arXiv (All)
open access
How to Evaluate When You Don't Know How to Evaluate? Choosing Reliable Setups for Base Language Model Benchmarking
Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains largely pre-scientific: it involves many design decisions, with little guidance on how to make them. These choices can substantially affect measured performance and, consequently, decisions about subsequent pretraining. To identify effective evaluat
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Beyond the Verdict: Agentic Code Judging with Verifiable Feedback#1344257
- Beyond the Verdict: Agentic Code Judging with Verifiable Feedback#1319062
- Do Not Trust the Benchmark: Limitations of General LLM Rankings and a Case for Task-Specific Evaluation#1048945
- (Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models#414122
- The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean#986988
Record · ID 1345008
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive