[Submitted on 1 Oct 2026]
Title:Validating the Comparison, Not Just the Scorer: Why Overall Accuracy Can Mislead in Interactive LLM Evaluation
View a PDF of the paper titled Validating the Comparison, Not Just the Scorer: Why Overall Accuracy Can Mislead in Interactive LLM Evaluation, by Ancil Crayton
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Many LLM studies compare how models respond to different follow-up prompts. For example, one prompt may neutrally ask a model to reconsider, while another insists that an invented film really exists. The difference is used to measure the effect of conversational pressure. An automatic scorer then labels whether each response makes an unsupported factual claim. Researchers commonly validate the scorer with one overall accuracy or $F_1$ score. However, high overall performance can hide prompt-specific mistakes: if the scorer makes more errors after one prompt, the measured difference can be too large, too small, or point in the wrong direction. An audit containing mostly difficult responses can also misrepresent performance in the full study. We derive how such errors alter a prompt comparison and examine the problem using six models, 180 invented-entity questions, and six prompt conditions. In a balanced audit of 288 responses, overall $F_1$ was $.916$. Yet, depending on the prompt, the scorer flagged 2.6%-33.3% of responses that the primary LLM rater judged not to contain an unsupported claim; these prompt-specific estimates were uncertain. In a second audit, the scorer and two separate LLM raters evaluated the same 300 model-question cases under each prompt. An apparent 9.3-point increase from asserting certainty rather than neutrally asking the model to reconsider fell to 2.3 points under both raters. The primary-rater interval included zero, so it did not establish an increase. Two other prompt comparisons kept their direction under both raters, while an attempted prompt-specific correction remained too uncertain for a firm conclusion. Researchers should therefore validate the exact difference they plan to report, not just the scorer as a whole: audit both prompts on matching cases and include scorer and rater uncertainty in the final result.
Comments: 14 pages, 2 figures. Accepted to the Trustworthy AI for Good (AI4GOOD) Workshop at NeurIPS 2026
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.31678 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.31678v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.31678
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Ancil Crayton [view email] [v1] Thu, 1 Oct 2026 03:02:54 UTC (85 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled Validating the Comparison, Not Just the Scorer: Why Overall Accuracy Can Mislead in Interactive LLM Evaluation, by Ancil Crayton
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Additional Features
Audio Summary
Current browse context:
cs.CL
new | recent | 2026-10
Change to browse by:
cs cs.AI cs.HC
References & Citations
SciX
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Loading...
Data provided by:
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)