A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2609.18005 (cs)
[Submitted on 16 Sep 2026]
Title:A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality
Authors:Jerry Kaplan
View a PDF of the paper titled A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality, by Jerry Kaplan
View PDF
Abstract:Large language model optimization is an active research area, spanning quantization of model weights, early-exit methods for skipping layers, and speculative decoding. Each track uses its own quality measures, typically an idiosyncratic benchmark score. Few approach the measurement precision required by other scientific disciplines.
We propose a rigorous methodology for measuring output quality, suitable for cross-system and cross-technique comparison. We score outputs with an LLM as a judge, but calibrate the judge formally: we compare its scores on two ordinary runs of a model given the same prompts, verifying that it shows no systematic preference between statistically equivalent outputs and measuring its per-sample noise. Each design also includes a 'null' condition, provably identical in distribution to the unmodified model, whose measured difference must be zero.
With this one instrument we measure several acceleration techniques on the same prompts, so their quality costs can be compared. Perceived quality proves highly dependent on the domain of discourse. A 4-bit model was indistinguishable from its 16-bit original down to our design's +/-0.3-point resolution, in English prose and Chinese alike. At 3-bit precision the same prompts lost 0.5 points in English prose, 0.9 in Chinese, and 1.1 on multi-step math; early exit that cost 0.7 points on prose cost 2.5 on math, cutting correctly solved problems from 19 of 27 to 6. The pattern held for models from Alibaba and from Meta, but not its magnitude: the same quantizer cost Meta's model 1.8 points where it cost Alibaba's 0.7.
A model's certainty about a token predicts how likely it is to differ from the full model's choice, but not how much that difference affects judged quality, so acceptance rules relying on certainty cannot distinguish errors that matter from errors that don't.
| Comments: | 23 Pages. 6 tables in main text,5 tables in appendices. Code, prompts, and result files at this https URL |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| ACM classes: | I.2.7; I.2.6 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.18005 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2609.18005v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18005
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
View a PDF of the paper titled A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality, by Jerry Kaplan
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
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 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
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
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.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
A Mechanistic Study of AI-Text Detection Neurons in Frozen BERT: Sparse Probing and Activation Patching on RAID
Sep 28
-
Manifold Projection and Iterative Autoencoder Refinement for Masked Language Modeling
Sep 28
-
Not All Memories Are Equal: Hierarchical Collaborative Memory for Validity-Aware Retrieval in LLM Agents
Sep 28
-
Auditing and Repairing LLM-as-Judge Failures in a Production Text-to-SQL Pipeline
Sep 28
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.