arXiv:2601.05500v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmarking the capabilities of AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Models, typically ignores the impact of uncertainty in the underlying ground truth answers from experts. This ambiguity is not just limited to human preferences, but is also consequential even in safety critical domains such as medicine where uncertainty is pervasive. In this paper, we introduce a probabilistic paradigm to theoretically explain how high certainty in ground truth answers is almost always necessary for even an expert to achieve high scores, whereas in datasets with high variation in ground truth answers there may be little difference between a random labeller and an expert. This characteristic also manifests when comparing models, where uncertainty obfuscates differences between poor and high performing models. Therefore, ignoring uncertainty in ground truth evaluation data can result in the misleading conclusion that a non-expert has similar performance to that of an expert. Using the probabilistic paradigm, we thus bring forth the concepts of expected accuracy and expected F1 and compare the estimated score an expert human or system can achieve given ground truth answer variability across 6 datasets and 9 models. The results lead to the recommendation that stratification by the probability of the ground truth answer becomes critical when expert performance is relatively low. Under stratified evaluation, performance comparison becomes more reliable in high certainty bins, mitigating the effect of the key confounding factor -- uncertainty.

arXiv:2603.29897v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reranking is a critical component in many information retrieval pipelines. Despite remarkable progress in text-only settings, multimodal reranking remains challenging, particularly when the candidate set contains hybrid text and image items. A key difficulty is the modality gap: a text reranker is intrinsically closer to text candidates than to image candidates, leading to biased and suboptimal cross-modal ranking. Vision-language models (VLMs) mitigate this gap through strong cross-modal alignment and have recently been adopted to build multimodal rerankers. However, most VLM-based rerankers encode all candidates as images, and treating text as images introduces substantial computational overhead. Meanwhile, existing open-source multimodal rerankers are typically trained on general-domain data and often underperform in domain-specific scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose UniRank, a VLM-based reranking framework that natively scores and orders hybrid text-image candidates without any modality conversion. Building on this hybrid scoring interface, UniRank provides an end-to-end domain adaptation pipeline that includes: (1) an instruction-tuning stage that learns calibrated cross-modal relevance scoring by mapping label-token likelihoods to a unified scalar score; and (2) a hard-negative-driven preference alignment stage that constructs in-domain pairwise preferences and performs query-level policy optimization through reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Extensive experiments on scientific literature retrieval and design patent search demonstrate that UniRank consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, improving Recall@1 by 8.9% and 7.3%, respectively.

arXiv:2601.05500v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmarking the relative capabilities of AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Models, typically ignores the impact of uncertainty in the underlying ground truth answers from experts. This ambiguity is not just limited to human preferences, but is also consequential even in safety critical domains such as medicine where uncertainty is pervasive. In this paper, we introduce a probabilistic paradigm to theoretically explain how - high certainty in ground truth answers is almost always necessary for even an expert to achieve high scores, whereas in datasets with high variation in ground truth answers there may be little difference between a random labeller and an expert. Therefore, ignoring uncertainty in ground truth evaluation data can result in the misleading conclusion that a non-expert has similar performance to that of an expert. Using the probabilistic paradigm, we thus bring forth the concepts of expected accuracy and expected F1 to estimate the score an expert human or system can achieve given ground truth answer variability. Our work leads to the recommendation that when establishing the capability of a system, results should be stratified by probability of the ground truth answer, typically measured by the agreement rate of ground truth experts. Stratification becomes critical when the overall performance drops below a threshold of 80\%. Under stratified evaluation, performance comparison becomes more reliable in high certainty bins, mitigating the effect of the key confounding factor -- uncertainty.