CreditAudit: 2nd Dimension for LLM Evaluation and Selection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Leaderboard scores on public benchmarks have been steadily rising and converging, with many frontier language models now separated by only marginal differences. However, these scores often fail to match users' day to day experience, because system prompts, output protocols, and interaction modes evolve under routine iteration, and in agentic multi step pipelines small protocol shifts can trigger disproportionate failures, leaving practitioners uncertain about which model to deploy. We propose CreditAudit, a deployment oriented credit audit framework that evaluates models under a family of semantically aligned and non adversarial system prompt templates across multiple benchmarks, reporting mean ability as average performance across scenarios and scenario induced fluctuation sigma as a stability risk signal, and further mapping volatility into interpretable credit grades from AAA to BBB via cross model quantiles with diagnostics that mitigate template difficulty drift. Controlled experiments on GPQA, TruthfulQA, and MMLU Pro show that models with similar mean ability can exhibit substantially different fluctuation, and stability risk can overturn prioritization decisions in agentic or high failure cost regimes. By providing a 2D and grade based language for regime specific selection, CreditAudit supports tiered deployment and more disciplined allocation of testing and monitoring effort, enabling more objective and trustworthy model evaluation for real world use.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jan 2026.
Builds on
12 of 25 references.
References · 12
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,767
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,758
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,151
- 2024Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 172
- 2024Towards Reproducible LLM Evaluation: Quantifying Uncertainty in LLM Benchmark Scorescited by 25
- 2025Information Capacity: Evaluating the Efficiency of Large Language Models via Text Compressioncited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Standard Benchmarks Fail -- Auditing LLM Agents in Finance Must Prioritize Risk
- 2025LLM Output Drift: Cross-Provider Validation & Mitigation for Financial Workflows
- 2026From Accuracy to Auditability: A Survey of Determinism in Financial AI Systems
- 2026Communicating Credit Risk with Large Language Models: Evaluation of Explanations from Standard and Alternative Data-Based Models
- 2025MASCA: LLM based-Multi Agents System for Credit Assessment
- 2026The Harness as the Only Mutable Surface: Compliance-Bounded Self-Evolution of LLM Agents in Credit Pipelines, with a Measured Admission Gate
- 2026Credit Without Ground Truth: Auditing Step-Level Credit Assignment in LLM Agents Against Executed Replay
- 2026Coverage, Not Credit: Failure-Credit Routing of Zeroth-Order Perturbation Budgets Does Not Improve On-Pool Sample Efficiency for LLM Agents