# Statistically Reliable LLM-Based Ranking Evaluation via Prediction-Powered Inference

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05308 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.05308/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model as Attributed Training Data Generator: A Tale of Diversity and Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15895/) (2023)
- [Doubly-Robust Estimation for Correcting Position-Bias in Click Feedback for Unbiased Learning to Rank](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.17118/) (2022)
- [PRECISE: Reducing the Bias of LLM Evaluations Using Prediction-Powered Ranking Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18777/) (2026)
- [CorrSynth -- A Correlated Sampling Method for Diverse Dataset Generation from LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.08553/) (2024)
- [When Gradients Collide: Failure Modes of Multi-Objective Prompt Optimization for LLM Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26046/) (2026)
- [VESTA: Visual Exploration with Statistical Tool Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.00384/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Are We Testing Too Much? A Survey of Benchmark Compression for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18248/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

With PRECISE, we extended Prediction-Powered Inference to produce bias-corrected estimates of ranking evaluation metrics by combining a small human-labeled set with a large LLM-judged set. PPI is provably unbiased regardless of the LLM judge's error profile. We make it applicable to hierarchical metrics like Precision@K, where annotations are per-document but the metric is per-query, by reducing the output-space computation from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K). On the ESCI benchmark, augmenting 30 human annotations with Claude 3 Sonnet judgments reduces the standard error of Precision@4 estimates from 4.45 to 3.50 (a 21% relative reduction). In a production system, our framework correctly identified the best of three system variants from 100 human labels and 2 hours of domain-expert annotation; A/B testing confirmed this ranking with +407 bps in daily sales.