Validating the Comparison, Not Just the Scorer: Why Overall Accuracy Can Mislead in Interactive LLM Evaluation

Computer Science > Computation and Language

[Submitted on 1 Oct 2026]

Title:Validating the Comparison, Not Just the Scorer: Why Overall Accuracy Can Mislead in Interactive LLM Evaluation

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.

Additional Features

Current browse context:

cs.CL

References & Citations

Loading...

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

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.