DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation

Multi-judge evaluation is increasingly used to assess LLMs and reward models, and the prevailing heuristic is to curate: keep the most accurate judges and discard weaker ones. We show that this heuristic can reverse when the target is not point accuracy, but calibrated probabilistic evaluation from a labeled calibration set. Holding the aggregation and calibration procedures fixed, we compare accuracy-ranked top-$k$ judge selection with using the full judge panel. Across four labeled pairwise-evaluation benchmarks spanning LLM-as-judge and reward-model settings, the calibrated full panel consistently outperforms accuracy-based selection. On RewardBench2, retaining all judges achieves negative log-likelihood (NLL) of $0.006$ versus $0.013$ under top-5 selection, halving the calibration error. This advantage persists after judge-family deduplication and against stronger same-pipeline subset search. We explain this reversal with oracle analyses showing that the optimal calibrated risk under proper scoring rules cannot increase when additional judge signals are made available, and that even below-chance judges can be useful when their biases are learnable and their signals are non-redundant. The resulting operating principle is simple: in multi-judge evaluation with labeled calibration data, do not discard weak judges by accuracy alone; keep them when they are parseable, non-redundant, and calibratable.

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.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) typically requires thousands of benchmark items, making the process expensive, slow, and increasingly impractical at scale. Existing evaluation protocols rely on average accuracy over fixed item sets, treating all items as equally informative despite substantial variation in difficulty and discrimination. We introduce ATLAS, an adaptive testing framework based on Item Response Theory (IRT) that estimates model ability using Fisher information-guided item selection. ATLAS reduces the number of required items by up to 90% while maintaining measurement precision. For instance, it matches whole-bank ability estimates using only 41 items (0.157 MAE) on HellaSwag (5,600 items). We further reconstruct accuracy from ATLAS's ability estimates and find that reconstructed accuracies closely match raw accuracies across all five benchmarks, indicating that ability $θ$ preserves the global performance structure. At the same time, $θ$ provides finer discrimination within accuracy-equivalent models: among more than 3,000 evaluated models, 23-31% shift by more than 10 rank positions, and models with identical accuracies receive meaningfully different ability estimates. Code and calibrated item banks are available at https://github.com/Peiyu-Georgia-Li/ATLAS.git.