# Toward the Evaluation of Large Language Models Considering Score Variance across Instruction Templates

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12263 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12263/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 47 of its 82 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 47)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07461/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00937/) (2018)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.00537/) (2019)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06146/) (2019)
- [Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08786/) (2021)
- [WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12244/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.00055/) (2017)
- [Neural Network Acceptability Judgments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.12471/) (2018)
- [LLM.int8(): 8-bit Matrix Multiplication for Transformers at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.07339/) (2022)
- [Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.01007/) (2019)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13688/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [OpenAssistant Conversations -- Democratizing Large Language Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07327/) (2023)
- [AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06364/) (2023)
- [MathQA: Towards Interpretable Math Word Problem Solving with Operation-Based Formalisms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.13319/) (2019)
- [An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08747/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [LIFBench: Evaluating the Instruction Following Performance and Stability of Large Language Models in Long-Context Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.07037/) (2024)
- [Revisiting Compositional Generalization Capability of Large Language Models Considering Instruction Following Ability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15629/) (2025)
- [Towards Cross-Lingual Explanation of Artwork in Large-scale Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.01584/) (2024)
- [BQA: Body Language Question Answering Dataset for Video Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13206/) (2024)
- [Edit-level Majority Voting Mitigates Over-Correction in LLM-based Grammatical Error Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.13624/) (2026)
- [Revisiting Non-Verbatim Memorization in Large Language Models: The Role of Entity Surface Forms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21882/) (2026)
- [Understanding Evaluation Illusion in Diffusion Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29228/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The natural language understanding (NLU) performance of large language models (LLMs) has been evaluated across various tasks and datasets. The existing evaluation methods, however, do not take into account the variance in scores due to differences in prompts, which leads to unfair evaluation and comparison of NLU performance. Moreover, evaluation designed for specific prompts is inappropriate for instruction tuning, which aims to perform well with any prompt. It is therefore necessary to find a way to measure NLU performance in a fair manner, considering score variance between different instruction templates. In this study, we provide English and Japanese cross-lingual datasets for evaluating the NLU performance of LLMs, which include multiple instruction templates for fair evaluation of each task, along with regular expressions to constrain the output format. Furthermore, we propose the Sharpe score as an evaluation metric that takes into account the variance in scores between templates. Comprehensive analysis of English and Japanese LLMs reveals that the high variance among templates has a significant impact on the fair evaluation of LLMs.