Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30018v2
• Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 04:32:57 GMT
• Title: Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions.<n>Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size.<n>We show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability.
• Score: 47.009623327601226
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) frequently achieve impressive scores on standardized benchmarks, yet accuracy alone offers a limited view of their capabilities. Evaluating open-source LLMs through leaderboards faces persistent issues like data contamination, narrow task scope, and weak alignment with real-world reliability. Benchmark-based evaluations such as MMLU PRO, BBH, or IFEval primarily capture what a model outputs on fixed test sets, not how it processes information, calibrates uncertainty, or structures internal knowledge. In this article, we advocate for a shift from benchmark-centric evaluation toward a complementary, state-centered intrinsic assessment of LLMs. To this end, we introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions. LPP defines a set of scalar metrics on a model's latent representations and dynamics, revealing scale-independent traits that enable interpretable comparisons and uncover hidden vulnerabilities. Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size. With extensive empirical analyses across eight LLMs, spanning a size range of 0.5B-14B, we demonstrate that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability. Guided by these insights, we design synthetic probes for uncertainty and symbolic reasoning that align with intrinsic metrics while decoupling from leaderboard bias. We recommend that reporting LPP alongside benchmarks provides a deeper, interpretable understanding of model behavior, enabling more reliable model selection, safety assessment, and evaluation beyond surface-level accuracy.

Related papers

• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• Structured Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Large Language Models with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and DualJudge [1.9029675742486802]
  Effective evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical bottleneck, as conventional direct scoring often yields inconsistent and opaque judgments.<n>We adapt the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to LLM-based evaluation and propose a confidence-aware Fuzzy AHP extension.<n>Our structured approach decomposes assessments into explicit criteria and incorporates uncertainty-aware aggregation, producing more calibrated judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-04T14:07:37Z)
• LogitScope: A Framework for Analyzing LLM Uncertainty Through Information Metrics [1.4864875802856898]
  LogitScope is a lightweight framework for analyzing large language model (LLM) uncertainty.<n>By measuring metrics such as entropy and varentropy at each generation step, LogitScope reveals patterns in model confidence.<n>We demonstrate LogitScope's utility across diverse applications including uncertainty, model behavior analysis, and production monitoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T01:46:24Z)
• Trust in One Round: Confidence Estimation for Large Language Models via Structural Signals [13.89434979851652]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in domains where errors carry high social, scientific, or safety costs.<n>We present Structural Confidence, a single-pass, model-agnostic framework that enhances output correctness prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T02:35:59Z)
• Prompt Stability in Code LLMs: Measuring Sensitivity across Emotion- and Personality-Driven Variations [40.12950482269347]
  We present PromptSE, a framework that creates semantically equivalent prompt variants with emotion and personality templates.<n>Our study shows that performance and stability behave as largely decoupled optimization objectives.<n>PromptSE enables practitioners to quantify performance stability trade offs for deployment and model selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T04:17:42Z)
• A Comparative Benchmark of Large Language Models for Labelling Wind Turbine Maintenance Logs [0.0]
  This paper presents a framework for benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) on the task of classifying complex industrial records.<n>To promote transparency and encourage further research, this framework has been made publicly available as an open-source tool.<n>We quantify a clear performance hierarchy, identifying top models that exhibit high alignment with a benchmark standard and trustworthy, well-calibrated confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T15:48:17Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)

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.