The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2411.00640 · v1 · pith:QJFVZJSL · submitted 2024-11-01 · stat.AP · cs.CL

Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluations

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:QJFVZJSLrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification stat.AP cs.CL
keywords evaluationslanguageevaluationexperimentmodeldataliteraturemodels
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Evaluations are critical for understanding the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Fundamentally, evaluations are experiments; but the literature on evaluations has largely ignored the literature from other sciences on experiment analysis and planning. This article shows researchers with some training in statistics how to think about and analyze data from language model evaluations. Conceptualizing evaluation questions as having been drawn from an unseen super-population, we present formulas for analyzing evaluation data, measuring differences between two models, and planning an evaluation experiment. We make a number of specific recommendations for running language model evaluations and reporting experiment results in a way that minimizes statistical noise and maximizes informativeness.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 21 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Office Comprehension Benchmark

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    OCB introduces File Fidelity Q&A and Domain Q&A tracks for LLM evaluation on native office files, reporting ~59.3% on domain reasoning for top systems with releases of data and tooling.

  2. Acceptance Cards:A Four-Diagnostic Standard for Safe Fine-Tuning Defense Claims

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Acceptance Cards is a new four-diagnostic standard for safe fine-tuning defense claims that requires statistical reliability, fresh semantic generalization, mechanism alignment, and cross-task transfer; under this pro...

  3. RuBench: A Repository-Level Agentic Coding Benchmark with Natively Authored Russian Task Specifications

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    RuBench introduces 25 repository-level coding tasks with natively authored Russian specifications graded by private maintainer oracles, evaluates four deployed agent products, and documents a product-level safeguard t...

  4. How Reliable Is Your Jailbreak Judge? Calibration and Adversarial Robustness of Automated ASR Scoring

    cs.CL 2026-06 accept novelty 7.0

    Automated judges for LLM jailbreak ASR show opposite calibration failures and low robustness, with LLM judges flipped by benign framing and classifiers vulnerable to white-box attacks.

  5. How Reliable Is Your Jailbreak Judge? Calibration and Adversarial Robustness of Automated ASR Scoring

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Automated ASR judges (safety classifiers and LLM prompts) show mismatched calibration to humans and low robustness to framing attacks on 596 HarmBench examples, making many reported rates unreliable.

  6. Instance-Optimal Estimation with Multiple LLM Judges on a Budget

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Introduces budgeted heteroskedastic multi-judge estimation and proves instance-optimality of an adaptive inverse-variance weighted estimator via matching upper and lower bounds.

  7. Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development

    cs.SE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Vibe Code Bench evaluates AI models on building complete web applications from specs, with the best of 16 models achieving 61.8% accuracy on the test split using autonomous browser evaluation.

  8. Bounded Difference Concentration for Infinitely Exchangeable Sequences with Applications to AI Benchmark Uncertainty

    stat.ML 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Establishes concentration bounds for infinitely exchangeable sequences with cancellation for zero-sum contrasts and applies the result to distribution-free uncertainty quantification in composite AI benchmarks.

  9. Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    EvalCards is a composable reporting schema and monitoring tool for AI evaluations, derived from 52 papers and 10 interviews, and applied to 5,816 models and 101,843 results to surface reporting gaps.

  10. Validity Threats for Foundation Model Research

    cs.LG 2026-06 accept novelty 6.0

    Maps common low-compute research strategies for foundation models onto statistical, internal, external, and construct validity threats via a causal-inference lens.

  11. Resolution Diagnostics for Paired LLM Evaluation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Paired LLM leaderboard comparisons frequently lack resolution at conventional (alpha=0.05, power=0.8) levels, with a new per-pair ratio q=N/N* showing that common unpaired shortcuts underestimate required samples by r...

  12. Bias and Uncertainty in LLM-as-a-Judge Estimation

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Bias-corrected LLM-as-a-Judge estimators can reverse true model orderings under shared calibration, and the paper supplies judge quality J and cross-model instability ΔJ as practical diagnostics for when such estimate...

  13. Vocabulary Dropout for Curriculum Diversity in LLM Co-Evolution

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Vocabulary dropout prevents diversity collapse in LLM co-evolution by masking proposer logits, yielding average +4.4 point solver gains on mathematical reasoning benchmarks at 8B scale.

  14. When LLMs get significantly worse: A statistical approach to detect model degradations

    stat.ML 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    A McNemar-based statistical test detects real degradations in optimized LLMs with controlled false positives, even for accuracy changes as small as 0.3%.

  15. Making Interpretable Discoveries from Unstructured Data: A High-Dimensional Multiple Hypothesis Testing Approach

    econ.EM 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new framework combines AI-derived concept embeddings with high-dimensional selective inference to enable statistically principled, interpretable discovery from unstructured data in empirical economics.

  16. Rank Intervals for Leaderboards: A Hierarchical Framework for Model Evaluation

    stat.ML 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A hierarchical framework generates statistically valid task-level rank confidence intervals via pairwise comparisons and leaderboard-level rank prediction intervals via conformal prediction.

  17. Pairwise Reference Alignment as a Model-Level Ordinal Observable

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Pairwise reference alignment is formulated as an ordinal observable equal to the probability that a model score agrees with reference preferences on triples (x, y+, y-), with centered statistics, margin extensions, es...

  18. Position: AI Evaluations Should be Grounded on a Theory of Capability

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    AI evaluations should be reframed as inference tasks grounded in an explicit theory of capability, with an empirical demonstration that results depend on modeling assumptions and a proposed Evaluation Card for transparency.

  19. Statistical Software Engineering with Tuned Variables

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    AI system maintenance requires treating configuration choices as versioned governed tuned variables promoted via statistical evidence from sampled evaluations.

  20. LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness

    cs.CR 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LLM safety evaluations are hindered by noise in dataset curation, automated red-teaming, response generation, and LLM-judge evaluation, making fair comparisons difficult and slowing progress.

  21. LLM Harms: A Taxonomy and Discussion

    cs.CY 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    This paper proposes a taxonomy of LLM harms in five categories and suggests mitigation strategies plus a dynamic auditing system for responsible development.