arXiv (All)
open access
What Can a Leaderboard Certify? Compositional Controllability for Fair Evaluation and Training of Biomedical Literature-Review Agents
Leaderboards rank long-horizon agents by their final outputs. Yet a higher score alone does not establish whether two systems are comparable or which stage accounts for the difference. Unequal evidence, inputs, or budgets can affect scores, and statistical corrections do not remove this mismatch. We
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
- One Capability or Many? Testing the Economic Validity of Frontier AI Evaluation#794210
- Agent Evaluation Reliability: More Tasks Won't (Always) Fix An Agent Leaderboard#1155586
- Anytime-Valid LLM Leaderboards via Benchmark-weighted and Block-Factorized e-Processes#1116579
- Equal Ranking Quality, Different Decisions: Measuring and Reducing Order Dependence in LLM Scorers#1117563
- How Hard is it to Rig a Benchmark? A Social Choice Analysis of Leaderboard Robustness#222604
Record · ID 1116649
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