Position: Evaluation Scores Are Perishable Knowledge Claims

Calibration of language models -- the alignment between expressed or implicit confidence and empirical correctness -- is a well-studied subfield within NLP. Methods to measure it already exist. The problem is adoption: outside this subfield, NLP research regularly introduces new models, datasets, and benchmarks without checking whether the model's confidence scores are meaningful. We argue that this adoption gap is a major obstacle to trustworthy LLM evaluation. Miscalibration causes problems in two distinct areas: at deployment, where overconfident mistakes cause real harm, and inside the research pipeline, where methods like LLM-as-a-judge, synthetic data generation, and active learning rely on calibrated confidence without verifying it. Standard calibration metrics only require two inputs per example: a confidence score and a correctness judgment. Most benchmarks in use today already provide both, meaning calibration can be reported immediately. For open-ended generation, however, defining these two inputs is still an open challenge. We argue that each NLP subfield should pair its main performance metric with a calibration score and call for treating calibration as an essential property of every model rather than a niche topic.

Can we trust evaluation scores to capture an LLM's true real-world performance? Certifiable evaluation answers this question by providing guarantee for LLM evaluation. In particular, existing methods sequentially curate evaluation samples and keep updating confidence intervals (CIs) that cover the true performance with high probability (e.g., 95%) until some conditions are satisfied, e.g., the CI width reaches a target precision. However, existing methods are not generally anytime-valid: the claimed coverage (e.g., 95%) may fail when CIs are repeatedly updated and used to decide when to stop, leaving a gap between theoretical rigor and practice. This paper bridges this gap by proposing Celeus, a Certifiable framework for Efficient LLM evaluation, which leverages E-processes to build anytime-valid CIs. Concretely, we propose signals that combine two ingredients: (i) Uncertainty-guided sampling to select informative samples for evaluation, and (ii) Surrogate-assisted approximations for unevaluated samples. We prove that such signals remain unbiased for the evaluation score conditional on the past, enabling statistically-grounded and anytime-valid $e$-process CIs. More importantly, the two ingredients reduce estimation variance and help reach the target precision with fewer evaluated samples. We also prove that CIs obtained by Celeus can shrink at a near-parametric rate up to logarithmic factors and analyze the oracle variance-optimal sampling rule that motivates the empirical uncertainty-guided one. Experiments show that Celeus reaches the target precision using 54-62% fewer evaluated samples than baselines, while preserving anytime-valid coverage.

Alignment evaluation in machine learning has largely become evaluation of models. Influential benchmarks score model outputs under fixed inputs, such as truthfulness, instruction following, or pairwise preference, and these scores are often used to support claims about deployed alignment. This paper argues that deployment-relevant alignment cannot be inferred from model-level evaluation alone. Alignment claims should instead be indexed to the level at which evidence is collected: model-level, response-level, interaction-level, or deployment-level. Two studies support this position. First, a structured audit of eleven alignment benchmarks, extended to a sixteen-benchmark corpus, dual-coded against an eight-dimension rubric with Cohen's kappa = 0.87, finds that user-facing verification support is absent across every benchmark examined, while process steerability is nearly absent. The few interactional benchmarks identified, including tau-bench, CURATe, Rifts, and Common Ground, remain fragmented in coverage, and benchmark construction rather than data source determines what is measured. Second, a blinded cross-model stress test using 180 transcripts across three frontier models and four scaffolds finds that the same verification scaffold raises one model's verification support to ceiling while leaving another categorically unchanged. This shows that scaffold efficacy is model-dependent and that the gap identified by the audit cannot be closed at the model level alone. We propose a system-level evaluation agenda: alignment profiles instead of single scores, fixed-scaffolding protocols for comparable interactional evaluation, and reporting templates that make the inferential distance between evaluation evidence and deployment claims explicit.