Instance-level Randomization: Toward More Stable LLM Evaluations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Evaluations of large language models (LLMs) suffer from instability, where small changes of random factors such as few-shot examples can lead to drastic fluctuations of scores and even model rankings. Moreover, different LLMs can have different preferences for a certain setting of random factors. As a result, using a fixed setting of random factors, which is often adopted as the paradigm of current evaluations, can lead to potential unfair comparisons between LLMs. To mitigate the volatility of evaluations, we first theoretically analyze the sources of variance induced by changes in random factors. Targeting these specific sources, we then propose the instance-level randomization (ILR) method to reduce variance and enhance fairness in model comparisons. Instead of using a fixed setting across the whole benchmark in a single experiment, we randomize all factors that affect evaluation scores for every single instance, run multiple experiments and report the averaged score. Theoretical analyses and empirical results demonstrate that ILR can reduce the variance and unfair comparisons caused by random factors, as well as achieve similar robustness level with less than half computational cost compared with previous methods.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2025.
Builds on
22 of 30 references.
References · 22
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,807
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2023Hard Prompts Made Easy: Gradient-Based Discrete Optimization for Prompt Tuning and Discoverycited by 336
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 310
- 2021Accounting for Variance in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 201
- 2024When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboardscited by 137
- 2024What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineeringcited by 90
- 2024A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendationscited by 85
- 2024Efficient multi-prompt evaluation of LLMscited by 73
- 2024PRewrite: Prompt Rewriting with Reinforcement Learningcited by 45
10 more
- 2025A Survey of Automatic Prompt Engineering: An Optimization Perspectivecited by 41
- 2023Mind the instructions: a holistic evaluation of consistency and interactions in prompt-based learningcited by 31
- 2024VarBench: Robust Language Model Benchmarking Through Dynamic Variable Perturbationcited by 29
- 2025Towards LLMs Robustness to Changes in Prompt Format Stylescited by 21
- 2025Zero-shot and Few-shot Learning with Instruction-following LLMs for Claim Matching in Automated Fact-checkingcited by 12
- 2024Evaluating the Performance and Robustness of LLMs in Materials Science Q&A and Property Predictionscited by 9
- 2025Prompting Science Report 1: Prompt Engineering is Complicated and Contingentcited by 8
- 2024Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis?cited by 6
- 2025RobuNFR: Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models on Non-Functional Requirements Aware Code Generationcited by 5
- 2024Meaning Typed Prompting: A Technique for Efficient, Reliable Structured Output Generationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.