Yuzheng Xu

Yuzheng Xu, Annya Dahmani, Matthew D. Blanchard et al.

Human-AI complementarity, the idea that combining human and AI judgments can outperform either alone, offers a promising pathway toward robust oversight of advanced AI systems. However, whether human-AI complementarity can be achieved on realistic tasks remains an open question. We investigate this through two approaches: hybridization and two AI assistance methods (top-2 assistance and subtask delegation), evaluated on a multi-domain dataset of 1,886 samples spanning knowledge, factuality, long-context reasoning, and deception detection. We find only modest complementarity gains. Baseline hybridization yields just +0.4 percentage points (pp) over AI alone (69.3\% vs 68.9\%), limited both by a small complementarity region (only 8.9\% of items where AI errs but humans do not) and the inability of confidence-based routing to identify it, since the model's confidence is similarly distributed across correct and incorrect predictions. Applied when AI has low confidence, top-2 assistance increases human accuracy from 28.4\% to 38.3\%, surpassing AI alone (37.7\%) -- but primarily because humans adopt correct AI suggestions, not because they successfully override AI errors. These findings suggest that the primary bottleneck is not human task accuracy per se, but the ability to route decisions to humans when it matters and to design assistance methods that enable humans to catch AI mistakes. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses pinpoint where and why each method succeeds or fails, offering concrete targets for future work. We will release our dataset and code upon request to support progress toward more effective human-AI collaboration for AI oversight.

Yuzheng Xu, Tosho Hirasawa, Tadashi Kozuno et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to evaluate the quality of text, a field commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior works mainly focus on point-wise and pair-wise evaluation paradigms. Rubric-based evaluation, where LLMs select a score from multiple rubrics, has received less analysis. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multi-choice setting and therefore has position bias: LLMs prefer score options appearing at specific positions in the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate consistent position bias. To mitigate this bias, we propose a balanced permutation strategy that evenly distributes each score option across positions. We show that aggregating scores across balanced permutations not only reveals latent position bias, but also improves correlation between the LLM-as-a-Judge and human. Our results suggest that rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge is not inherently point-wise and that simple permutation-based calibration can substantially improve its reliability.

Yuzheng Xu, Yang Wu, Nur Sabrina binti Zuraimi et al.

Video analysis has been moving towards more detailed interpretation (e.g. segmentation) with encouraging progresses. These tasks, however, increasingly rely on densely annotated training data both in space and time. Since such annotation is labour-intensive, few densely annotated video data with detailed region boundaries exist. This work aims to resolve this dilemma by learning to automatically generate region boundaries for all frames of a video from sparsely annotated bounding boxes of target regions. We achieve this with a Volumetric Graph Convolutional Network (VGCN), which learns to iteratively find keypoints on the region boundaries using the spatio-temporal volume of surrounding appearance and motion. The global optimization of VGCN makes it significantly stronger and generalize better than existing solutions. Experimental results using two latest datasets (one real and one synthetic), including ablation studies, demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of our method.