Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Non-Determinism of Small LLMs: Evidence of Low Answer Consistency in Repetition Trials of Standard Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2509.09705 v1 pith:BD3J6CJS submitted 2025-09-05 cs.CL cs.AI

The Non-Determinism of Small LLMs: Evidence of Low Answer Consistency in Repetition Trials of Standard Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords modelsconsistencysmallaccuracyanswerllmsbenchmarksinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This work explores the consistency of small LLMs (2B-8B parameters) in answering multiple times the same question. We present a study on known, open-source LLMs responding to 10 repetitions of questions from the multiple-choice benchmarks MMLU-Redux and MedQA, considering different inference temperatures, small vs. medium models (50B-80B), finetuned vs. base models, and other parameters. We also look into the effects of requiring multi-trial answer consistency on accuracy and the trade-offs involved in deciding which model best provides both of them. To support those studies, we propose some new analytical and graphical tools. Results show that the number of questions which can be answered consistently vary considerably among models but are typically in the 50%-80% range for small models at low inference temperatures. Also, accuracy among consistent answers seems to reasonably correlate with overall accuracy. Results for medium-sized models seem to indicate much higher levels of answer consistency.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Two Confounds in Cross-Model Value Comparison: Response Determinism and the Access Harness

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Cross-model value distances from single draws are inflated by response determinism and confounded by the deployment client; a repeated counterbalanced protocol plus flip/magnitude decomposition separates them.