Quantifying Ranking Uncertainty in LLM Benchmarks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Pretrained models are typically ranked on multi-task leaderboards to assess their effectiveness across diverse tasks. Rank confidence intervals were recently introduced as a method to quantify the uncertainty in these rankings by aggregating pairwise hypothesis tests. In this work, we analyze the sources of uncertainty in the knowledge evaluation benchmark MMLU and show how hypothesis tests can be modified to account for their effects. We demonstrate that ranking variability across MMLU subjects is substantial and should be considered when comparing LLMs or identifying the top-performing models.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2026.
Builds on
10 of 25 references.
References · 10
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2024Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluationscited by 148
- 2024Efficient multi-prompt evaluation of LLMscited by 73
- 2025Statistical Uncertainty Quantification for Aggregate Performance Metrics in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 10
- 2021Uncertainty in Rankingcited by 6
- 2023Confident Feature Rankingcited by 6
- 2017An improvement of Tukey's HSD with application to ranking institutionscited by 5
- 2022Ranking with Confidence for Large Scale Comparison Datacited by 3
- 2025Finite-Sample Valid Rank Confidence Sets for a Broad Class of Statistical and Machine Learning Modelscited by 3
- 2025Statistical multi-metric evaluation and visualization of LLM system predictive performancecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.