Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: A new benchmark for testing LLMs for deterministic outputs

interfaze.ai

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Show HN: A new benchmark for testing LLMs for deterministic outputs

#21
I have anecdotal experience here, but I've found more success when solving the task first, and then returning it as JSON in a separate LLM call[0].

Running a single non-reasoning LLM call from source data (text/image/audio in your diagram) to structured JSON seems fragile with the current state of LLMs.

You're essentially asking the model to do two tasks in one pass: parse the input and then format the output. It's amazing it works a lot of the time, but reasonable to assume it won't all of the time.

(As a human, when I'm filling out a complex form, I'll often jump around the document)

Curious how the benchmarks change when you add an intermediary representation, either via reasoning or an additional LLM call. I'd also love to see a comparison with BAML[1].

[0]In my experience we were using structured outputs as part of an agentic state machine, where the JSON contained code snippets (html/js/py/etc.). In the cases where we first prompted the model for the code, and then wrapped it in JSON, we saw much higher quality/success than asking for JSON straightaway.

[1]https://boundaryml.com/

Re: Show HN: A new benchmark for testing LLMs for deterministic outputs

#22

This is just a hallucinations benchmark on a subset of outputs, not sure there's a value over general hallucinations benchmarks? > Our goal is to be the best general model for deterministic tasks I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. If you want a deterministic output don't use an LLM.

LLMs are not inherently non-deterministic. This is a common misconception. You used to be able to set temp=0 and a fixed seed and get the same output every time. This broke when labs started implementing batching, and no one bothered fixing it because the benefits of batching vastly outweighed the demand for deterministic output. I am hopeful deterministic output will return, though; DeepSeek v4 claims to have implem…

Thinking Machines Lab uses batch invariant kernels, btw.

Re: Show HN: A new benchmark for testing LLMs for deterministic outputs

#23

This is just a hallucinations benchmark on a subset of outputs, not sure there's a value over general hallucinations benchmarks? > Our goal is to be the best general model for deterministic tasks I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. If you want a deterministic output don't use an LLM.

LLMs are not inherently non-deterministic. This is a common misconception. You used to be able to set temp=0 and a fixed seed and get the same output every time. This broke when labs started implementing batching, and no one bothered fixing it because the benefits of batching vastly outweighed the demand for deterministic output. I am hopeful deterministic output will return, though; DeepSeek v4 claims to have implem…

> LLMs are not inherently non-deterministic.

Reproducible does not mean deterministic. You cannot determine in advance what a prompt will give as output, even with a temperature of 0 and a fixed seed, therefore they are not deterministic.

Re: Show HN: A new benchmark for testing LLMs for deterministic outputs

#28

This is just a hallucinations benchmark on a subset of outputs, not sure there's a value over general hallucinations benchmarks? > Our goal is to be the best general model for deterministic tasks I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. If you want a deterministic output don't use an LLM.

[dead]

Re: Show HN: A new benchmark for testing LLMs for deterministic outputs

#30

Would it be possible to add llm provider from glm5.1, minimax2.1? Those latest model have their parameters change significantly compare to previous gen

We're updating our leaderboard with these model scores, should be out soon :D
Post reply on HN