arXiv:2608.24228v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Many LLM applications are most useful when they provide several candidate outputs for comparison, validation, or combination. Predominant evaluation settings, however, still focus on individual outputs or reduce multiple samples to a single success or selected answer. This can miss whether the outputs include several genuinely different useful results. We introduce VTC-Bench, a five-domain benchmark for this setting, together with Validated Task Coverage (VTC) as its core evaluation quantity. The benchmark is built from carefully selected real-data tasks where both output quality and task-relevant distinctness can be checked automatically and reproducibly, without model-based judges. VTC measures how many distinct useful results are obtained within $k$ attempts. Across multiple models and inference settings, the benchmark leads to different conclusions from conventional evaluation: configurations that look strongest from single-draw quality are not necessarily those with the best coverage, and simple measures of output variation do not reliably recover task-relevant coverage. These results show that finite candidate sets can be evaluated directly as objects of interest, revealing differences in model behavior that are not apparent from conventional per-output evaluation.
Abstract: Many LLM applications are most useful when they provide several candidate outputs for comparison, validation, or combination. Predominant evaluation settings, however, still focus on individual outputs or reduce multiple samples to a single success or selected answer. This can miss whether the outputs include several genuinely different useful results. We introduce VTC-Bench, a five-domain benchmark for this setting, together with Validated Task Coverage (VTC) as its core evaluation quantity. The benchmark is built from carefully selected real-data tasks where both output quality and task-relevant distinctness can be checked automatically and reproducibly, without model-based judges. VTC measures how many distinct useful results are obtained within $k$ attempts. Across multiple models and inference settings, the benchmark leads to different conclusions from conventional evaluation: configurations that look strongest from single-draw quality are not necessarily those with the best coverage, and simple measures of output variation do not reliably recover task-relevant coverage. These results show that finite candidate sets can be evaluated directly as objects of interest, revealing differences in model behavior that are not apparent from conventional per-output evaluation.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: