Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Quantifying and Auditing LLM Evaluation via Positive--Unlabeled Learning

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for scalable evaluation, yet such LLM--as--a--Judge systems exhibit systematic biases that are decoupled from semantic quality, most notably verbosity bias. Meanwhile, human supervision is costly and typically selective, yielding reliable positive judgments but leaving most outputs unlabelled and potentially mixed in quality. We formulate LLM evaluation under selective human supervision as a positive--unlabelled learning problem and propose a geometric auditing framework based on Partial Optimal Transport. By aligning a small set of human--verified positives with a reliable subset of unlabelled outputs in a fixed embedding space...

AuthorsZilong Zhang, Yi-Ting Hung, Lei Ding et al.
Primary categorystat.ML
Published17 June 2026
Last updated at source17 June 2026
stat.MLcs.LGstat.COstat.ME
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/8631aec0-9b0c-4508-a0c9-d16b564618c7" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.