mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Improving Reproducibility in Evaluation through Multi-Level Annotator Modeling

arXiv 2605.13801 ↗First posted 13 May 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As generative AI models such as large language models (LLMs) become more pervasive, ensuring the safety, robustness, and overall trustworthiness of these systems is paramount. However, AI is currently facing a reproducibility crisis driven by unreliable evaluations and unrepeatable experimental results. While human raters are often used to assess models for utility and safety, they introduce divergent biases and subjective opinions into their annotations. Overcoming this variance is exceptionally challenging because very little data exists to study how experimental repeatability actually improves as the annotator pool grows. Standard evaluation practices typically rely on a small number of annotations per item (often 3 to 5) and lack the persistent rater identifiers necessary to model individual variance across items. In this work, we introduce a multi-level bootstrapping approach to model annotator behavior realistically. Leveraging datasets with a large number of ratings and persistent rater identifiers, we analyze the tradeoffs between the number of items (N) and the number of responses per item (K) required to achieve statistical significance.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.

Builds on

13 of 32 references.

References · 13

  1. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 314
  2. 2019Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Resultscited by 169
  3. 2021Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computingcited by 130
  4. 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 126
  5. 2023DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safetycited by 86
  6. 2019A Step Toward Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning Researchcited by 77
  7. 2021Designing Toxic Content Classification for a Diversity of Perspectivescited by 65
  8. 2022Leakage and the Reproducibility Crisis in ML-based Sciencecited by 65
  9. 2021Just What do You Think You're Doing, Dave?' A Checklist for Responsible Data Use in NLPcited by 47
  10. 2024Reproducibility in Machine Learning-based Research: Overview, Barriers and Driverscited by 34
  11. 2024D3CODE: Disentangling Disagreements in Data across Cultures on Offensiveness Detection and Evaluationcited by 11
  12. 2024Rater Cohesion and Quality from a Vicarious Perspectivecited by 8
1 more
  1. 2024How Many Ratings per Item are Necessary for Reliable Significance Testing?cited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.