The Silent Hyperparameter: Quantifying the Impact of Inference Backends on LLM Reproducibility
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Progress in LLMs is increasingly measured through standardized benchmarks, where state-of-the-art improvements are often separated by fractions of a percentage point. At the same time, the computational cost of evaluating modern LLMs has driven widespread adoption of specialized inference backends, software systems that execute trained models efficiently at inference time. While critical for scalability, system-level optimizations, such as custom CUDA kernels and reduced-precision arithmetic, can alter token probabilities and introduce non-determinism, possibly cascading into divergent generation. In this work, we first survey the inference landscape, identifying 200 distinct engines, and analyze 35,000 ML publications, finding that the specific inference stack is rarely reported despite this widespread diversity. We then present a systematic empirical study of how inference backends affect LLM benchmark results. Holding model weights, decoding parameters, and hardware constant, we evaluate five widely used inference engines, including vLLM, SGLang, and llama.cpp, across multiple open-weight models and established benchmarks. We show that the choice of backend alone can shift benchmark scores by up to 16.6 percentage points and induce high rates of output disagreement. By isolating backend optimizations and tracing the execution pipeline, we find this divergence is driven by system-level optimizations like prefix caching and CUDA graphs, custom kernels, and engine-specific defaults in logit processing. Our findings identify the inference backend as a previously unreported but consequential hyperparameter in the evaluation of LLM and advocate standardized reporting of inference stacks to improve the reproducibility and interpretability of benchmark comparisons.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.
Builds on
23 of 30 references.
References · 23
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 2,004
- 2023SGLang: Efficient Execution of Structured Language Model Programscited by 1,141
- 2024JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Modelscited by 536
- 2024Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 179
- 2024A Thorough Examination of Decoding Methods in the Era of LLMscited by 114
- 2023Towards Efficient Generative Large Language Model Serving: A Survey from Algorithms to Systemscited by 102
- 2025SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledgecited by 54
11 more
- 2025Understanding and Mitigating Numerical Sources of Nondeterminism in LLM Inferencecited by 53
- 2024Large Language Model Inference Acceleration: A Comprehensive Hardware Perspectivecited by 38
- 2025Benchmarking Prompt Sensitivity in Large Language Modelscited by 38
- 2024"Give Me BF16 or Give Me Death"? Accuracy-Performance Trade-Offs in LLM Quantizationcited by 34
- 2024LLM-Inference-Bench: Inference Benchmarking of Large Language Models on AI Acceleratorscited by 32
- 2024Towards Reproducible LLM Evaluation: Quantifying Uncertainty in LLM Benchmark Scorescited by 25
- 2025Chasing Shadows: Pitfalls in LLM Security Researchcited by 13
- 2025A Survey on Inference Engines for Large Language Models: Perspectives on Optimization and Efficiencycited by 12
- 2025Hardware Acceleration for Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 6
- 2021mlf-core: a framework for deterministic machine learningcited by 5
- 2026Hidden Reliability Risks in Large Language Models: Systematic Identification of Precision-Induced Output Disagreementscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.
8 papers.
- 2026The Integer Alibi: Localizing Cross-Kernel Divergence in INT8-Quantized LLM Inferencecited by 2
- 2026IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifiercited by 1
- 2026Grounded Inference: Principles for Deterministically Encapsulated Generative Modelscited by 0
- 2026Same Request, Different Answer: Quantization Amplifies Cache-Induced Divergence in LLM Servingcited by 0
- 2026Measuring the Serving Stack Instead of the Model: Hidden Confounds in Local Tool-Use Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026RECLAIM: Can Agents Reproduce the Claims of Machine Learning Papers?cited by 0
- 2026What Does a Harness Repair? A Preregistered Study of Visibility, Baseline Adequacy and Evaluation Defectscited by 0
- 2026Same Text, Different Prediction: Serving-Context Nondeterminism in Text Classifierscited by 0
- 2026Same Text, Different Prediction: Serving-Context Nondeterminism in Text Classifiers6 Oct 2026
- 2026What Does a Harness Repair? A Preregistered Study of Visibility, Baseline Adequacy and Evaluation Defects4 Oct 2026
- 2026RECLAIM: Can Agents Reproduce the Claims of Machine Learning Papers?23 Sep 2026
- 2026Measuring the Serving Stack Instead of the Model: Hidden Confounds in Local Tool-Use Evaluation22 Sep 2026
- 2026IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier9 Sep 2026
- 2026Same Request, Different Answer: Quantization Amplifies Cache-Induced Divergence in LLM Serving4 Sep 2026
- 2026The Integer Alibi: Localizing Cross-Kernel Divergence in INT8-Quantized LLM Inference13 Aug 2026
- 2026Grounded Inference: Principles for Deterministically Encapsulated Generative Models18 Jun 2026