systems, NLP, speech, and audio — deliprao · 2026-07-27