The paper introduces Balance of Benchmarks (BoB), a framework that improves task-conditioned model comparison by weighting benchmark evidence based on semantic density, equating scores across varying difficulty levels, and pooling task-relevant residuals. BoB retains all eligible benchmark data while adjusting its influence, outperforming uniform averaging on the WildScores dataset with higher Spearman correlation, lower MAE, and better shortlist hit rates. The method also reduces ranking instability when benchmarks are repeated or paraphrased, and lowers retrospective regret in model selection.
arXiv:2608.30044v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models are commonly compared by averaging scores across a benchmark list with equal weight. Such lists grow through publication outside an exp...
arXiv:2608. 13566v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Post-training papers, model cards, and blog posts often treat scores on a small set of coding benchmarks (e.
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
arXiv:2607. 09739v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study LLM benchmark coreset selection: selecting a small subset of prompts over multiple benchmarks whose induced model scores and rankings approximate those obtained from the full benchmark suite.
arXiv:2607. 25891v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating AI agents in interactive environments is hindered by fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules.
arXiv:2506.00482v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM benchmarks are often treated as coherent measurement units, yet they are heterogeneous collections of instances spanning diverse domains,...
arXiv:2606. 26836v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run.
The paper examines whether transcripts of model solutions can reveal capabilities after benchmark scores saturate. By simulating saturation with historical data, the authors test protocols that use only correctly solved transcripts to predict performance on unsaturated items. Pairwise judging of transcripts outperforms other methods, reducing prediction error by 5.3×, though its effectiveness can vary across distribution shifts.
arXiv:2605.30018v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) frequently achieve impressive scores on standardized benchmarks, yet accuracy alone offers a limited view of the...
arXiv:2605. 28556v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As agent capabilities advance, existing benchmarks, such as $\tau^2$-Bench, are becoming increasingly saturated.
arXiv:2607. 28801v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples.
arXiv:2606. 15623v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pairwise comparison is the gold standard for subjective ranking tasks; however, exhaustive annotation requires a massive number of human comparisons ($O(n^2)$).