How to Evaluate When You Don't Know How to Evaluate? Choosing Reliable Setups for Base Language Model Benchmarking

Modern ML research increasingly faces an evaluation bottleneck: building benchmarks and running experiments is costly, slowing iteration. We ask how much can be inferred about evaluation outcomes before experiments, given only a natural-language description of the task and setup. We call this setting anticipatory evaluation. We introduce EVALCAST, a literature-grounded resource of 2,290 description-performance pairs from 1,519 arXiv papers, including a test set of papers published after the model's knowledge cutoff. We evaluate two tasks: predicting absolute performance through regression and comparing benchmark difficulty through pairwise prediction. Experiments with frontier LLMs show that accurate regression remains challenging, while pairwise predictions can recover relative performance ordering under matched settings. Comparable performance on post-cutoff and streaming evaluations suggests that the observed signal is not solely attributable to previously reported results. Overall, EVALCAST provides a resource and evaluation framework for studying anticipatory evaluation and its potential use in prioritizing benchmarks.

Current Large Language Model (LLM) evaluation frameworks utilize the same static prompt template across all models under evaluation. This differs from the common industry practice of using prompt optimization (PO) techniques to optimize the prompt for each model to maximize application performance. In this paper, we investigate the effect of PO towards LLM evaluations. Our results on public academic and internal industry benchmarks show that PO greatly affects the final ranking of models. This highlights the importance of practitioners performing PO per model when conducting evaluations to choose the best model for a given task.

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.