Rater Equivalence: Evaluating Classifiers in Human Judgment Settings

In many decision settings, the definitive ground truth is either non-existent or inaccessible. We introduce a framework for evaluating classifiers based solely on human judgments. In such cases, it is helpful to compare automated classifiers to human judgment. We quantify a classifier's performance by its rater equivalence: the smallest number of human raters whose combined judgment matches the classifier's performance. Our framework uses human-generated labels both to construct benchmark panels and to evaluate performance. We distinguish between two models of utility: one based on agreement with the assumed but inaccessible ground truth, and one based on matching individual human judgments. Using case studies and formal analysis, we demonstrate how this framework can inform the evaluation and deployment of AI systems in practice.