Current benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often do not exhibit enough writing style diversity, with many adhering primarily to standardized conventions. Such benchmarks do not fully capture the rich variety of communication patterns exhibited by humans. Thus, it is possible that LLMs, which are optimized on these benchmarks, may demonstrate brittle performance when faced with “non-standard” input. In this work, we test this hypothesis by rewriting evaluation prompts using persona-based LLM prompting, a low-cost method to emulate diverse writing styles. Our results show that, even with identical semantic content, variations in writing style and prompt formatting significantly impact the estimated performance of the LLM under evaluation. Notably, we identify distinct writing styles that consistently trigger either low or high performance across a range of models and tasks, irrespective of model family, size, or recency. Our work offers a scalable approach to augment existing benchmarks, improving the external validity of the assessments they provide for LLM performance across linguistic variations.

How can we precisely estimate a large language model’s (LLM) accuracy on questions belonging to a specific topic within a larger question-answering dataset? The standard direct estimator, which averages the model’s accuracy on the questions in each subgroup, may exhibit high variance for subgroups (topics) with small sample sizes. Synthetic regression modeling, which leverages the model’s accuracy on questions about other topics, may yield biased estimates that are too unreliable for large subgroups. We prescribe a simple yet effective solution: an empirical Bayes (EB) estimator that balances direct and regression estimates for each subgroup separately, improving the precision of subgroup-level estimates of model performance. Our experiments on multiple datasets show that this approach consistently provides more precise estimates of the LLM performance compared to the direct and regression approaches, achieving substantial reductions in the mean squared error. Confidence intervals for EB estimates also have near-nominal coverage and are narrower compared to those for the direct estimator. Additional experiments on tabular and vision data validate the benefits of this EB approach.