The Silent Hyperparameter: Quantifying the Impact of Inference Backends on LLM Reproducibility

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19537v2
• Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 07:11:41 GMT
• Title: The Silent Hyperparameter: Quantifying the Impact of Inference Backends on LLM Reproducibility
• Abstract summary: We show that the choice of backend alone can shift benchmark scores by up to 16.6 percentage points.<n>We find this is driven by system-level optimizations like caching and graphs, custom kernels, and engine-specific defaults in logit processing.
• Score: 4.514361164656055
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Progress in LLMs is increasingly measured through standardized benchmarks, where state-of-the-art improvements are often separated by fractions of a percentage point. At the same time, the computational cost of evaluating modern LLMs has driven widespread adoption of specialized inference backends, software systems that execute trained models efficiently at inference time. While critical for scalability, system-level optimizations, such as custom CUDA kernels and reduced-precision arithmetic, can alter token probabilities and introduce non-determinism, possibly cascading into divergent generation. In this work, we first survey the inference landscape, identifying 200 distinct engines, and analyze 35,000 ML publications, finding that the specific inference stack is rarely reported despite this widespread diversity. We then present a systematic empirical study of how inference backends affect LLM benchmark results. Holding model weights, decoding parameters, and hardware constant, we evaluate five widely used inference engines, including vLLM, SGLang, and llama$.$cpp, across multiple open-weight models and established benchmarks. We show that the choice of backend alone can shift benchmark scores by up to 16.6 percentage points and induce high rates of output disagreement. By isolating backend optimizations and tracing the execution pipeline, we find this divergence is driven by system-level optimizations like prefix caching and CUDA graphs, custom kernels, and engine-specific defaults in logit processing. Our findings identify the inference backend as a previously unreported but consequential hyperparameter in the evaluation of LLM and advocate standardized reporting of inference stacks to improve the reproducibility and interpretability of benchmark comparisons.

Related papers

• ThinkBooster: A Unified Framework for Seamless Test-Time Scaling of LLM Reasoning [110.46431027868954]
  ThinkBooster is a framework for seamless test-time compute scaling of large language model (LLM) reasoning.<n>It consists of a modular Python library implementing state-of-the-art TTC scaling strategy and scorer families.<n>A deployable OpenAI-compatible proxy service enables drop-in integration of adaptive reasoning into real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T05:28:46Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Systemic Measurement Bias in Production LLM Inference Benchmarks [5.044646432723069]
  We show that benchmarking utilities rely on single-process, asyncio-driven architectures that introduce fundamental client-side queuing bottlenecks.<n>We propose an unbiased, multi-process evaluation framework that effectively distributes client-side load, ensuring negligible queuing overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T20:57:26Z)
• A Queueing-Theoretic Framework for Stability Analysis of LLM Inference with KV Cache Memory Constraints [4.636275494777427]
  We introduce the first queueing-theoretic framework that explicitly incorporates both computation and GPU memory constraints.<n>We derive rigorous stability and instability conditions that determine whether an LLM inference service can sustain incoming demand without unbounded queue growth.<n>Our results show that the predicted stability conditions are highly accurate, with deviations typically within 10%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T07:42:26Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• $\ abla$-Reasoner: LLM Reasoning via Test-Time Gradient Descent in Latent Space [71.23672814629448]
  $nabla$-Reasoner is an iterative generation framework that integrates differentiable optimization over token logits into the decoding loop.<n>$nabla$-Reasoner achieves over 20% accuracy improvement on a challenging mathematical reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T08:42:54Z)
• 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)
• Optimizing the Interface Between Knowledge Graphs and LLMs for Complex Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) with Knowledge Graphs (KGs)<n>Cognane is a modular framework for end-to-end KG construction and retrieval.<n>We optimize parameters related to chunking, graph construction, retrieval, and prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T11:27:59Z)
• 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)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• 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)
• Regression-aware Inference with LLMs [52.764328080398805]
  We show that an inference strategy can be sub-optimal for common regression and scoring evaluation metrics. We propose alternate inference strategies that estimate the Bayes-optimal solution for regression and scoring metrics in closed-form from sampled responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T03:24:34Z)
• Benchmarking Causal Study to Interpret Large Language Models for Source Code [6.301373791541809]
  This paper introduces a benchmarking strategy named Galeras comprised of curated testbeds for three SE tasks. We illustrate the insights of our benchmarking strategy by conducting a case study on the performance of ChatGPT under distinct prompt engineering methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T20:32:12Z)
• 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)
• The Benchmark Lottery [114.43978017484893]
  "A benchmark lottery" describes the overall fragility of the machine learning benchmarking process. We show that the relative performance of algorithms may be altered significantly simply by choosing different benchmark tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-14T21:08:30Z)

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.