CreditAudit: 2$^\text{nd}$ Dimension for LLM Evaluation and Selection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02515v2
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 11:10:51 GMT
• Title: CreditAudit: 2$^\text{nd}$ Dimension for LLM Evaluation and Selection
• Authors: Yiliang Song, Hongjun An, Jiangong Xiao, Haofei Zhao, Jiawei Shao, Xuelong Li,
• Abstract summary: CreditAudit is a deployment oriented credit audit framework that evaluates models under a family of semantically aligned and non adversarial system prompt templates.<n>We show that models with similar mean ability can exhibit substantially different fluctuation, and stability risk can overturn prioritization decisions in agentic or high failure cost regimes.
• Score: 44.251742023911135
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Leaderboard scores on public benchmarks have been steadily rising and converging, with many frontier language models now separated by only marginal differences. However, these scores often fail to match users' day to day experience, because system prompts, output protocols, and interaction modes evolve under routine iteration, and in agentic multi step pipelines small protocol shifts can trigger disproportionate failures, leaving practitioners uncertain about which model to deploy. We propose CreditAudit, a deployment oriented credit audit framework that evaluates models under a family of semantically aligned and non adversarial system prompt templates across multiple benchmarks, reporting mean ability as average performance across scenarios and scenario induced fluctuation sigma as a stability risk signal, and further mapping volatility into interpretable credit grades from AAA to BBB via cross model quantiles with diagnostics that mitigate template difficulty drift. Controlled experiments on GPQA, TruthfulQA, and MMLU Pro show that models with similar mean ability can exhibit substantially different fluctuation, and stability risk can overturn prioritization decisions in agentic or high failure cost regimes. By providing a 2D and grade based language for regime specific selection, CreditAudit supports tiered deployment and more disciplined allocation of testing and monitoring effort, enabling more objective and trustworthy model evaluation for real world use.

Related papers

• The Emergence of Lab-Driven Alignment Signatures: A Psychometric Framework for Auditing Latent Bias and Compounding Risk in Generative AI [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel auditing framework to quantify latent trait estimation under ordinal uncertainty.<n>The research audits nine leading models across dimensions including Optimization Bias, Sycophancy, and Status-Quo Legitimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T06:56:01Z)
• Fault-Tolerant Evaluation for Sample-Efficient Model Performance Estimators [13.227055178509524]
  We propose a fault-tolerant evaluation framework that integrates bias and variance considerations within an adjustable tolerance level.<n>We show that proper calibration of $varepsilon$ ensures reliable evaluation across different variance regimes.<n> Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our framework provides comprehensive and actionable insights into estimator behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T22:14:46Z)
• D-Models and E-Models: Diversity-Stability Trade-offs in the Sampling Behavior of Large Language Models [91.21455683212224]
  In large language models (LLMs), the probability of relevance for the next piece of information is linked to the probability of relevance for the next product.<n>But whether fine-grained sampling probabilities faithfully align with task requirements remains an open question.<n>We identify two model types: D-models, whose P_token exhibits large step-to-step variability and poor alignment with P_task; and E-models, whose P_token is more stable and better aligned with P_task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-25T14:59:09Z)
• Agentic Confidence Calibration [67.50096917021521]
  Holistic Trajectory (HTC) is a novel diagnostic framework for AI agents.<n>HTC consistently surpasses strong baselines in both calibration and discrimination.<n>HTC provides interpretability by revealing the signals behind failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:08:25Z)
• Multi-Layer Confidence Scoring for Detection of Out-of-Distribution Samples, Adversarial Attacks, and In-Distribution Misclassifications [2.4219039094115034]
  We introduce Multi-Layer Analysis for Confidence Scoring (MACS)<n>We derive a score applicable for confidence estimation, detecting distributional shifts and adversarial attacks.<n>We achieve performances that surpass the state-of-the-art approaches in our experiments with the VGG16 and ViTb16 models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T15:25:10Z)
• ReasonBENCH: Benchmarking the (In)Stability of LLM Reasoning [2.1461777157838724]
  We introduce ReasonBENCH, the first benchmark designed to quantify the underlying instability in large language models (LLMs) reasoning.<n>Across tasks from different domains, we find that the vast majority of reasoning strategies and models exhibit high instability.<n>We further analyze the impact of prompts, model families, and scale on the trade-off between solve rate and stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T18:26:58Z)
• Merge and Guide: Unifying Model Merging and Guided Decoding for Controllable Multi-Objective Generation [49.98025799046136]
  We introduce Merge-And-GuidE, a two-stage framework that leverages model merging for guided decoding.<n>In Stage 1, MAGE resolves a compatibility problem between the guidance and base models.<n>In Stage 2, we merge explicit and implicit value models into a unified guidance proxy, which then steers the decoding of the base model from Stage 1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-04T11:10:07Z)
• Data-Driven Calibration of Prediction Sets in Large Vision-Language Models Based on Inductive Conformal Prediction [0.0]
  We propose a model-agnostic uncertainty quantification method that integrates dynamic threshold calibration and cross-modal consistency verification.<n>We show that the framework achieves stable performance across varying calibration-to-test split ratios, underscoring its robustness for real-world deployment in healthcare, autonomous systems, and other safety-sensitive domains.<n>This work bridges the gap between theoretical reliability and practical applicability in multi-modal AI systems, offering a scalable solution for hallucination detection and uncertainty-aware decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T15:39:46Z)
• Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIs [71.7892165868749]
  Commercial Large Language Model (LLM) APIs create a fundamental trust problem.<n>Users pay for specific models but have no guarantee that providers deliver them faithfully.<n>We formalize this model substitution problem and evaluate detection methods under realistic adversarial conditions.<n>We propose and evaluate the use of Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) as one practical and robust solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T03:57:41Z)
• Ranked from Within: Ranking Large Multimodal Models Without Labels [73.96543593298426]
  We show that uncertainty scores derived from softmax distributions provide a robust basis for ranking models across various tasks.<n>This facilitates the ranking of LMMs on unlabeled data, providing a practical approach for selecting models for diverse target domains without requiring manual annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T13:05:43Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)

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.