Beyond Benchmarks: Toward Causally Faithful Evaluation of Large Language Models

Current LLM evaluations often conflate benchmark performance with intrinsic model capability. This is misleading, as observed outcomes arise from the entire evaluation system, including datasets, prompting methods, decoding parameters, and the software–hardware stack, rather than the model alone. When this system is under-specified, attribution becomes unreliable; in practice, evaluation choices alone can induce accuracy swings of up to 70%. This challenge is compounded by the open-ended nature of LLM evaluation, where questions span languages, domains, and usage styles, forming variable and implicitly shifting datasets. Consequently, strong performance on static benchmarks may reflect surface alignment or dataset-induced effects rather than robust capability. Prior studies often focus on individual components or manually-curated small-scale dataset variants, overlooking interactions and dataset-related confounding. To address these limitations, we propose LLM evaluatology, a principled framework that grounds LLM evaluation in a causally motivated system design. It combines structured causal modeling as an intervention-oriented lens with factorial decomposition under design of experiments, quantifying main and interaction effects while using instance-level interventions to probe dataset-induced effects. By jointly modeling evaluation components and structured question variations, LLM evaluatology enables more interpretable, reproducible, and carefully attributed assessment of model capability. Our framework is publicly available at [GitHub](https://github.com/BenchCouncil/llm-evaluatology).