Question the measurement
My LLM judge was flipping a coin a third of the time
What happened when I tested the judge I had trusted for months.
Software engineer / Miami, FL
The notebook
Small thoughts, things I learned the hard way, and ideas that needed more room.
Follow via RSS — every new thought, field note, and essay in one feed.
Question the measurement
What happened when I tested the judge I had trusted for months.
Follow a fix
An exact failure, the hardware behind it, and the two-line fix.
Look at the craft
The engineering behind a quieter page transition on this site.
5 pieces about Evaluation & measurement
An 87 GiB model got OOM-killed with nothing in its own log. The process that triggered it was a 27 MB dashboard service. The reason my inference server was the kernel first choice was not its size — it was a systemd user-manager default that scores every terminal-launched process to die before any system service. Then restarting it killed my editor.
A 125B model decoding at 26.6 tok/s looks unremarkable beside a 31B at 29.3 — until you notice the 31B is running a drafter, so its number is a forward-pass rate multiplied by an acceptance length. Per forward pass the big model was 3x faster. Here is how to decompose the number, and what the bandwidth arithmetic says is still on the table.
I have swapped the local model under my newspaper 85 times in four months. That looked like a natural experiment, so I built an instrument to read it — including a gate that refuses comparisons contaminated by time. The gate passed. It was reading my switch log instead of my writing, and the two models it cleared had never once alternated.
I used a language model to pick the better of two drafts, and trusted it for months. Then I gave it two drafts from an identical configuration and asked it to choose. Here is what measuring a judge’s noise floor costs, and why every A/B result before it was unreadable.
Three times this year a reasoning model spent its whole token budget thinking and handed back empty content under HTTP 200. Three times, the code reading the result invented a different explanation — a parser bug, then an unconstrained grammar. Neither was true, and one of them fired inside a safety check.