Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Evaluation of Large Language Models via Coupled Token Generation

Nina Corvelo Benz, Stratis Tsirtsis, Eleni Straitouri, Ivi Chatzi, Ander Artola Velasco, Suhas Thejaswi, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez · Feb 3, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt. As an immediate consequence, a model may respond differently to the same prompt if asked multiple times. In this work, we argue that the evaluation and ranking of large language models should control for the randomization underpinning their functioning. Our starting point is the development of a causal model for coupled autoregressive generation, which allows different large language models to sample responses with the same source of randomness. Building upon our causal model, we first show that, on evaluations based on benchmark datasets, coupled autoregressive generation leads to the same conclusions as vanilla autoregressive generation but using provably fewer samples. However, we further show that, on evaluations based on (human) pairwise comparisons, coupled and vanilla autoregressive generation can surprisingly lead to different rankings when comparing more than two models, even with an infinite amount of samples. This suggests that the apparent advantage of a model over others in existing evaluation protocols may not be genuine but rather confounded by the randomness inherent to the generation process. To illustrate and complement our theoretical results, we conduct experiments with several large language models from the Llama, Mistral and Qwen families. We find that, across multiple benchmark datasets, coupled autoregressive generation requires up to 75% fewer samples to reach the same conclusions as vanilla autoregressive generation. Further, we find that the win-rates derived from pairwise comparisons by a strong large language model to prompts from the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform differ under coupled and vanilla autoregressive generation.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

50/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 55%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

LMSYS Chatbot Arena

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Further, we find that the win-rates derived from pairwise comparisons by a strong large language model to prompts from the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform differ under coupled and vanilla autoregressive generation."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Pairwise
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

LMSYS Chatbot Arena

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • State of the art large language models rely on randomization to respond to a prompt.
  • As an immediate consequence, a model may respond differently to the same prompt if asked multiple times.
  • In this work, we argue that the evaluation and ranking of large language models should control for the randomization underpinning their functioning.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • In this work, we argue that the evaluation and ranking of large language models should control for the randomization underpinning their functioning.
  • Building upon our causal model, we first show that, on evaluations based on benchmark datasets, coupled autoregressive generation leads to the same conclusions as vanilla autoregressive generation but using provably fewer samples.
  • We find that, across multiple benchmark datasets, coupled autoregressive generation requires up to 75% fewer samples to reach the same conclusions as vanilla autoregressive generation.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • In this work, we argue that the evaluation and ranking of large language models should control for the randomization underpinning their functioning.
  • We find that, across multiple benchmark datasets, coupled autoregressive generation requires up to 75% fewer samples to reach the same conclusions as vanilla autoregressive generation.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: LMSYS Chatbot Arena

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.