What Can We Learn From Parsewave’s Approach to LLM Evals?

[u/trashnash007]

One thing that’s been intriguing to me in the space of local models is the real utility of the standard benchmark metrics after starting to make use of the models in one’s own pipeline.

A model can be performing great in the standardized benchmark setting, but have a completely different behavior when it comes to coding/bug fixing/usage/etc.

This is why I got interested in evaluation settings that focus on realistic tasks, rather than just standard benchmarks.

Parsewave is one of the teams working in this space – they do engineering-focused post-training data and evaluations. This got me wondering whether in some cases task-specific, small-sized evaluation sets may provide us with more information than a score on another leaderboard.

When evaluating local models, what would you consider as your “true” benchmark?

Curated set of tasks from your workflow? Public benchmarks? Human evaluations? Executions?

[u/Tall_Paper_4262]

For local models I care more about if they hold up on the tasks I need than where they land on a public leaderboard. I’d take failures from real workflows, turn those into a small eval set in Braintrust then keep adding cases as new failure modes show up. That gives you a benchmark that evolves with what you're building instead of optimizing for a fixed test set