STABLEVAL: Disagreement-Aware and Stable Evaluation of AI Systems

Despite the rapid development of AI reviewers, evaluating such systems remains challenging: metrics favor overlap with human reviews over correctness. However, since human reviews often cover only a subset of salient issues and sometimes contain mistakes, they are unreliable as gold references. To address this, we build category-specific benchmark subsets and skip evaluation when the corresponding human reviews are missing to strengthen Completeness. We also leverage reviewer--author--meta-review discussions as expert annotations and filter unreliable reviews accordingly to strengthen Correctness. Finally, we introduce CoCoReviewBench, which curates 3,900 papers from ICLR and NeurIPS to enable reliable and fine-grained evaluation of AI reviewers. Analysis shows that AI reviewers remain limited in correctness and are prone to hallucinations, and highlights reasoning models as more effective reviewers, motivating further directions for improving AI reviewers. Benchmarks and models are available at https://github.com/hexuandeng/CoCoReviewBench.

Evaluating generative AI models is a routine, but resource-intensive, process that is conducted over and over again during the course of model development. In this work, we propose Collaborative Evaluation (CollabEval), a simple, effective, and principled method for exploiting dependencies between historical runs of different models on the same tasks to improve statistical efficiency. Specifically, our approach treats model evaluation as a matrix completion problem over an $M \times N$ matrix of evaluation scores, where $M$ is the total number of models and $N$ is the total number of evaluation prompts. We assume that a subset of these $M$ models are targeted for evaluation. For these target models only a small fraction, $p$, of prompts has been annotated with evaluation scores. Leveraging recent results in prediction-powered inference, we build a low-rank approximation of the score matrix, and use the reconstructed values as control variates in a manner that guarantees unbiased estimates of the true evaluation metric mean, in addition to statistically valid confidence intervals. Empirically, across a wide range of datasets, models, and sparsity levels $p$, we find that CollabEval substantially reduces the mean confidence interval size, and the mean squared error of the point estimate, compared to baseline methods at the same annotation budget.

Evaluating AI-generated reviews by verdict agreement is widely recognized as insufficient, yet current alternatives rarely audit which concerns a system identifies, how it prioritizes them, or whether those priorities align with the review rationale that shaped the final assessment. We propose concern alignment, a diagnostic framework that evaluates AI reviews at the concern level rather than only at the verdict level. The framework's core data structure is the match graph, a bipartite alignment between official and AI-generated concerns annotated with match type, severity, and post-rebuttal treatment. From this artifact we derive an evaluation ladder that moves from binary accuracy to concern detection, verdict-stratified behavior, decision-aware calibration, and rebuttal-aware decomposition. In a pilot study of four public AI review systems evaluated in six configurations, concern-level analysis suggests that detection alone does not determine review quality; calibration is often the binding constraint. Systems detect non-trivial fractions of official concerns yet most mark 25--55% of concerns on accepted papers as decisive, where, under our operationalization, no official concern on accepted papers was treated as a decisive blocker. Identical overall verdict accuracy can conceal reject-heavy behavior versus low-recall profiles, and low full-review false decisive rates can partly reflect concern dilution rather than calibrated prioritization. Most systems do not emit a native accept/reject, and inferring it from review tone is method-sensitive, reinforcing the need for concern-level diagnostics that remain stable across inference choices. The contribution is a reusable evaluation framework for auditing which concerns AI reviewers identify, how they weight them, and whether those priorities align with the review rationale that informed the paper's final assessment.