Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guarantees

We study models for human-AI teaming through the lens of statistical calibration. We assume the team consists of an AI model and human -- both of which are calibrated with respect to some partitioning of the feature space -- and expose how the calibration assumptions propagate into the teaming framework. In particular, we consider frameworks that either (i) combine human and model predictions or (ii) delegate prediction responsibility to either a human or model. We show via theoretical and empirical results that existing methods for combination do not preserve the human's degree of calibration. Methods for delegation (by the very act of delegation) preserve calibration of the downstream predictors but shift the burden onto the rejector meta-model that decides who predicts. The rejector must be calibrated finely enough to locate where each member is superior, a demand that grows with the human's expertise and becomes unattainable when the human relies on information the system cannot observe.

Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims. No formal framework has yet characterized how validity degrades across the stages of these pipelines. We present a three-layer compounding validity model, $V_{total} \leq V_1 \times V_2 \times V_3$, that captures multiplicative degradation across task generation ($V_1$), human-simulator calibration ($V_2$), and automated judgment ($V_3$). Under empirically grounded estimates, a pipeline retaining 70% validity at each stage is at most 34% valid against the intended construct (range 0.17-0.54 across the empirical estimate bounds). We examine the model's predictions against a structured survey of 55 published agentic evaluation papers, finding that approximately 82% of papers in this purposive sample apply structurally mismatched, incomplete, or absent inter-rater reliability (IRR) metrics, a pattern consistent with systematic $V_3$ collapse. We further identify empirical evidence of $V_1$ failures (task validity flaws in 7 of 10 popular benchmarks) and $V_2$ miscalibration (up to 9 percentage points inter-simulator variance, with systematic demographic disparities for non-Standard American English speakers). We derive eight prescriptions grounded in psychometric science and domain-stratified reliability thresholds (ICC $\geq$ 0.70; $\alpha \geq$ 0.67/0.70/0.80 by consequence level) that practitioners and benchmark authors can apply immediately. The framework provides a tractable knowledge-based tool for diagnosing and correcting evaluation pipeline validity before deployment decisions are made.

LLM-as-a-judge ensembles are the standard paradigm for scalable evaluation, but their aggregation mechanisms suffer from a fundamental flaw: they implicitly assume that judges provide independent estimates of true quality. However, in practice, LLM judges exhibit correlated errors caused by shared latent confounders -- such as verbosity, stylistic preferences, or training artifacts -- causing standard aggregation rules like majority vote or averaging to provide little gain or even amplify systematic mistakes. To address this, we introduce CARE, a confounder-aware aggregation framework that explicitly models LLM judge scores as arising from both a latent true-quality signal and shared confounding factors. Rather than heuristically re-weighting judges, CARE separates quality from confounders without access to ground-truth labels. We provide theoretical guarantees for identifiability and finite-sample recovery under shared confounders, and we quantify the systematic bias incurred when aggregation models omit confounding latent factors. Across 12 public benchmarks spanning continuous scoring, binary classification, and pairwise preference settings, CARE improves aggregation accuracy, reducing error by up to 26.8%. Code is released in \href{https://github.com/SprocketLab/CARE}{https://github.com/SprocketLab/CARE}.