Evaluating Multiple LLM Generations with Validated Task Coverage

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24228v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:32:37 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Multiple LLM Generations with Validated Task Coverage
• Abstract summary: We introduce VTC-Bench, a five-domain benchmark for evaluation of finite candidate sets.<n>VTC measures how many distinct useful results are obtained within $k$ attempts.<n>Across multiple models and inference settings, the benchmark leads to different conclusions from conventional evaluation.
• Score: 12.15293959091918
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many LLM applications are most useful when they provide several candidate outputs for comparison, validation, or combination. Predominant evaluation settings, however, still focus on individual outputs or reduce multiple samples to a single success or selected answer. This can miss whether the outputs include several genuinely different useful results. We introduce VTC-Bench, a five-domain benchmark for this setting, together with Validated Task Coverage (VTC) as its core evaluation quantity. The benchmark is built from carefully selected real-data tasks where both output quality and task-relevant distinctness can be checked automatically and reproducibly, without model-based judges. VTC measures how many distinct useful results are obtained within $k$ attempts. Across multiple models and inference settings, the benchmark leads to different conclusions from conventional evaluation: configurations that look strongest from single-draw quality are not necessarily those with the best coverage, and simple measures of output variation do not reliably recover task-relevant coverage. These results show that finite candidate sets can be evaluated directly as objects of interest, revealing differences in model behavior that are not apparent from conventional per-output evaluation.

Related papers

• Task-CoEvolve: Efficient Harness Optimization via Adaptive Validation Task Selection [51.39973047614183]
  We present a novel approach to efficient LLM harness optimization through adaptive validation task selection.<n>$textbfTask-CoEvolve$, which co-evolves the validation tasks with the harness by addressing two challenges: selecting informative tasks and estimating full-set performance from partial evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T15:24:54Z)
• Training-free LLM Verification via Recycling Few-shot Examples [11.796208194946141]
  ReFeri evaluates the generated outputs by combining two different scores, motivated from Bayes' rule, and subsequently selects the candidate.<n>Experiments with three different LLMs and across seven diverse tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly improves the accuracy of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T10:02:07Z)
• Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models via Collaborative Filtering [25.734508624520164]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been proposed to measure and compare the capabilities of different LLMs.<n> evaluating LLMs is costly due to the large number of test instances and their slow inference speed.<n>We propose a two-stage method to efficiently estimate a model's real performance on a given benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T07:46:30Z)
• Add-One-In: Incremental Sample Selection for Large Language Models via a Choice-Based Greedy Paradigm [50.492124556982674]
  This paper introduces a novel choice-based sample selection framework.<n>It shifts the focus from evaluating individual sample quality to comparing the contribution value of different samples.<n>We validate our approach on a larger medical dataset, highlighting its practical applicability in real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T07:32:41Z)
• 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)
• SureMap: Simultaneous Mean Estimation for Single-Task and Multi-Task Disaggregated Evaluation [75.56845750400116]
  Disaggregated evaluation -- estimation of performance of a machine learning model on different subpopulations -- is a core task when assessing performance and group-fairness of AI systems. We develop SureMap that has high estimation accuracy for both multi-task and single-task disaggregated evaluations of blackbox models. Our method combines maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation using a well-chosen prior together with cross-validation-free tuning via Stein's unbiased risk estimate (SURE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T17:53:35Z)
• Active Evaluation Acquisition for Efficient LLM Benchmarking [18.85604491151409]
  We investigate strategies to improve evaluation efficiency by selecting a subset of examples from each benchmark using a learned policy. Our approach models the dependencies across test examples, allowing accurate prediction of the evaluation outcomes for the remaining examples. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach significantly reduces the number of evaluation prompts required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T12:08:46Z)
• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• On Speeding Up Language Model Evaluation [48.51924035873411]
  We propose an $textitadaptive$ approach to explore this space.<n>We lean on multi-armed bandits to sequentially identify the next (method, validation sample)-pair to evaluate.<n>We show that it can identify the top-performing method using only 5-15% of the typical resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:48:42Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)
• 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)

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.