arXiv (All)
open access
LLM Judge Validation Under Sparse Overlap: From Inference to Design
Validating an LLM-as-a-judge requires estimating its agreement with humans, yet annotation budgets rarely allow every item to be multiply labeled. We prove that this \emph{overlap sparsity} is the first-order determinant of wrong deployment decisions: at 5\% pairwise overlap, wrong-decision rates re
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
- AnchorScore: A CLIP-Based Diagnostic of MLLM Annotation Difficulty#625253
- AnchorScore: A CLIP-Based Diagnostic of MLLM Annotation Difficulty#622980
- Paraconsistent Sensitivity Analysis for Bayesian Significance Tests#770865
- The Oversight Gap: What LLM Safety Monitors Miss, and Why It Is Not Capability#975218
- Evaluating Epistemic Uncertainty: Beyond OOD Detection and Active Learning#373405
Record · ID 1115813
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