UtilityBench: Measuring Language Model Utility When Errors Have Different Costs

Standard language model evaluation assigns scores to single predicted answers, rewarding high-confidence responses regardless of how residual probability mass is distributed over alternative options. This creates a systematic pressure toward overconfident guessing: under accuracy-based schemes, a model maximises its expected score by always committing to an answer rather than abstaining, even when its uncertainty is high. While penalty-based approaches partially address this by raising the confidence threshold for strategic guessing, they still treat all sub-threshold responses identically, ignoring a fundamental distinction in how models can express uncertainty - for example between hedging toward incorrect answers versus hedging toward "I don't know" responses. This paper introduces a novel evaluation metric to solve this problem of not considering a model's entire probability distribution over answer choices. The metric naturally distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range. Through theoretical analysis and illustrative examples, the metric is shown to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing. Adapting 12 existing evaluation benchmarks to the metric's variants and measuring performance on six language models shows that for half of the tested benchmarks scores are negative across all tested models, indicating significant tendencies towards hallucination.

Language model benchmarks are pervasive and computationally-efficient proxies for real-world downstream performance. However, many recent works find that benchmarks often fail to predict downstream utility. While some works have begun diagnosing sources of misalignment, there remain no ways to systematically update benchmarks to align their scores with downstream usage. Towards bridging this gap, we introduce and study benchmark alignment, where we use information about downstream model performance to automatically update benchmarks, specifically aiming to update static benchmarks so they generalizably rank models according to new pairwise preferences. Our experiments involving 4576 language models and 6 benchmarks show that reweighting benchmark items can successfully rank unseen models, even generalizing across model scales in most cases. And while naive alignment unsurprisingly requires large numbers of models and benchmark questions, an oracle experiment suggests this could be reduced to as few as 20 well-chosen models. Overall, our work takes a step towards efficiently aligning benchmark development with downstream tasks.\footnote{All of our code, models, and data are publicly-available.

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.