A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality
Summary
This paper introduces a calibrated instrument for measuring how inference optimizations impact the output quality of AI models.
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
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.
The Inference Engineering Pareto Atlas: Which Optimizations Dominate the Cost, Quality, and Latency Frontier?
This paper constructs a cost-quality-latency Pareto atlas for LLM inference optimizations, using a calibrated simulator to evaluate configurations and combinations across different hardware and regimes.
How Output Format Confounds Data Quality and Capability in Instruction Tuning
This paper demonstrates that output formats confound data quality metrics and model capability assessments in instruction tuning, causing significant accuracy shifts and rendering current practices ineffective without interface-aware adjustments.
CALIBER: Calibrating Confidence Before and After Reasoning in Language Models
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.
How to Run Statistics over LLM Judges and Trust the Results: Calibrated Inference for Small-Sample AI Evaluation with evalstats
A paper showing that running statistics over raw LLM judge scores inflates false positives, introducing PPI-based calibrated hypothesis tests (including the first PPI Wilcoxon/Mann-Whitney corrections) and the open-source Python package evalstats, which automatically selects statistically sound methods for small-sample AI evaluations.