Position: Don't Use the CLT in LLM Evals With Fewer Than a Few Hundred Datapoints
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
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
Limitations of large language models in clinical problem-solving arising from inflexible reasoning
Kim, J., Podlasek, A., Shidara, K., Liu, F., Alaa, A., & Bernardo, D. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-22940-0 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Signal and Noise: A Framework for Reducing Uncertainty in Language Model Evaluation
Heineman, D., Hofmann, V., Magnusson, I., Gu, Y., Smith, N. A., Hajishirzi, H., Lo, K., & Dodge, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.13144
- Authors
- Bowyer, S., Aitchison, L., & Ivanova, D. R.
- ORCID
- Aitchison, Laurence
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.01747
- OpenAlex
- W4416045832
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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