Evaluating Ill-Defined Tasks in Large Language Models

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains largely pre-scientific: it involves many design decisions, with little guidance on how to make them. These choices can substantially affect measured performance and, consequently, decisions about subsequent pretraining. To identify effective evaluation setups, we investigate 8 aspects, such as task formulation or the number of in-context examples. We compare the setups using three widely-used signal criteria, repurposed as normative meta-measures: monotonicity, non-randomness, and ranking consistency of the evaluation scores across intermediate checkpoints. In an early pretraining scenario, we evaluate these setups on 26 monolingual 2B-parameter models trained on different types of data, using 80 tasks in four languages. We also examine the setups on three larger LLMs ($\geq$7B) in the same four languages and explore how the preferred setups change with model scale. Our results yield concrete recommendations: some choices, such as the use of multiple prompts, are consistently useful, whereas others, such as task formulation, depend on model scale. More generally, our framework serves as a recipe for the choice of evaluation setups in new scenarios.

Benchmark scores increasingly influence the development, marketing, and selection of large language models (LLMs). Yet an overall score is interpretable only in relation to the system tested, the questions included, and the conditions of evaluation. This perspective examines five connected limitations of general LLM rankings: differences between evaluated and publicly available systems; commercial incentives and dependencies in external evaluation; benchmark saturation, defective tests, and data contamination; models exploiting scoring procedures; and the limited relevance of general scores to users' tasks. Documented cases illustrate why these problems require different responses. I argue for evaluation procedures that disclose the tested configuration, validate questions and successful task completion, report performance alongside cost and execution time, and make the scope of generalization explicit. I then discuss Isotanta, a crowdsourced benchmarking platform, as a practical example of contributed questions and repeated evaluation. A larger question pool may improve task coverage, while repeated sampling can improve the stability of estimates on that pool; neither guarantees validity or personalization. The paper distinguishes the platform's current shared ranking from proposed task-specific and user-provided evaluations. Its central argument is that model selection requires evidence about performance on the intended work, not simply a high position on a general leaderboard.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as performing at the level of human experts on knowledge economy tasks. These claims are primarily based on how LLMs perform on benchmarking tasks that measure average performance across standardized datasets. Primary limitations of many benchmarking tasks are that they often measure performance based on content directly included in LLM training data, and they frequently do not assess the reliability of LLM performance or the magnitude of LLM errors. However, in high stakes contexts, these qualities are critically important. Through a novel LLM benchmarking task that requires writing computer code to complete a data analysis task, we compare the performance of a frontier LLM against submissions from human experts and explicitly measure the variance of responses and the magnitude of errors. Our study reveals that the human experts perform better on average on a range of metrics and demonstrate less variability in performance. Our results provide evidence that LLMs do not consistently perform at the level of human experts and demonstrate the importance of measuring variance and assessing error magnitude in LLM benchmark evaluations.