Advancements in Large Language Models Through Statistical Comparison of Phi-4 and Qwen

The paper investigates and compares the performance of two language models phi4 and qwen by using a comprehensive evaluation framework. It is designed to assess them on multiple metrics such as generation of text-length, token-count, response time and readability. To make sure the evaluation is robust, we utilize an array of statistical techniques which are ANOVA, Welch’s t-Tests, Levene's test, as well as non-parametric tests, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. This multi-layered approach allows for a detailed and better comparison of the models, highlighting small differences in their output behaviors and performance profiles. The analysis reveals that phi4 generates detailed and varied responses as evidenced by high text lengths and token counts, indicating its strength in applications that require comprehensive and in-depth information. Whereas qwen consistently demonstrates significantly lower latency and exhibits higher readability, which makes it perfect for real-time conversations where speed and clarity are paramount. These distinct characteristics highlight the difference between variation and efficiency, suggesting that the optimal model choice is dependent on the specific needs of the tasks. For instance, phi4 might be advantageous for generating reports or explaining content, qwen is more appropriate for virtual assistant applications where quick response and communication are required.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25sep899
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Advancements in Large Language Models Through Statistical Comparison of Phi-4 and Qwen

Shalini Bhaskar Bajaj
Topic Modeling
article

Advancements in Large Language Models Through Statistical Comparison of Phi-4 and Qwen

Shalini Bhaskar Bajaj
article en

Abstract

The paper investigates and compares the performance of two language models phi4 and qwen by using a comprehensive evaluation framework. It is designed to assess them on multiple metrics such as generation of text-length, token-count, response time and readability. To make sure the evaluation is robust, we utilize an array of statistical techniques which are ANOVA, Welch’s t-Tests, Levene's test, as well as non-parametric tests, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. This multi-layered approach allows for a detailed and better comparison of the models, highlighting small differences in their output behaviors and performance profiles. The analysis reveals that phi4 generates detailed and varied responses as evidenced by high text lengths and token counts, indicating its strength in applications that require comprehensive and in-depth information. Whereas qwen consistently demonstrates significantly lower latency and exhibits higher readability, which makes it perfect for real-time conversations where speed and clarity are paramount. These distinct characteristics highlight the difference between variation and efficiency, suggesting that the optimal model choice is dependent on the specific needs of the tasks. For instance, phi4 might be advantageous for generating reports or explaining content, qwen is more appropriate for virtual assistant applications where quick response and communication are required.

Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Topic Modeling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Advancements in Large Language Models Through Statistical Comparison of Phi-4 and Qwen — Shalini Bhaskar Bajaj · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS