Benchmark scores are reported as properties of a model, yet the inference framework used to produce them, such as HuggingFace, vLLM, or Ollama, are considered non-influential and their names and versions are almost never disclosed. In this work we investigate how much this choice can influence the model output. In a fully-crossed study (three instruction-tuned models x five inference frameworks x six benchmarks x four generation modes) we investigate how different tools (wrappers/backend) influence benchmark scores and how their score changes is influenced by generation hyper-parameters. We find backend to be a non-negligible factor where even under greedy, sampling-noise-free decoding, changing the backend can significantly alter models performance and this effect is structural and strongly model-dependent. Decomposing the variance according to generation mode reveal that considerable portion of the variability (roughly 39\%) a practitioner sees out-of-the-box can stem from the backend, while the remaining stems from sampling noise and each framework's default generation parameters, both of which are avoidable by disclosing and matching the generation configuration. These divergences are more pronounced on factual than on social-bias benchmarks. Overall, benchmark numbers are not backend-agnostic therefore, we recommend disclosing the backend, its version, and the full generation configuration, also using deterministic decoding for cross-backend comparison.
This position paper observes that a wide variety of techniques designed to improve specific aspects of LM behavior-targeting properties as diverse as adversarial robustness and factual coherence-can be understood as special cases of a common "consistency optimization" procedure and addressed with a standard set of opti...
Itamar Hagay Pres, Belinda Z. Li, L. Ruis et al.· 2 citations
It is shown that rephrasing a problem while keeping its meaning and answer fixed routinely flips a model's answer in both directions, so some failures become successes and some successes become failures, and BenchDrift generates meaning-preserving variations of benchmark problems along four axes, namely linguistic, ref...
Shailja Thakur, Sungeun An, Chad DeLuca et al.· 1 citation
Behavior manifold analysis is introduced, which isolates behavior-specific geometry by selecting sparse behavior-associated coordinates and lifting them into low-dimensional local charts, and provides a unified framework for understanding the mechanistic distinction between the two objectives.
Jun-Tong Wang, Shengkun Yang, Xiyuan Wang et al.· 0 citations
Experimental results show that CritICL consistently outperforms standard in-context learning and achieves performance competitive with or superior to test-time scaling methods, while requiring significantly fewer generations and lower token cost.
Yu-Fan Wu, Ying-Hui He, Zhengyi Hu et al.· 1 citation
The results show that the LLM's capability dissolves with dimension in a way no noise-corrupted classical learner mimics - which explains why LLMs, so capable elsewhere, keep losing to fifty-year-old baselines on tables, while leaving the mechanism of the prediction as an open question.
It is concluded that instability should be treated as a standard evaluation axis in SE optimization, which should be routinely measured, reported alongside performance, and used to calibrate trust in any single run.
Amirali Rayegan, Lunxiao Li, Tim Menzies· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.