PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Position: Don't Use the CLT in LLM Evals With Fewer Than a Few Hundred Datapoints

Open access
Bowyer, Sam, Aitchison, Laurence, Ivanova, Desi R.·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Rigorous statistical evaluations of large language models (LLMs), including valid error bars and significance testing, are essential for meaningful and reliable performance assessment. Currently, when such statistical measures are reported, they typically rely on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). In this position paper, we argue that while CLT-based methods for uncertainty quantification are appropriate when benchmarks consist of thousands of examples, they fail to provide adequate uncertainty estimates for LLM evaluations that rely on smaller, highly specialized benchmarks. In these small-data settings, we demonstrate that CLT-based methods perform very poorly, usually dramatically underestimating uncertainty (i.e. producing error bars that are too small). We give recommendations for alternative frequentist and Bayesian methods that are both easy to implement and more appropriate in these increasingly common scenarios. We provide a simple Python library for these Bayesian methods at https://github.com/sambowyer/bayes_evals .

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.01747

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Noise within evaluation benchmarks is frequently studied as the intrinsic noise of the dataset, rather than the noise as a result of differences in the model during training.

    “Noise within evaluation benchmarks is frequently studied as the intrinsic noise of the dataset [2, 7, 40, 6], rather than the noise as a result of differences in the model during training.”

    From Signal and Noise: A Framework for Reducing Uncertainty in Language Model Evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Introduction (p. 1) discusses statistical uncertainty in benchmark evaluations, and §3.2 (p. 5) models variation across tasks and questions. This supports the dataset-side focus, but the paper does not establish that benchmark noise is frequently studied *rather than* variation arising during model training. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

This paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowyer, S., Aitchison, L., & Ivanova, D. R.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416045832
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • UK Research and Innovation
  • University of Bristol
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
LLM evaluation, central limit theorem, uncertainty quantification, small sample statistics, error bars, significance testing, Bayesian analysis, frequentist methods

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