A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality

arXiv cs.CL Papers

Summary

This paper introduces a calibrated instrument for measuring how inference optimizations impact the output quality of AI models.

arXiv:2609.18005v1 Announce Type: new 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.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 09/17/26, 09:04 AM

# A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18005](https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18005)
Bibliographic Tools

## Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Code, Data, Media

## Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

Demos

## Demos

Related Papers

## Recommenders and Search Tools

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**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html)\.

Similar Articles

Towards Quantifying Benchmark Optimization in ASR Models

Hugging Face Daily Papers

This paper quantifies how high-performing ASR models optimize for benchmarks in ways that inflate scores without improving real-world transcription, using behavioral probes to reveal benchmark-conditioned behaviors.

CALIBER: Calibrating Confidence Before and After Reasoning in Language Models

arXiv cs.CL

The paper introduces CALIBER, a method for calibrating confidence in reasoning language models by eliciting confidence estimates both before and after reasoning, with supervision targets matched to the information state. It achieves significant reductions in Expected Calibration Error (up to 52.5%) and strong Brier scores and AUROC across multiple benchmarks.

InferenceBench: A Benchmark for Open-Ended LLM Inference Optimization by AI Agents

arXiv cs.AI

InferenceBench is a benchmark that evaluates AI agents on optimizing LLM inference speed using an H100 GPU across multiple bottleneck scenarios. Results show agents improve over naive baselines but frequently converge on single frameworks and underperform simple hyperparameter searches, indicating a need for better exploration strategies.