Papers › Adaptive Rigor in AI System Evaluation using Temperature-Controlled Verdict...

Adaptive Rigor in AI System Evaluation using Temperature-Controlled Verdict Aggregation via Generalized Power Mean

4 Apr 2026arXiv:2604.08595added by Syntology

Aleksandr Meshkov

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Existing evaluation methods for LLM-based AI systems, such as LLM-as-a-Judge, verdict systems, and NLI, do not always align well with human assessment because they cannot adapt their strictness to the application domain. This paper presents Temperature-Controlled Verdict Aggregation (TCVA), a method that combines a five-level verdict-scoring system with generalized power-mean aggregation and an intuitive temperature parameter T [0.1, 1.0] to control evaluation rigor. Low temperatures yield pessimistic scores suited for safety-critical domains; high temperatures produce lenient scores appropriate for conversational AI. Experimental evaluation on three benchmark datasets with human Likert-scale annotations (SummEval and USR) shows that TCVA achieves correlation with human judgments comparable to RAGAS on faithfulness (Spearman = 0.667 vs. 0.676) while consistently outperforming DeepEval. The method requires no additional LLM calls when adjusting the temperature parameter.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from meshkovQA/Eval-ai-library. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2604.08595, was issued in April 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections