arXiv (All)
open access
How to Run Statistics over LLM Judges and Trust the Results: Calibrated Inference for Small-Sample AI Evaluation with evalstats
Researchers across academia increasingly base significance claims on LLM judge scores and small-sample AI evaluations. Yet without well-calibrated confidence intervals (CIs), hypothesis tests, and judge-bias corrections, such claims are unreliable. We address these issues in several contributions. F
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
- LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes and What Recovers It#819049
- LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes and What Recovers It#809057
- The Benchmark Trap: Structures of Power and Injustice in AI Evaluations#615298
- The Benchmark Trap: Structures of Power and Injustice in AI Evaluations#614331
- Making AI-Assisted Claims Independently Challengeable: Publication Authority and a Protocol for Falsifiable Publication Records#1011362
Record · ID 1130657
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