Correct Looks Better: Pairwise Comparisons Reveal Accuracy Rankings

Calibration evaluates whether a model confidence aligns with its empirical accuracy. Existing studies often compare the calibration of different large language models using global calibration metrics such as Expected Calibration Error and Brier Score. We begin by showing, both theoretically and empirically, that such comparisons are confounded by differences in model accuracy. For fairer cross-model comparison, we then propose ACE, an accuracy-controlled evaluation framework with three complementary views: Instance-Aligned, Distribution-Aligned, and Candidate-Aligned calibration. Across multiple benchmarks, model families, and confidence elicitation methods, we use ACE to study two practically important comparison axes, small versus large models and thinking versus non-thinking models. We find that many previously reported calibration advantages under raw global metrics weaken substantially after accuracy control. We also find that ranking reversal is frequent: models favored by raw metrics often cease to be favored once accuracy is controlled. Our results show that raw global calibration metrics are not robust for cross-model comparison, and that fair calibration comparison requires accuracy-aware evaluation.

As interactive LLM-based applications are created and refined, model developers need to evaluate the quality of generated text along many possible axes. For simpler systems, human evaluation may be practical, but in complicated systems like conversational chatbots, the amount of generated text can overwhelm human annotation resources. Model developers have begun to rely heavily on auto-evaluation, where LLMs are also used to judge generation quality. However, existing LLM-as-a-judge benchmarks largely focus on simple Q&A tasks that do not match the complexity of multi-turn conversations. We introduce RankJudge, a benchmark generator for evaluating LLM-as-a-judge on multi-turn conversations grounded in reference documents. RankJudge creates pairs of conversations where one conversation has a single flaw injected into one turn. This construction allows paired conversations to be labeled unambiguously as better or worse, and precisely isolates failure categories to individual turns, enabling a strict joint correctness criterion for judging. We implement RankJudge across the domains of machine learning, biomedicine, and finance, evaluate 21 frontier LLM judges, and rank those judges via the Bradley-Terry model. Our formulation also allows ranking each conversation pair with difficulty ratings, which we use to dynamically curate the evaluation slice to reduce label noise, as confirmed via human annotation. We find that judge rankings are stable under partial observability, coarser correctness criteria, and an alternative random-walk rating algorithm.

Selecting a pretrained language model, or evaluating a fine-tuned one, for a specific application is a high-value decision, yet the public benchmarks used to make it are poorly suited: a generic benchmark need not reflect a particular sub-domain or sub-task, and its scores are suspect when its items have leaked into pretraining and are recalled rather than solved. We present CoEval, an open framework that supplies a trustworthy, task-specific signal through ensemble self-evaluation: from a task or domain description, a pool of models rotates through all three roles, teacher, student, and judge, to generate a fresh, contamination-free benchmark, answer it, and score one another, with no human labels or raters. Because every model also answers as a student, the responses are the data that weight each question by its discriminative power and each judge by its consensus with the panel. Where ground truth exists, CoEval recovers the true ranking and tracks objective correctness at \r{ho}=0.86, and the weighting recovers the gold ranking of thirteen models at Spearman 0.95. Reliability comes from panel composition, not size: this label-free weighting zeroes out broken judges and down-weights saturated questions, so neither distorts the ranking. Generated items show zero verbatim overlap with five public benchmarks, the panel cancels verbosity bias and precludes same-family self-preference, and rankings are domain-specific: three different models top four de-novo domains, so a generic leaderboard misdirects most practitioners. The same pipeline reruns on each model release, giving any team a contamination-free leaderboard for its application.