A Monte-Carlo Sampling Framework For Reliable Evaluation of Large Language Models Using Behavioral Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific evaluation of Large Language Models is an important topic that quantifies any degree of progress we make with new models. Even though current LLMs show high level of accuracy on benchmark datasets, the single-sample approach to evaluating them is not sufficient as it ignores high entropy of LLM responses. We introduce a Monte-Carlo evaluation framework for evaluating LLMs that follows behavioral science methodologies and provides statistical guarantees for estimates of performance. We test our framework on multiple LLMs to see if they are susceptible to cognitive biases. We find significant effect of prompts that induce cognitive biases in LLMs, raising questions about their reliability in social sciences and business. We also see higher susceptibility of newer and larger LLMs to cognitive biases, which shows a development towards more human-like and less rational LLM responses. We conclude by calling for the use of Monte-Carlo sampling as opposed to pass@1 for the broader LLM evaluations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".