Instance-level Randomization: Toward More Stable LLM Evaluations (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluations of large language models suffer from instability, where small changes of random factors can lead to drastic fluctuations of scores and even model rankings. |
| Approach: | They propose an instance-level randomization method to reduce variance and improve fairness in evaluations by randomizing all factors that affect evaluation scores for every single instance. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method reduces variance and improves fairness in model comparisons by using instance-level randomization. |
Similar Papers
SCORE: Systematic COnsistency and Robustness Evaluation for Large Language Models (2025.naacl-industry)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Typical evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) report a single accuracy metric per dataset, often derived from an optimized setup. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for non-adversarial evaluation of large language models that evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups to give a realistic estimate of their accuracy and consistency. |
Model Consistency as a Cheap yet Predictive Proxy for LLM Elo Scores (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) makes it difficult to assess which models are best suited for specific tasks. |
| Approach: | They find that the consistency of an LLM's Elo score is 91% correlated with its own human-produced Elo scores. |
| Outcome: | a new method to evaluate large language models is needed to scale with the increasing number of models released . current best way is to measure model's Elo score by comparing it to other models in contests . a simple proxy for Elo scores can be computed cheaply without human data or prior knowledge . |
Likelihood-based Mitigation of Evaluation Bias in Large Language Models (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate natural language generation tasks as automated metrics. |
| Approach: | They propose to use LLMs to evaluate sentences with higher likelihoods and lower likelihoods to mitigate the likelihood bias. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method overrates sentences with higher likelihoods while underrating sentences with lower likelihoods. |
Noise, Adaptation, and Strategy: Assessing LLM Fidelity in Decision-Making (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for social science simulations . however, most evaluations focus on task optimality rather than variability and adaptation characteristic of human decision-making. |
| Approach: | They propose a process-oriented evaluation framework with progressive interventions to evaluate two economics tasks using large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation framework targets two economic tasks with progressive interventions. |
Navigating the Modern Evaluation Landscape: Considerations in Benchmarks and Frameworks for Large Language Models (LLMs) (2024.lrec-tutorials)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | General-purpose Language Models have changed the world of Natural Language Processing, if not the world itself. |
| Approach: | This tutorial will lay the foundations and explain the basics of evaluation and compare traditional methods to newly developed methods. |
| Outcome: | The tutorial assumes little familiarity with metrics, datasets, prompts and benchmarks . it will compare traditional methods to newly developed methods . |
A Monte-Carlo Sampling Framework For Reliable Evaluation of Large Language Models Using Behavioral Analysis (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current approaches to evaluation of large language models ignore high entropy of LLM responses. |
| Approach: | They propose a Monte-Carlo evaluation framework for evaluating large language models . they test multiple LLMs to see if they are susceptible to cognitive biases . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework shows that LLMs are more human-like and less rational . it also shows that larger LLM models are more susceptible to cognitive biases . |
Examining the robustness of LLM evaluation to the distributional assumptions of benchmarks (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using benchmarks to evaluate Large Language Models is inconsistent with the assumption that the test prompts within a benchmark represent a random sample from some real-world distribution of interest. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a model's average performance across the test prompts of a benchmark to evaluate its performance. |
| Outcome: | The results show that the correlation between model performance across test prompts and the test prompt can change model rankings on major benchmarks. |
Understanding LLM Performance Degradation in Multi-Instance Processing: The Roles of Instance Count and Context Length (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are used for processing multiple documents or analysis over a number of instances. |
| Approach: | They perform a comprehensive evaluation of the multi-instance processing ability of LLMs for tasks in which they excel individually. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs well on tasks in which it excels individually. |
OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluations (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models claim to perform better on tasks measuring model capabilities, but there is no standard setup for reproducible evaluations. |
| Approach: | They propose a document that is documented and practical for reproducible LLM evaluations and includes recommendations from existing literature and new experiments. |
| Outcome: | The proposed standard identifies and reviews the varying factors in evaluation practices adopted by the community, such as prompt formatting, choice of in-context examples, probability normalizations, and task formulation. |
The Impossibility of Fair LLMs (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing frameworks for evaluating large language models do not extend to general-purpose AI contexts or are infeasible in practice. |
| Approach: | They analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks to find inherent challenges . they find that each framework does not logically extend to the general-purpose AI context . |
| Outcome: | The proposed frameworks do not logically extend to the general-purpose AI context or are infeasible in practice due to large amounts of unstructured training data and potential combinations of human populations, use cases, and sensitive attributes. |