Beyond Probabilities: Unveiling the Misalignment in Evaluating Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various applications, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of natural language processing (NLP) research. However, recent evaluation frameworks often rely on the output probabilities of LLMs for predictions, primarily due to computational constraints, diverging from real-world LLM usage scenarios. While widely employed, the efficacy of these probability-based evaluation strategies remains an open research question. This study aims to scrutinize the validity of such probability-based evaluation methods within the context of using LLMs for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), highlighting their inherent limitations. Our empirical investigation reveals that the prevalent probability-based evaluation method inadequately aligns with generation-based prediction. Furthermore, current evaluation frameworks typically assess LLMs through predictive tasks based on output probabilities rather than directly generating responses, owing to computational limitations. We illustrate that these probability-based approaches do not effectively correspond with generative predictions. The outcomes of our study can enhance the understanding of LLM evaluation methodologies and provide insights for future research in this domain.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Multiple-choice loglikelihood-based benchmarks do not agree with generative-scored multiple-choice benchmarks.
“Indeed, research like Lyu et al. (2024) demonstrate that multiplechoice loglikelihood-based benchmarks do not even agree with generative-scored multiple-choice benchmarks.”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Lyu et al. (2024)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Norah Alzahrani, Hisham Abdullah Alyahya, Yazeed Alnumay, Sultan Alrashed, Shaykhah Alsubaie, Yusef Almushaykeh, Faisal Mirza, Nouf Alotaibi, Nora Altwairesh, Areeb Alowisheq, et al. 2024. When benchmarks are targets: Revealing the sen- sitivity of large language model leaderboards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01781. · arXiv
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word prob- lems. CoRR, abs/2110.14168. · arXiv
- Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiy- ong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, and Zhifang Sui. 2022. A survey for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Stein- hardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net.
- David M. Howcroft, Anya Belz, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dimitra Gkatzia, Sadid A. Hasan, Saad Mahamood, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Sashank Santhanam, and Verena Rieser. 2020. Twenty years of confusion in human evaluation: NLG needs evaluation sheets and standardised definitions. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 169-182, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
- Haonan Li, Fajri Koto, Minghao Wu, Alham Fikri Aji, and Timothy Baldwin. 2023a. Bactrian-x : A multi- lingual replicable instruction-following model with low-rank adaptation. CoRR, abs/2305.15011. · DOI
- Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Aman- preet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understand- ing systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 3261-3275.
- Zhanyu Wang, Longyue Wang, Zhen Zhao, Ming- hao Wu, Chenyang Lyu, Huayang Li, Deng Cai, Luping Zhou, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023c. Gpt4video: A unified multimodal large lan- guage model for lnstruction-followed understand- ing and safety-aware generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16511. · arXiv
- Minghao Wu, Thuy-Trang Vu, Lizhen Qu, George Fos- ter, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2024. Adapting large language models for document-level machine trans- lation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06468. · arXiv
- Chujie Zheng, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, and Minlie Huang. 2023a. On large language models' se- lection bias in multi-choice questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03882. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, X., Ma, B., Hu, C., Weber, L., Röttger, P., Kreuter, F., Hovy, D., & Plank, B. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.441 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Are Large Language Models Consistent over Value-laden Questions?
Moore, J., Deshpande, T., & Yang, D. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.891 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Comparative analysis of leading artificial intelligence chatbots in the context of entrepreneurship
Kamalov, F., Calonge, D. S., Hultberg, P. T., Smail, L., & Jamali, D. (2025) · Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1186/s13731-025-00527-3 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
AI Alignment at Your Discretion
Buyl, M., Khalaf, H., Verdun, C. M., Paes, L. M., Machado, C. C. V., & Calmon, F. P. (2025) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732194 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
SCORE: Systematic COnsistency and Robustness Evaluation for Large Language Models
Nalbandyan, G., Shahbazyan, R., & Bakhturina, E. (2025) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-industry.39 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models
Biderman, S., Schoelkopf, H., Sutawika, L., Gao, L., Tow, J., Abbasi, B., Aji, A. F., Ammanamanchi, P. S., Black, S., Clive, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.14782 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“This approach reduces the skew of perplexity favoring models with larger L (and thus fewer tokens appearing at the beginning of a context window) that is introduced by the early token curse via reducing the number of tokens appearing with little context preceding them.”
Self-citationAre Large Language Models Consistent over Value-laden Questions?
Moore, J., Deshpande, T., & Yang, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.02996 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
AdaEdit: Advancing Continuous Knowledge Editing For Large Language Models
Li, Q., & Chu, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.208 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Kumar, N. D., Ramavath, S. K., & Venkatesh, V. (2025) · International Generative AI and Computational Language Modelling Conference (GACLM) · doi:10.1109/gaclm67198.2025.11232293 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Anil, K., Maramba, I. D. C., Cook, D. P., Cyrus, D., Fakharuzi, Z., Namdar, A. H., West, T. O., & Shirgill, S. (2026) · Healthcare Technology Letters · doi:10.1049/htl2.70102
Lawrence, L., Saha, O., Wei, M., Sun, C., Maji, S., & Horn, G. V. (2026) · IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/wacv61042.2026.00145
- Authors
- Lyu, C., Wu, M., & Aji, A. F.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 109-131
- arXiv
- 2402.13887
- OpenAlex
- W4402669754
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 1.15
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- large language models, LLM evaluation, multiple-choice questions, evaluation framework
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
