arXiv (All)
open access
Validity Without Ground Truth: What Stated-Preference Economics Offers the Evaluation of Language Models
Many of the questions now put to large language models have no correct answer to score against: what a policy is worth, which option a user should choose, how to weigh competing values. Stated-preference economics has faced this problem for decades. It judges survey responses without knowing the tru
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
- Validity Without Ground Truth: What Stated-Preference Economics Offers the Evaluation of Language Models#1227365
- Dual-process theory and decision-making in large language models#1078447
- Consistency Without Alignment: Item-Sensitive Language Models Indistinguishable From Random#820011
- Am I More Pointwise or Pairwise? Revealing Position Bias in Rubric-Based LLM-as-a-Judge#987580
- The Price of Thought: Does Test-Time Reasoning Pay in LLM Trading?#1105264
Record · ID 1234931
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