mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating Multiple LLM Generations with Validated Task Coverage

arXiv 2608.24228 ↗First posted 25 Aug 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Many LLM applications are most useful when they provide several candidate outputs for comparison, validation, or combination. Predominant evaluation settings, however, still focus on individual outputs or reduce multiple samples to a single success or selected answer. This can miss whether the outputs include several genuinely different useful results. We introduce VTC-Bench, a five-domain benchmark for this setting, together with Validated Task Coverage (VTC) as its core evaluation quantity. The benchmark is built from carefully selected real-data tasks where both output quality and task-relevant distinctness can be checked automatically and reproducibly, without model-based judges. VTC measures how many distinct useful results are obtained within k attempts. Across multiple models and inference settings, the benchmark leads to different conclusions from conventional evaluation: configurations that look strongest from single-draw quality are not necessarily those with the best coverage, and simple measures of output variation do not reliably recover task-relevant coverage. These results show that finite candidate sets can be evaluated directly as objects of interest, revealing differences in model behavior that are not apparent from conventional per-output evaluation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2026.

Builds on

17 of 22 references.

References · 17

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  3. 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
  4. 2016Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of moleculescited by 762
  5. 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 466
  6. 2023Towards Accurate Differential Diagnosis with Large Language Modelscited by 115
  7. 2025Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time Alignmentcited by 91
  8. 2019Comparison of Diverse Decoding Methods from Conditional Language Modelscited by 78
  9. 2025NoveltyBench: Evaluating Language Models for Humanlike Diversitycited by 64
  10. 2019Jointly Measuring Diversity and Quality in Text Generation Modelscited by 61
  11. 2025Evaluating the Diversity and Quality of LLM Generated Contentcited by 51
  12. 2024Benchmarking Linguistic Diversity of Large Language Modelscited by 37
5 more
  1. 2024Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMscited by 27
  2. 2025PATCHEVAL: A New Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Patching Real-World Vulnerabilitiescited by 19
  3. 2025How Diversely Can Language Models Solve Problems? Exploring the Algorithmic Diversity of Model-Generated Codecited by 9
  4. 2025HypoSpace: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Set-Valued Hypothesis Generation under Underdetermination and Sublinear Coverage Boundscited by 4
  5. 2026Rethinking Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval: Evaluating and Advancing Retrievers in Agentic Search Systemscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.