Cer-Eval: Certifiable and Cost-Efficient Evaluation Framework for LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As foundation models continue to scale, the size of trained models grows exponentially, presenting significant challenges for their evaluation. Current evaluation practices involve curating increasingly large datasets to assess the performance of large language models (LLMs). However, there is a lack of systematic analysis and guidance on determining the sufficiency of test data or selecting informative samples for evaluation. This paper introduces a certifiable and cost-efficient evaluation framework for LLMs. Our framework adapts to different evaluation objectives and outputs confidence intervals that contain true values with high probability. We use ``test sample complexity'' to quantify the number of test points needed for a certifiable evaluation and derive tight bounds on test sample complexity. Based on the developed theory, we develop a partition-based algorithm, named Cer-Eval, that adaptively selects test points to minimize the cost of LLM evaluation. Real-world experiments demonstrate that Cer-Eval can save 20% to 40% test points across various benchmarks, while maintaining an estimation error level comparable to the current evaluation process and providing a 95% confidence guarantee.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 May 2025.
Builds on
23 of 32 references.
References · 23
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
- 2023Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignmentcited by 401
- 2021Explaining Neural Scaling Lawscited by 363
- 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 310
- 2023SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Modelscited by 199
11 more
- 2025ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoningcited by 151
- 2024Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluationscited by 148
- 2024LLM-based NLG Evaluation: Current Status and Challengescited by 73
- 2024MJ-Bench: Is Your Multimodal Reward Model Really a Good Judge for Text-to-Image Generation?cited by 66
- 2023TrustGPT: A Benchmark for Trustworthy and Responsible Large Language Modelscited by 58
- 2024AutoEval Done Right: Using Synthetic Data for Model Evaluationcited by 57
- 2024SafeWatch: An Efficient Safety-Policy Following Video Guardrail Model with Transparent Explanationscited by 38
- 2024Stratified Prediction-Powered Inference for Hybrid Language Model Evaluationcited by 26
- 2025MMDT: Decoding the Trustworthiness and Safety of Multimodal Foundation Modelscited by 14
- 2024Data Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models and Text-to-Image Models via Adaptive Samplingcited by 12
- 2024Collaborative Performance Prediction for Large Language Modelscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 9.
11 papers.
- 2025Adaptive Prediction-Powered AutoEval with Reliability and Efficiency Guaranteescited by 11
- 2025ReasonBENCH: Benchmarking the (In)Stability of LLM Reasoningcited by 9
- 2026How Many Iterations to Jailbreak? Dynamic Budget Allocation for Multi-Turn LLM Evaluationcited by 4
- 2026How Many Tasks Are Enough for Agent Benchmark Decisions? A Replay Analysis of Public LLM Agent Benchmarkscited by 4
- 2026ProEval: Proactive Failure Discovery and Efficient Performance Estimation for Generative AI Evaluationcited by 2
- 2026ParEvalLayer: When Partial LLM-Agent Evaluations Support a Decisioncited by 1
- 2026Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Rankingcited by 1
- 2026RouteGuard: Certifying Routing Gain in LLM Multi-Agent Systems When Complementarity Is Not Enoughcited by 1
- 2026Anytime-Valid LLM Leaderboards via Benchmark-weighted and Block-Factorized e-Processescited by 1
- 2026BayesAME: Bayesian Active Model Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Are We Testing Too Much? A Survey of Benchmark Compression for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Are We Testing Too Much? A Survey of Benchmark Compression for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models13 Oct 2026
- 2026Anytime-Valid LLM Leaderboards via Benchmark-weighted and Block-Factorized e-Processes26 Sep 2026
- 2026RouteGuard: Certifying Routing Gain in LLM Multi-Agent Systems When Complementarity Is Not Enough5 Aug 2026
- 2026Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Ranking4 Aug 2026
- 2026ParEvalLayer: When Partial LLM-Agent Evaluations Support a Decision3 Aug 2026
- 2026BayesAME: Bayesian Active Model Evaluation29 Jul 2026
- 2026How Many Tasks Are Enough for Agent Benchmark Decisions? A Replay Analysis of Public LLM Agent Benchmarks14 Jul 2026
- 2026How Many Iterations to Jailbreak? Dynamic Budget Allocation for Multi-Turn LLM Evaluation7 May 2026
- 2026ProEval: Proactive Failure Discovery and Efficient Performance Estimation for Generative AI Evaluation25 Apr 2026
- 2025ReasonBENCH: Benchmarking the (In)Stability of LLM Reasoning8 Dec 2025
- 2025Adaptive Prediction-Powered AutoEval with Reliability and Efficiency Guarantees24 May 2025