DEP: A Decentralized Large Language Model Evaluation Protocol

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01167v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 16:10:16 GMT
• Title: DEP: A Decentralized Large Language Model Evaluation Protocol
• Abstract summary: Decentralized Evaluation Protocol (DEP) is a decentralized yet unified and standardized evaluation framework.<n>By decoupling users, LLMs, and benchmarks, DEP enables modular, plug-and-play evaluation.<n>We develop DEP Toolkit, a protocol-compatible toolkit that supports features such as breakpoint resume, concurrent requests, and congestion control.
• Score: 51.3646001384887
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), a large number of benchmarks have been proposed. However, most benchmarks lack unified evaluation standard and require the manual implementation of custom scripts, making results hard to ensure consistency and reproducibility. Furthermore, mainstream evaluation frameworks are centralized, with datasets and answers, which increases the risk of benchmark leakage. To address these issues, we propose a Decentralized Evaluation Protocol (DEP), a decentralized yet unified and standardized evaluation framework through a matching server without constraining benchmarks. The server can be mounted locally or deployed remotely, and once adapted, it can be reused over the long term. By decoupling users, LLMs, and benchmarks, DEP enables modular, plug-and-play evaluation: benchmark files and evaluation logic stay exclusively on the server side. In remote setting, users cannot access the ground truth, thereby achieving data isolation and leak-proof evaluation. To facilitate practical adoption, we develop DEP Toolkit, a protocol-compatible toolkit that supports features such as breakpoint resume, concurrent requests, and congestion control. We also provide detailed documentation for adapting new benchmarks to DEP. Using DEP toolkit, we evaluate multiple LLMs across benchmarks. Experimental results verify the effectiveness of DEP and show that it reduces the cost of deploying benchmark evaluations. As of February 2026, we have adapted over 60 benchmarks and continue to promote community co-construction to support unified evaluation across various tasks and domains.

