RCScore: Quantifying Response Consistency in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26193v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 07:06:47 GMT
• Title: RCScore: Quantifying Response Consistency in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We present RCScore, a framework how instruction formulation affects model responses.<n>We show that instruction style can shift accuracy by up to 16.7% points.<n>We introduce Cross-Response Similarity (CRS), a method applying RCScore metrics to measure stylistic self-consistency.
• Score: 5.926203312586108
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Current LLM evaluations often rely on a single instruction template, overlooking models' sensitivity to instruction style-a critical aspect for real-world deployments. We present RCScore, a multi-dimensional framework quantifying how instruction formulation affects model responses. By systematically transforming benchmark problems into multiple instruction styles, RCScore reveals performance variations undetected by conventional metrics. Our experiments across ten LLMs on four reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that instruction style can shift accuracy by up to 16.7% points. We introduce Cross-Response Similarity (CRS), a method applying RCScore metrics to measure stylistic self-consistency, and establish its strong correlation with task accuracy, suggesting consistency as a valuable proxy for model reliability. Additional findings show that deterministic decoding produces more stylistically stable outputs, and model scale correlates positively with cross-style consistency. RCScore offers a principled approach to assess instruction robustness.

Related papers

• Ensuring Reliability in Programming Knowledge Tracing: A Re-evaluation of Attention-augmented Models and Experimental Protocols [0.6015898117103068]
  This study revisits representative PKT models and shows that reported gains can be substantially influenced by model configuration and sequence construction practices.<n>We identify issues in attention settings that affect performance estimates, and demonstrate that improper ordering of student attempts, such as ignoring ServerTimestamp, can violate temporal causality and lead to overly optimistic results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T10:22:21Z)
• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays [15.895792302323883]
  In educational contexts, teachers and learners require interpretable, trait-level feedback.<n>We study trait-based Automatic Argumentative Essay Scoring using two complementary modeling paradigms.<n>We show that explicitly modeling score ordinality substantially improves agreement with human raters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T14:30:52Z)
• RoParQ: Paraphrase-Aware Alignment of Large Language Models Towards Robustness to Paraphrased Questions [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit inconsistent behavior when answering paraphrased questions.<n>We introduce RoParQ, a benchmark to evaluate cross-paraphrase consistency in closed-book multiple-choice QA.<n>We also propose XParaCon, a novel evaluation metric that quantifies a model's robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T16:40:53Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• SCORE: Systematic COnsistency and Robustness Evaluation for Large Language Models [4.875712300661656]
  We present SCORE ($mathbfS$ystematic $mathbfCO$nsistency and $mathbfR$obustness $mathbfE$valuation), a comprehensive framework for non-adversarial evaluation of Large Language Models.<n>The SCORE framework evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups to give a realistic estimate of their accuracy and consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:27:29Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs.<n> Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets.<n>We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• Patched RTC: evaluating LLMs for diverse software development tasks [1.14219428942199]
  This paper introduces Patched Round-Trip Correctness (Patched RTC), a novel evaluation technique for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Patched RTC offers a self-evaluating framework that measures consistency and robustness of model responses without human intervention.<n>Experiments comparing GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models across different software development tasks reveal that Patched RTC effectively distinguishes model performance and task difficulty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:12:14Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.