arXiv (All)
open access
Metrics That Write Themselves: Evolving an Evaluator from Its Own Blind Spots
Agents improve quickly against a reliable automatic metric and stall without one, and the applications that need them most, report generation among them, are the ones nobody knows how to score. Can the metric write itself? Saying what makes an answer good is hard; pointing at something wrong with on
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Measuring Retrieval: metrics, evidence, and evaluation design for information retrieval and RAG#692203
- Metrics That Write Themselves: Evolving an Evaluator from Its Own Blind Spots#467188
- What Does MMLU Actually Measure? A Psychometric Audit of Difficulty Structure in Aggregate Benchmark Scores#1070488
- An analysis of the relationship of input metrics#673568
- How Human-Like Are Large Language Models? A Register-Aware Linguistic Evaluation Framework#820464
Record · ID 1076939
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive