Overview
CEBench provides a practical, config-driven benchmark and plan recommender; demos show concrete trade-offs. Latency-cost estimates rely on coarse TFLOPs mapping, so validate recommendations on target infra before production.
Citations5
Evidence Strength0.70
Confidence0.89
Risk Signals9
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 5/5
Findings with evidence refs: 5/5
Results with explicit delta: 2/4
Reproducibility
Status: Code + data available
Open source: Yes
At A Glance
Cost impact: 70%
Production readiness: 60%
Novelty: 40%
Why It Matters For Business
CEBench helps teams choose LLM deployments that meet accuracy needs while controlling real costs by comparing local vs online models, RAG vs few-shot, and by recommending Pareto-efficient plans.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
CEBench is an open-source, configuration-driven toolkit for benchmarking LLM pipelines across both effectiveness (accuracy, F1, MAE) and operational cost (latency, memory, estimated $/prompt). It automates data loading, RAG integration, metric logging, and outputs Pareto-efficient deployment plans. Two demos—mental-health scoring (local LLMs + RAG) and contract review (online LLMs + RAG)—show how RAG and model size affect accuracy, latency, and cost and how the tool recommends trade-offs.
Problem Statement
Practitioners must pick LLM deployment plans that balance model quality and real-world costs. Existing toolkits focus on accuracy but ignore deployment cost, RAG integration, and multi-objective trade-offs, forcing repeated coding and ad-hoc cost estimates.
Main Contribution
An open-source, zero-code toolkit (CEBench) to run batch, multi-objective LLM benchmarks from configuration files.
End-to-end benchmarking that includes local LLMs, RAG pipelines, prompt variants, resource monitoring, and estimated monetary costs.
Key Findings
Lightweight online model plus RAG yields very high accuracy at minimal cost.
RAG often reduces end-to-end latency vs few-shot prompting by shortening input size.
Results
| Metric | Value | Baseline | Delta | Split / Dataset | Evidence | Evidence Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ContractNLI F1 (RAG) | Haiku 0.9585; Sonnet 0.9125; Opus 0.8865; GPT-4 0.9510 | — | — | ContractNLI test set | Table 5 reports F1 scores for RAG pipelines on ContractNLI. | Table 5; Sec. A.1.4 |
| ContractNLI latency (avg) | Haiku RAG 1.585±0.970s; Haiku Few-shot 2.318±2.318s | — | ≈0.73s faster with RAG | ContractNLI test set | Table 5 shows average inference times for RAG vs few-shot. | Table 5; Sec. A.1.4 |
What To Try In 7 Days
Install CEBench and run one config comparing a small local model and a small online model on your task.
Benchmark both few-shot and a simple RAG pipeline to measure token lengths, latency, and cost per prompt.
Use the plan recommender to generate a Pareto front and validate the top candidate on target hardware.
Optimization Features
Token Efficiency
Infra Optimization
Model Optimization
System Optimization
Inference Optimization
Reproducibility
Data URLs
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Latency and cost estimates are coarse because they are based on GPU TFLOPs ratios, which miss system-level differences.
Benchmarks reflect chosen datasets and configurations (ContractNLI, DAIC-WOZ); results may not transfer to other tasks.
When Not To Use
When you require highly accurate latency prediction for specific hardware (CEBench uses TFLOPs-based estimates).
When the evaluation focuses only on raw model research (CEBench emphasizes cost-effectiveness over pure model-score analysis).
Failure Modes
Cost/latency recommendations off due to TFLOPs-to-latency mismatch on target hardware.
Out-of-memory during model loading for very large models (example: mixtral:7x22b OOM).