Related papers

• Flower Hub: A Reproducible Benchmarking Platform for Federated Learning in Simulation and Deployment [51.83961778298564]
  We present Flower Hub, a platform for publishing, discovering, and executing decentralized and federated applications.<n>We show how it enables reproducible benchmarking by packaging benchmarks as executable, versioned applications with standardized metadata, pinned dependencies, and explicit evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T20:09:44Z)
• PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation [60.3743414796937]
  We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations.<n>Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T10:59:03Z)
• Benchmark Everything Everywhere All at Once [28.30618112297148]
  We introduce Benchmark Agent, a fully autonomous agentic system designed for benchmark building.<n>Our framework orchestrates the complete benchmark construction pipeline, from user query analysis and subtask design to data annotation and quality control.<n>We produce 15 representative benchmarks, spanning diverse evaluation scenarios, including text understanding, multimodal understanding, and domain-specific reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:52:04Z)
• A Unified Framework for the Evaluation of LLM Agentic Capabilities [36.43241368835721]
  We present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities.<n> Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction--tool--environment format.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:20:45Z)
• UniDial-EvalKit: A Unified Toolkit for Evaluating Multi-Faceted Conversational Abilities [70.79422099851506]
  We present UniDial-EvalKit (UDE), a unified evaluation toolkit for assessing interactive AI systems.<n>UDE standardizes heterogeneous data formats into a universal schema, streamlines complex evaluation pipelines through a modular architecture, and aligns metric calculations under a consistent scoring interface.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T13:01:31Z)
• CUBE: A Standard for Unifying Agent Benchmarks [138.9831263189749]
  We propose CUBE (Common Unified Benchmark Environments), a universal protocol standard built on MCP and Gym.<n>CUBE enables any compliant platform to access any compliant benchmark for evaluation, RL training, or data generation without custom integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T18:31:37Z)
• One-Eval: An Agentic System for Automated and Traceable LLM Evaluation [10.701916838477187]
  One-Eval is an agentic evaluation system that converts natural-language requests into executable evaluations.<n>One-Eval supports more efficient and reproducible evaluation in industrial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T15:45:51Z)
• SuiteEval: Simplifying Retrieval Benchmarks [29.90486933379759]
  SuiteEval is a unified framework that offers automatic end-to-end evaluation.<n>It handles data loading, indexing, ranking, metric computation, and result aggregation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T09:54:16Z)
• Structured Prompting Enables More Robust Evaluation of Language Models [38.53918044830268]
  We present a DSPy+HELM framework that introduces structured prompting methods which elicit reasoning.<n>We find that without structured prompting, HELM underestimates LM performance (by 4% average) and performance estimates vary more across benchmarks.<n>This is the first benchmarking study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T20:37:59Z)
• Fluid Language Model Benchmarking [126.92394365620525]
  We introduce Fluid Benchmarking, a new evaluation approach that advances LM benchmarking across multiple dimensions.<n>Inspired by psychometrics, Fluid Benchmarking is based on the insight that the relative value of benchmark items depends on an LM's capability level.<n>We examine four dimensions -- efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation -- and find that Fluid Benchmarking achieves superior performance in all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-14T05:49:42Z)
• MCP-Universe: Benchmarking Large Language Models with Real-World Model Context Protocol Servers [86.00932417210477]
  We introduce MCP-Universe, the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic and hard tasks through interaction with real-world MCP servers.<n>Our benchmark encompasses 6 core domains spanning 11 different MCP servers: Location Navigation, Repository Management, Financial Analysis, 3D Design, Browser Automation, and Web Searching.<n>We find that even SOTA models such as GPT-5 (43.72%), Grok-4 (33.33%) and Claude-4.0-Sonnet (29.44%) exhibit significant performance limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T13:28:58Z)
• DI-BENCH: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Dependency Inference with Testable Repositories at Scale [39.92722886613929]
  DI-BENCH is a large-scale benchmark and evaluation framework designed to assess Large Language Models' capability on dependency inference.<n>The benchmark features 581 repositories with testing environments across Python, C#, Rust, and JavaScript.<n>Extensive experiments with textual and execution-based metrics reveal that the current best-performing model achieves only a 42.9% execution pass rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T14:27:11Z)
• BenchAgents: Multi-Agent Systems for Structured Benchmark Creation [23.653678381444276]
  BenchAgents is a framework that automates the creation of evaluation benchmarks.<n>We use BenchAgents to create benchmarks to evaluate capabilities related to planning, constraint satisfaction, and causal reasoning.<n>We then use these benchmarks to study state-of-the-art models and extract new insights into common failure modes and model differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T22:56:18Z)
• ReIFE: Re-evaluating Instruction-Following Evaluation [105.75525154888655]
  We present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 proposed evaluation protocols. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:14:50Z)
• Do These LLM Benchmarks Agree? Fixing Benchmark Evaluation with BenchBench [15.565644819269803]
  We show how some overlooked methodological choices can significantly influence Benchmark Agreement Testing (BAT) results. We introduce BenchBench, a python package for BAT, and release the BenchBench-leaderboard, a meta-benchmark designed to evaluate benchmarks using their peers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T17:00:23Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Efficient Benchmarking of Language Models [22.696230279151166]
  We present the problem of Efficient Benchmarking, namely, intelligently reducing the costs of LM evaluation without compromising reliability. Using the HELM benchmark as a test case, we investigate how different benchmark design choices affect the computation-reliability trade-off. We propose an evaluation algorithm, that, when applied to the HELM benchmark, leads to dramatic cost savings with minimal loss of benchmark reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T17:59:30Z)
• Generating Benchmarks for Factuality Evaluation of Language Models [61.69950787311278]
  We propose FACTOR: Factual Assessment via Corpus TransfORmation, a scalable approach for evaluating LM factuality. FACTOR automatically transforms a factual corpus of interest into a benchmark evaluating an LM's propensity to generate true facts from the corpus vs. similar but incorrect statements. We show that: (i) our benchmark scores increase with model size and improve when the LM is augmented with retrieval; (ii) benchmark score and perplexity do not always agree on model ranking; (iii) when perplexity and benchmark score disagree, the latter better reflects factuality in open-ended generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T17:14:38Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.