PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingMachine Learning and Data ClassificationNatural Language Processing Techniques

Measuring all the noises of LLM Evals

Open access
Wang, Sida I.·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Applying well-established statistical methods effectively to LLM evals requires consideration of model correlations and prediction noises. Leading evals often ignore data noise, have low statistical power, or make unnecessary trade-offs. We define and measure three types of noise: 1) prediction noise from generating different answers on a given question, 2) data noise from sampling questions, and 3) their combined total noise following the law of total variance. To emphasize relative comparisons and gain statistical power, we propose \emph{all-pairs comparison}, which applies paired comparison to all pairs of LLMs and measures all the noise components based on millions of question-level predictions across many evals and settings, revealing clear trends. First, most evals exhibit a characteristic and highly predictable total noise level across all model pairs. Second, paired prediction noise typically exceeds paired data noise, which means reducing prediction noise by averaging can significantly increase statistical power. By measuring all the noises together, we can assess eval results in context and make better empirical decisions.

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.2512.21326

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • With only about four runs, a configuration whose runs happen to land close together looks very precise even when its true uncertainty is large.

    “With only about four runs, a configuration whose runs happen to land close together looks very precise even when its true uncertainty is large [Wang, 2025, Terminal-Bench contributors, 2026].”

    From DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2025

    The Additional information section says that estimating prediction noise from the variance of repeated evaluation runs is correct in expectation but noisier, and §3.3 emphasizes that small sample counts can make variance estimates inaccurate. This supports the warning that a few runs can give a misleading impression of precision, but the paper does not specifically describe four runs of a configuration landing close together despite large true uncertainty; its Figure 3 example uses five predictions per question. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Yoav Benjamini, Richard D De Veaux, Bradley Efron, Scott Evans, Mark Glickman, Barry I Graubard, Xuming He, Xiao-Li Meng, Nancy Reid, Stephen M Stigler, Stephen B Vardeman, Christopher K Wikle, Tommy Wright, Linda J Young, and Karen Kafadar. 2021. The asa president's task force statement on statistical significance and replicability. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 15(3):1084-1085. · DOI
  2. Sam Bowyer, Laurence Aitchison, and Desi R. Ivanova. 2025. Position: Don't use the CLT in LLM evals with fewer than a few hundred datapoints. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 267 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4418-4459. PMLR. ICML 2025 Spotlight Position Paper.
  3. Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael Jordan, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2024. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04132. · arXiv
  4. Bradley Efron. 1979. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1):1-26.
  5. Bradley Efron and Robert Tibshirani. 1986. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1(1):54-75.
  6. Alex Gu, Baptiste Rozière, Hugh Leather, Armando Solar-Lezama, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Sida I. Wang. 2024. Cruxeval: A benchmark for code reasoning, understanding and execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03065. · arXiv
  7. Katherine Hermann, Jennifer Hu, and Michael Mozer. 2024. Experimental design and analysis for AI researchers. Tutorial at the 38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024).
  8. Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. 2024. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07974. · arXiv
  9. Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R Narasimhan. 2024. SWE-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
  10. Madaan, Aaditya K. Singh, Rylan Schaeffer, Andrew Poulton, Sanmi Koyejo, Pontus Stene- torp, Sharan Narang, and Dieuwke Hupkes. 2024. Quantifying variance in evaluation benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10229. · arXiv
  11. Evan Miller. 2024. Adding error bars to evals: A statistical approach to language model evaluations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00640. · arXiv
  12. Felipe Maia Polo, Lucas Weber, Leshem Choshen, Yuekai Sun, Gongjun Xu, and Mikhail Yurochkin. 2024. tinybenchmarks: evaluating llms with fewer examples. In Proceedings of the 41st Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235, Vienna, Austria. PMLR.
  13. Chengxing Xie. 2025. Swe-fixer: Training open-source llms for effective and efficient github issue resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05040. · arXiv
  14. Dmitri V. Zaykin. 2011. Optimally weighted z-test is a powerful method for combining probabilities in meta-analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 24(8):1836-1841.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, S. I.
Corresponding author
Wang, Sida I.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7117301248
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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 › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
LLM evaluation, noisy data, law of total variance, statistical power, model comparison

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