Everything you need to know about LLM metrics

In this article, learn how to evaluate large language models using practical metrics, reliable benchmarks, and repeatable workflows that balance quality, safety, and cost.

Topics covered include:

• Automate and easily check text quality and similarity metrics.
• When to use benchmarks, human reviews, LLMs as judges, and verifiers.
• Safety/bias testing and process level (inference) evaluation.

Let’s get started.

Everything you need to know about LLM metrics
Image by author

introduction

When large-scale language models first appeared, most of us were thinking about what they could do, what problems they could solve, and how far they could go. But with so many open and closed source models flooding the space these days, the real question is: How do we know which ones are actually good? Evaluating large-scale language models has quietly become one of the trickiest (and surprisingly complex) problems in artificial intelligence. Performance must be measured to ensure that it actually does what we want it to do, and to see how accurate, fact-based, efficient, and secure the model actually is. These metrics are also very useful for developers to analyze model performance, compare it to other models, and identify biases, errors, and other issues. Plus, you’ll have a better idea of ​​which techniques are working and which aren’t. This article describes the main methods for evaluating large-scale language models, the metrics that really matter, and the tools that help researchers and developers perform meaningful evaluations.

Text quality and similarity metrics

Evaluating large-scale language models often means measuring how well the generated text matches human expectations. Text quality and similarity metrics are frequently used in tasks such as translation, summarization, and paraphrase. Because these metrics provide a quantitative way to check output without requiring constant human judgment. for example:

• blue Compare overlapping N-grams between model output and reference text. Widely used for translation work.
• Rouge L It focuses on the longest common subsequences and captures the overlap across the content. Especially useful for summaries.
• meteor Taking synonyms and stemming into account improves word-level matching and allows for better meaning recognition.
• BERTScore Compute the cosine similarity between the generated sentence and the reference sentence using context embedding. This is useful for paraphrasing and detecting semantic similarities.

For classification and fact-based question answering tasks, use token-level metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 to indicate accuracy and coverage. Perplexity (PPL) measures how “surprised” a model is by a set of tokens.serves as a proxy for fluency and coherence. Less clutter usually means more natural text. Most of these metrics can be automatically calculated using Python libraries such as: NLTK, evaluateor Sacre Blue.

automatic benchmarking

One of the easiest ways to check large language models is to use automated benchmarks. These are typically large, carefully designed datasets containing questions and expected answers that allow performance to be measured quantitatively. Some popular ones are; MMLU (Massive Multitasking Language Understanding)Covers 57 subjects from science to humanities. GSM8Kfocuses on math problems where inference is important and other datasets such as: arc, true QAand hella swagtests domain-specific reasoning, factuality, and common sense knowledge. Models are often evaluated using accuracy. Accuracy is basically the number of correct answers divided by the total number of questions.

For more details, Log-likelihood scoring can also be used. This measures how confident the model is about the correct answer. Automated benchmarks are particularly good for multiple-choice or structured tasks because they are objective, reproducible, and suitable for comparing multiple models. But they also have drawbacks. The model can remember benchmark questions, which can make your score look better than it actually is. They also often do not capture generalizations or deep inferences, and are not very useful for free-form output. This can also be done using automated tools and platforms.

Human participatory evaluation

For open-ended tasks like summaries, story writing, and chatbots, automated metrics often miss the details of meaning, tone, and relevance. This is where human participation-based evaluation comes into play. This involves having an annotator or a real user read the model’s output and evaluate it based on certain criteria, such as: usefulness, clarity, accuracy, completeness. Some systems go even further. for example, Chatbot Arena (LMSYS) Users can interact with two anonymous models and choose which one they prefer. These selections are used to calculate Elo style scores, similar to ranking chess players, to understand which models are preferred overall.

The main advantage of human-based evaluation is that it shows what real users like, proving it to be suitable for creative and subjective tasks. The disadvantages are that it is costly, time-consuming, can be subjective, results may vary, and requires clear rubrics and proper training of annotators. This is useful for evaluating large-scale language models designed for user interaction, as it directly measures what people find helpful or effective.

LLM evaluation as a judge

A new way to evaluate language models is to use one large language model to judge another language model. Instead of relying on human reviewers, GPT-4, Claude 3.5or Kwen You can ask for output to be graded automatically. For example, you can give them a question, the output from another large language model, and a reference answer, and ask them to rate the output on a scale of 1 to 10 for accuracy, clarity, and factual accuracy.

This method makes it possible to perform large-scale assessments quickly and inexpensively while obtaining consistent scores based on rubrics. Good for leaderboards, A/B testing, or comparing multiple models. But it’s not perfect. The large language models that make decisions may have biases that favor output that resembles your own style. Also, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to communicate why you gave a certain score, which can make you struggle with highly technical or domain-specific tasks. Common tools to do this include OpenAI Evals, Evalchemy, and Ollama for local comparisons. These allow teams to automate many assessments without requiring a human for each test.

Verifiers and symbolic checks

For tasks where there is a clear right or wrong answer, such as math problems, coding, or logical reasoning, validation tools are one of the most reliable ways to check a model’s output. The verifier does not look at the text itself, only whether the result is correct. For example, you can run the generated code to see if you get the expected output, compare numbers to their correct values, or use symbolic solvers to check the consistency of equations.

The advantage of this approach is that it is objective, reproducible, and unbiased by writing style or language, making it ideal for code, math, and logic tasks. The downside is that verifiers only work for structured tasks, model outputs can be difficult to parse, and the quality of explanations and inferences cannot really be judged. Common tools for this include: Eval Plus and Lagasse (For search extension generation check). This allows you to automate reliable checking of structured output.

Safety, bias and ethical assessment

When checking language models, it’s not just about accuracy and fluency; safety, fairness, and ethical behavior are just as important. There are several benchmarks and methods to test these. for example, barbecue Measure demographic fairness and potential bias in model output. Actual toxicity prompt Check if the model produces objectionable or unsafe content. Other frameworks and approaches focus on harmful completions, misinformation, or attempts to bypass rules (such as jailbreaks). These evaluations typically combine automatic classifiers, large-scale language model-based decisions, and some manual auditing to get a complete picture of the model’s behavior.

Common tools and techniques used for this type of testing include: Hug face evaluation tool and Anthropic Constitution AI This framework helps teams systematically check for bias, harmful output, and ethical compliance. Conducting safety and ethical evaluations helps ensure that large-scale language models not only work in the real world, but are also responsible and reliable.

Inference-based process evaluation

Some ways to evaluate large language models include looking at how the model got there, rather than just looking at the final answer. This is particularly useful for tasks that require planning, problem solving, or multi-step reasoning, such as RAG systems, mathematical solvers, and large language models for agents. As an example, Process Reward Model (PRM)to check the quality of the model’s chain of thought. Another approach is step-by-step accuracy, which checks whether each inference step is valid. Fidelity metrics go further by checking whether the inference actually matches the final answer, ensuring that the model’s logic is sound.

These methods provide a deeper understanding of the model’s inference skills and help uncover errors in the thought process rather than just the output. Commonly used tools for inference and process evaluation include: PRM-based evaluation, Lagasse for RAG-specific checks, and ChainEvalAll of these help measure the quality and consistency of inferences at scale.

summary

This concludes the discussion. Let’s summarize what we’ve discussed so far in one table. This gives you a quick reference that you can save and refer to whenever you work with evaluating large language models.