# HERO: Improving the Reliability and Sensitivity of Generative Model Evaluation Using Historical Data

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29784 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29784/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.11462/) (2020)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Confident Learning: Estimating Uncertainty in Dataset Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.00068/) (2019)
- [Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.04561/) (2019)
- [MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04788/) (2024)
- [Exposing flaws of generative model evaluation metrics and their unfair treatment of diffusion models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04675/) (2023)
- [Toward an Evaluation Science for Generative AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.05336/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reliable generative AI models critically rely on expert human annotations to evaluate output quality, yet these "gold" labels are expensive to collect and limited in quantity. Organizations thus often turn to collecting vast but noisy "silver" labels from crowdsourced workers or vendor annotators as proxies for gold labels. Because gold remains the evaluation target, naively aggregating noisy silver labels may introduce bias, and estimators built on sparsely observed gold labels may have high variance to resolve the model performance gaps that guide practical decisions. Model evaluation has become an ongoing operational practice rather than a one-time exercise, with evaluation rounds repeating across model versions, releases, and content domains. A natural question is whether the previous historical evaluation data can be used to improve each new round of evaluation. We introduce HERO (History Enhanced RObust model evaluation), a novel framework that uses historical data to suppress bias (improve reliability) and reduce variance (improve sensitivity) in model performance evaluation. HERO calibrates silver labelers' performance learned from historical gold annotations, and stabilizes the resulting estimator by anchoring it to covariate information measured with high precision in the historical data. HERO can be broadly applied across multiple common evaluation tasks, and remains valid when only a subset of historical labelers appears in the current round. We establish conditions under which the bias and variance reductions hold, showcase HERO's performance in simulation studies, and demonstrate its effectiveness on real-world model evaluation benchmarking datasets.