Prismix
arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 10 min read

How Reproducible Are Evaluation Conclusions? A Self-Audit of LLM-Inferred Prompt Structure

#rag #paper #funding

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Like Read original ↗

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2609.30074 (cs)
[Submitted on 24 Sep 2026]

Title:How Reproducible Are Evaluation Conclusions? A Self-Audit of LLM-Inferred Prompt Structure

View a PDF of the paper titled How Reproducible Are Evaluation Conclusions? A Self-Audit of LLM-Inferred Prompt Structure, by Dipankar Sarkar
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Evaluations of LLM systems routinely average over small prompt sets and report models as a ranked table. We ask how much confidence such a table deserves, using LLM-based prompt-structure inference as the case study: eight open model variants across five families and 8B to 675B parameters, caching disabled, 293 raw intermediate representations persisted. The measured phenomenon is unstable to begin with. Identical calls do not reliably recover identical structure, with mean node-set Jaccard from 0.39 to 0.96 and 72% of prompt-model cells never node-set-perfect. Auditing the evaluation weakens its conclusions further, and this is our main contribution. Under a joint cluster bootstrap over prompts, only the bottom of the ranking is firm: the two least reproducible models hold rank in 99% and 86% of replicates, the middle four in 27% to 48%, and the top two in 68% each, so the table identifies the worst model reliably but does not reliably identify the best. Two equally defensible rules for merging repeated campaigns change four of eight rows and move the study-wide headline by 7 percentage points. Checking the inferred structure against ground-truth annotations shows reproducibility cannot be read as accuracy. And four of the eight endpoints were withdrawn within ten weeks of measurement, so the study as specified can no longer be run. Small-sample LLM evaluations can therefore look far more definitive than their evidence supports. We recommend reporting rank stability, per-cell provenance, executed sensitivity comparisons, raw per-run outputs, and a measurement date alongside any ranking.
Comments: 13 pages. Previously submitted to TAE (Trust-AI-Eval), a NeurIPS 2026 workshop
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
Cite as: arXiv:2609.30074 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2609.30074v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30074
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Dipankar Sarkar [view email]
[v1] Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:28:15 UTC (1,280 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

Ancillary-file links:

Ancillary files (details):

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language