Identifying and Mitigating Systemic Measurement Bias in Production LLM Inference Benchmarks

Every major LLM serving system is designed to meet TTFT and TPOT SLOs. These metrics capture latency as a human user perceives it, and the mechanisms built to satisfy them are now standard infrastructure. We observe that long-horizon AI tasks call LLMs programmatically in tight loops where no human observes TTFT or TPOT. We ask: how much throughput do serving systems sacrifice to meet TTFT and TPOT SLAs that these workloads never need? We conduct a systematic measurement study across chunk sizes, SLO settings, context lengths, and concurrency levels. We find that the human tax on throughput grows substantially with context length and lands in the 60-93% range. At 64K token contexts, tightening the TTFT SLO to production-typical settings costs a large fraction of throughput versus the human-less baseline. The human tax is larger at higher concurrency and is qualitatively similar across SGLang and Sarathi-Serve. We term the unconstrained optimum human-less serving and provide a prototype demonstrating that it is practical on real workloads. Our findings argue that serving systems should expose workload-class-aware SLA configurations rather than silently applying the human tax uniformly to all traffic.

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.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, accurately evaluating their latent values and biases is critical. The NLP community typically evaluates models using large, unstructured benchmarks. While effective for general capabilities, these datasets fundamentally conflate causal mechanisms: even when an aggregate bias is detected, unstructured evaluations cannot disentangle whether it stems from baseline traits, contextual confounders, or complex interactions. To address this, we introduce an analytically exact framework for the controlled behavioral evaluation of LLMs. We bridge human psychometrics with LLM mechanics by resolving gaps in design, measurement, and analysis. First, we replace unstructured prompting with fully crossed factorial experiments to systematically isolate causal main and interaction effects. Second, we eliminate Monte Carlo text sampling noise by operating directly on exact, token-level Probability Mass Functions (PMFs). Third, we derive a multivariate ordinal consensus metric and a distributional ANOVA to process these PMFs analytically. We validate our framework with a case study on consumer ethnocentrism across five LLMs, demonstrating how our approach isolates systemic country-of-origin biases that aggregate benchmarks otherwise obscure.