Unverified50% confidenceOpinionExact time
Human annotators themselves are inconsistent, which sets a 'ceiling' for evaluating models; if even agreement among professional linguists can only reach a moderate level, then human-annotated data itself carries noise.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/12/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
Unverifiedيُنصح بالتقييم المنفصل لكل لهجة لأن مؤشر الدقة الإجمالي المرتفع قد يُخفي فشلاً ذريعاً في لهجة بعينها68% similarUnverifiedResponses from large language models are typically presented in complete sentences and an affirmative tone, lacking the linguistic signals such as "I'm not sure" or "this needs further verification" that human advisors customarily include.68% similarUnverifiedWriting scoring rules into a prompt in natural language has drawbacks: wording variations across different calls may cause the model's understanding to drift, and the scoring logic cannot be directly parsed or reused by programs.68% similarUnverifiedThe ambiguity of natural language requests may cause conversational data products to return results with deviations.67% similarVerifiedPerplexity measures a language model's ability to predict test text; the lower the value, the less surprised the model is by the text.67% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1012340API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1012340MCP
get_claim(id=1012340)