arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.26638

Which Metrics Save the Most Human Annotation? Prediction-Powered Evaluation and Meta-Evaluation

Mingqi Gao·Anthony Sicilia·Weiyan Shi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Across various non-verifiable tasks, human evaluation is reliable but expensive, while automatic metrics are more scalable but often biased. Building on prediction-powered inference (PPI), we propose prediction-powered evaluation, a framework that combines limited human judgments with large-scale automatic scores to obtain data-efficient system comparisons that are provably unbiased. We develop parametric and non-parametric procedures, analyze the efficiency trade-off between paired and unpaired designs, and validate the framework on six WMT datasets. We further introduce the Prediction-Powered Saving Ratio (PPSR), a meta-metric that measures how much human annotation an automatic metric can save when used within prediction-powered evaluation. PPSR directly targets metric utility for prediction-powered evaluation and yields more discriminative and stable metric rankings than existing system-level meta-metrics. Overall, our new paradigm reframes automatic metrics as tools for reducing human annotation cost rather than replacing human judgment, and applies broadly to non-verifiable tasks.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLstat.ML

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Mingqi Gao, Anthony Sicilia, Weiyan Shi. 2026-08-30. Which Metrics Save the Most Human Annotation? Prediction-Powered Evaluation and Meta-Evaluation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26638

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.CL subjectstat.ML subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Optimal Estimation of Watermark Proportions in Hybrid AI-Human Texts

Text watermarks in large language models (LLMs) are an increasingly important tool for detecting synthetic text and distinguishing human-written content from LLM-generated text. While most existing studies focus on determining whether entire texts are watermarked, many real-world scenarios involve mixed-source texts, which blend human-written and watermarked content. In this paper, we address the problem of optimally estimating the watermark proportion in mixed-source texts. We cast this problem as estimating the proportion parameter in a mixture model based on \emph{pivotal statistics}. First, we show that this parameter is not even identifiable in certain watermarking schemes, let alone consistently estimable. In stark contrast, for watermarking methods that employ continuous pivotal statistics for detection, we demonstrate that the proportion parameter is identifiable under mild conditions. We propose efficient estimators for this class of methods, which include several popular unbiased watermarks as examples, and derive minimax lower bounds for any measurable estimator based on pivotal statistics, showing that our estimators achieve these lower bounds. Through evaluations on both synthetic data and mixed-source text generated by open-source models, we demonstrate that our proposed estimators consistently achieve high estimation accuracy.

stat.ML↗
arXiv2026

When Can We Work in Embedding Space? What Text Embeddings Preserve

When do text embeddings work as inputs to empirical analysis? Their use rests on an assumption: that we can trade text for its low-dimensional embedding, and lose little in doing so. I make that assumption precise under a generative model in which documents are mixtures of latent topics. I study two uses---clustering units in embedding space and controlling for high-dimensional text. A cluster of embeddings is a set of documents with similar topic mixtures; controlling for the embedding is equivalent to controlling for the topic mixture, so validity reduces to whether that mixture captures the confounding. In an application to 363 U.S. metropolitan areas, embedding-based clusters of LLM-generated economic descriptions recover interpretable economic archetypes and separate local employment dynamics more sharply than clustering on model residuals, or on a curated set of industry and demographic covariates.

econ.EM↗
arXiv2026

PEAR: Permutation-Equivariant Adaptive Routing Multi-Agent Debate

Multi-agent debate improves the reliability of large language models (LLMs) through iterative peer critiques. However, fixed topologies often introduce persistent positional biases, amplify unreliable agents, and cause high sensitivity to role assignments. We introduce \textit{Permutation-Equivariant Adaptive Routing Multi-Agent Debate (PEAR)}, an inference-time train-free protocol that dynamically reconfigures communication roles and sparse topologies across consecutive debate rounds. By strategically switching agent-to-role assignments based on evolving agent states, PEAR prevents any agent from permanently occupying a privileged network position or distributes influence more evenly across the debate. We theoretically characterize PEAR as an equivariant sparse router: it preserves accuracy under agent relabeling while reducing routing complexity and improving generalization. Comprehensive empirical evaluations across four reasoning benchmarks and six diverse LLM backbones demonstrate PEAR significantly improves average accuracy over the strongest debate baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/EVIEHub/PEAR.

cs.AI↗