This canonical paper page includes Commercialization Proof and Related Resources.
ARXIV:2605.02038 · LLM EVALUATION · SUBMITTED 05 MAY · 20:29 UTC · FRESHNESS STALE
ARXIV:2605.02038LLM EVALUATIONSUBMITTED 05 MAY · 20:29 UTCFRESHNESS STALERanit Karmakar · Jayita Chatterjee · arXiv
A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions.
Opportunity summary
Pain A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions.
Evidence 0 refs | 3 sources | 50% coverage
Blocker Evidence unverified
A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models…
Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models…
ScienceToStartup currently rates this 6.0/10 on the public viability pass. We find three broad results. Code availability is flagged in the production record; the public repository link still needs proof alignment.
LLM Evaluation moved forward this cycle; last verified May 2026. Public score 6.0/10. Production flags indicate code availability.
Continue into Read for claims, analysis, references, and neighboring papers.
mobile layout uses overflow-hidden min-w-0 break-wordsOpportunity summary
Score6.0Public score shown from the verified overall while the stale axis breakdown refreshesAnalysis summary
A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions.
Loading BUILD…
Paper Pack
10.48550/arXiv.2605.02038A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions.
Abstract
Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.
Source availability
PDF linkedThe paper record includes a public PDF URL.
Extraction status
Parse run linkedA document parse run is attached to this paper.
Proof status
unverified0 refs; 3 sources; 50% coverage.
What was readable
Derived fallback: Estimated from adjacent evidence; not verified from source.
Viability
Time to MVP
Commercial
Export
Preparing verified analysis
Dimensions overall score 6.0
PROBLEM
A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and rea...
METHOD
Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchma...
RESULT
ScienceToStartup currently rates this 6.0/10 on the public viability pass. We find three broad results. Code availability is flagged in the production record; the public repository link still needs proof alignment.
WHY NOW
LLM Evaluation moved forward this cycle; last verified May 2026. Public score 6.0/10. Production flags indicate code availability.
Abstract-backed public claims while anchored extraction refreshes.
A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell.
Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.
partial
Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell.
Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.
partial
ScienceToStartup currently rates this 6.0/10 on the public viability pass. We find three broad results. Code availability is flagged in the production record; the public repository link still needs proof alignment.
Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.
partial
LLM Evaluation moved forward this cycle; last verified May 2026. Public score 6.0/10. Production flags indicate code availability.
Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.
partial
Paper-native neighborhood for concepts, methods, materials, markets, and competitors. Missing lanes stay labeled instead of disappearing behind commercialization gates.
Concepts
Methods
Materials
Markets
Competitors
A new evaluation framework for language models that goes beyond single-prompt accuracy to assess reliability across multiple dimensions.
Segment
LLM Evaluation
Adoption evidence
No public code link in the paper record yet
Commercial read
6.0/10 public viability
Direct
Adjacent
Substitute
Unknown
No indexed public discussion is attached to 2605.02038 yet. That is a visibility signal, not a blank module: the monitor is watching the public channels below.
Hacker News
Not indexed yet
Not indexed yet
Bluesky
Not indexed yet
Preview the source document here, or use the hero PDF action for a new tab.
Reference metadata is not materialized in the public index yet. The source PDF remains the authority; cache refresh is optional.
CITED BY
No citing papers are indexed in the public S2S graph yet. This is an explicit zero-signal state, not a hidden lookup.
Extension
Commercially relevant
Owned Distribution
Get the weekly shortlist of commercializable papers, benchmark movers, and proof receipts that matter for product execution.
2/3 checks · 67%
Build Passport
Build passport pending - Proof Lab budget No verified cost estimate / $7.00 cap
status
missing
reason
passport_row_missing
proof status
unverified
cost/budget
No verified cost estimate
confidence low
next verification path
Build brief missing until Build Passport data exists.
Source missing: Build Passport payload.
Experiment plan missing until prototype path is available.
No prototype path attached.
Validation checklist missing until required assets, cost, and regulatory flags are verified.
No checklist artifact is attached to the Build Passport payload.
Derived signals show verified:false until source-backed receipts exist.
Evidence coverage
OpportunityKernel evidence_receipt
0 refs / 3 sources / 50% coverage
stale
Verify missing sources before using this as buyer proof. verified:false
Build readiness
BuildPassport EvidenceState
passport absent
stale
Run Proof Lab or inspect typed missing state. verified:false
Artifact maturity
GitHub and Hugging Face maturity payloads
No public artifact surface observed
stale
Open source artifacts or mark the gap as missing. verified:false
Technical feasibility
partial
Current read
Runnable path is not fully verified.
Evidence
No Build Passport payload attached.
Gaps
Next test
Run minimal reproduction from the Build Passport prototype path.
Market urgency
missing
Current read
Buyer urgency is not verified from source.
Evidence
0 references, 3 sources, 50% evidence coverage.
Gaps
Next test
Collect buyer interview, deployment evidence, or cited demand signal.
Buyer clarity
missing
Current read
No budget owner is verified for this paper.
Evidence
Build tab has no CRM, procurement, or operator source.
Gaps
Next test
Map target operator, economic buyer, and procurement trigger.
Defensibility
missing
Current read
Defensibility signals are missing.
Evidence
No defensibility receipt attached.
Gaps
Next test
Refresh defensibility bars with source receipts.
Integration burden
missing
Current read
No public implementation surface observed.
Evidence
No GitHub or Hugging Face payload attached.
Gaps
Next test
Write integration checklist from prototype path and target workflow.
Capital intensity
missing
Current read
No observed cost estimate is verified.
Evidence
Cost passport has no observed_usd value.
Gaps
Next test
Run cost passport or mark the cost field not applicable.
Regulatory load
missing
Current read
No regulatory classification is attached.
Evidence
Build Passport ledger does not include regulatory flags.
Gaps
Next test
Classify regulatory flags before commercialization planning.
No named scientific founder assigned.
Paper authors are not treated as operators without consent.
People
No named person assigned.
Gaps
Next verification path
Prototype owner missing.
Build Passport does not name an implementer.
People
No named person assigned.
Gaps
Next verification path
Operator workflow not sourced.
No buyer or workflow interview attached.
People
No named person assigned.
Gaps
Next verification path
No GTM owner verified.
No CRM or outreach source attached.
People
No named person assigned.
Gaps
Next verification path
Regulatory need unclassified.
No clinical or regulatory source attached.
People
No named person assigned.
Gaps
Next verification path
ARTIFACTS
No public artifacts yet.
DEFENSIBILITY
Defensibility and confidence evidence pending.
WATCHTOWER
No verified watchtower monitor rows yet.
FORESIGHT
No prediction yet — minted on next Foresight batch.
OPPORTUNITYKERNEL CHANGES SINCE LAST VIEW
No verified OpportunityKernel changes since the last view.
COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE UPDATES
No verified competitive landscape changes yet.
RELATED PAPER UPDATES
No verified related paper changes yet.
SIGNAL CANVAS HISTORY AND DELTAS
No Signal Canvas history deltas yet.
TIMELINE
Save this paper to start tracking momentum - commits, demos, and score changes appear here.
No tracked events yet.
Score trend will appear after multiple data points.
BUZZ
Buzz trend pending.