Measuring all the noises of LLM Evals
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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 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.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Dec 2025.
Builds on
12 of 25 references.
References · 12
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 2,004
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2024MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineeringcited by 469
- 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 310
- 2024CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Executioncited by 300
- 2024Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluationscited by 148
- 2020With Little Power Comes Great Responsibilitycited by 142
- 2025SWE-Fixer: Training Open-Source LLMs for Effective and Efficient GitHub Issue Resolutioncited by 90
- 2025Toward Training Superintelligent Software Agents through Self-Play SWE-RLcited by 40
- 2025Position: Don't Use the CLT in LLM Evals With Fewer Than a Few Hundred Datapointscited by 23
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Taskscited by 49
- 2026Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivitycited by 21
- 2026Hidden Measurement Error in LLM Pipelines Distorts Annotation, Evaluation, and Benchmarkingcited by 10
- 2026RevengeBench: Reverse Engineering Code-Space Policies from Behavioral Experimentscited by 0
- 2026Reinforcement Learning for Code Optimizationcited by 0
- 2026When Pair Count Is Not the Sample Size: What All-Pairs Agent Comparisons Estimatecited by 0
- 2026Cortex: Measurement-Gated Evolution and Pruning of Coding-Agent Skills and Rulescited by 0
- 2026Cortex: Measurement-Gated Evolution and Pruning of Coding-Agent Skills and Rules9 Oct 2026
- 2026When Pair Count Is Not the Sample Size: What All-Pairs Agent Comparisons Estimate26 Sep 2026
- 2026Reinforcement Learning for Code Optimization28 Jul 2026
- 2026DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks8 Jul 2026
- 2026RevengeBench: Reverse Engineering Code-Space Policies from Behavioral Experiments24 Jun 2026
- 2026Hidden Measurement Error in LLM Pipelines Distorts Annotation, Evaluation, and Benchmarking13 Apr 2026
- 2026Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivity27 Feb 2026