Resolution Diagnostics for Paired LLM Evaluation

The dominant practice in language model evaluation is to report a single accuracy number per model and declare the higher one better, without testing whether the gap could plausibly be sampling noise. On benchmarks of a few thousand items, and under temperature sampling where a model can differ from itself run to run by more than the reported gap between models, this practice routinely overstates confidence in headline claims. The statistical machinery to fix this -- confidence intervals, paired significance tests, power analysis, clustered standard errors, multiple-comparison correction -- is well established, but no standard, pip-installable tool packages it in the shape an evaluation actually takes: a per-item results table. We present evalci, a pure-Python library (numpy/scipy/pandas only) that turns a per-item results table into a publication-ready claim -- e.g., "Model A beats Model B, $Δ=3.1$ pts, 95% CI [1.2, 5.0], paired permutation $p=0.002$, $n=1{,}319$" -- in one function call, with adapters for lm-evaluation-harness and HELM output. Every routine is validated against an independent reference (statsmodels, or brute-force exact enumeration) rather than only against itself. As a case study, we re-analyze a public comparison of nine language models' MMLU accuracy and find that 3 of the 8 adjacent leaderboard-rank gaps are not statistically significant after correcting for the 36 pairwise comparisons the ranking implies. evalci is available at https://pypi.org/project/evalci/ (source: https://github.com/Shreyaskc/evalci, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21201815)

Validating an LLM judge against human annotations usually means reporting several agreement statistics: accuracy, precision, recall, $F_1$, Cohen's $κ$, and one or more rank correlations. A survey of 24 recent LLM-as-judge papers finds metric choice entangled with the judgment scale, tie handling, invalid outputs, and abstention handling, and those choices rarely stated. For binary criteria -- the common case in rubric-based evaluation, where each criterion is graded MET or UNMET -- most of the reported numbers are redundant: Pearson's $r$, Spearman's $ρ$, Kendall's $τ_b$, the phi coefficient $φ$, and the Matthews Correlation Coefficient all reduce to a single number on non-degenerate binary data, so reporting several of them only creates an illusion of corroborating evidence. Cohen's $κ$ is the one agreement coefficient that adds information: it shares $φ$'s numerator but normalizes differently, and the gap between them measures how far the judge's positive-label rate has drifted from the human's. We then trace what changes when a judge may abstain with a CANNOT_ASSESS verdict: the three common ways of handling abstentions are not interchangeable preprocessing choices but answer different questions, and they break the binary equivalences. The same equivalences reappear, up to a negligible finite-sample correction, for multi-judge ensembles scored with Fleiss' $κ$ or Krippendorff's $α$. We close with a reporting checklist that names the judgment scale, the abstention and tie handling mode, coverage, the confusion matrix, and the aggregation level alongside any scalar agreement coefficient.

From housing allocation for households experiencing homelessness to triage in emergency departments, LLMs are increasingly being considered as judges of consequential decisions that require ranking people for scarce resources. Ranking large groups simultaneously is cognitively demanding and error-prone. A natural solution, drawing on decades of social choice theory, elicits pairwise comparisons and aggregates them into a total order. However, a fundamental question remains when LLMs serve as the pairwise judge: how can a practitioner tell, before committing to a ranking, whether the LLM's judgments are sufficiently consistent to trust the result? We discuss two different ways of identifying consistency. A classical diagnostic, the coefficient of consistency $ζ$, originally developed to measure judge reliability by counting circular triads in tournament graphs, provides a cheap, model-free measure of intra-run consistency. Various standard measures of distance between rankings, for example Kendall's $τ$, can measure inter-run variability. We show, in both theory and practice, that these measures are independently valuable, and advocate for using both to assess reliability of rankings. We demonstrate the practical importance of our results across two high-stakes prioritization tasks: homelessness service allocation and emergency department triage. Three different leading LLMs have considerably different performance profiles across these two axes of consistency. We provide guidelines for how practitioners could think about measuring and assessing consistency before committing to a model for ranking or prioritization.