Signal and Noise: A Framework for Reducing Uncertainty in Language Model Evaluation
David Heineman, Valentin Hofmann, Ian Magnusson, Yuling Gu, Noah Smith, Hanna Hajishirzi, Kyle Lo, Jesse Dodge
Developing large language models is expensive and often involves making decisions with small experiments, typically by evaluating on large, multi-task evaluation suites. In this work, we analyze specific properties which make a benchmark more reliable and useful for such decisions, and interventions to design higher-quality evaluation benchmarks. We introduce two key metrics that show differences in current benchmarks: signal, a benchmark’s ability to separate better models from worse models, and noise, a benchmark’s sensitivity to random variability between training steps. We demonstrate that benchmarks with a better signal-to-noise ratio are more reliable when making decisions at small scale, and those with less noise have lower scaling law prediction error.  These results suggest that improving signal or noise will lead to more useful benchmarks, so we introduce four interventions designed to directly affect signal or noise.  For example, we propose that switching to a  metric that has better signal and noise (e.g., perplexity rather than accuracy) leads to better reliability and scaling law error. We also find that filtering noisy benchmarks such that they have better signal-to-noise ratio leads to more reliable evaluations. We also find that averaging the output of a model's checkpoints to reduce noise leads to consistent improvements. We conclude by recommending that those creating new benchmarks, or selecting which existing benchmarks to use, aim for high signal and low noise.  We use 30 benchmarks for these experiments, and 465 open-weight language models from 60M to 32B parameters, resulting in a new, publicly available dataset of 50K evaluation benchmark results, totaling 200M instances.