Repeated-sampling evaluations increasingly extrapolate pass@k far beyond the number n of samples collected per problem. We show that, in the pooled/random-task conditional-Binomial model, fixed-n succ...
Repeated evaluation can estimate a benchmark score accurately while still requiring replication to certify narrow uncertainty. We characterize that requirement on a fixed grid of $M$ tasks with $L$ binary paths per task under the hard budget $(M+t)K$, where each path costs at most $K$ responses or episodes.
arXiv:2609. 29140v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Repeated evaluation can estimate a benchmark score accurately while still requiring replication to certify narrow uncertainty.
arXiv:2602. 15327v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Machine learning model performance improvements tend to arise from competition and application.
arXiv:2608. 15046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A fraction of a point of benchmark accuracy is the usual evidence that a compressed model is equivalent to its original.
The paper introduces XConf, an experiential confidence estimator that augments a language model’s current inference with a record of its past graded episodes. By recalling similar past tasks and reflecting on past outcomes, XConf generates confidence scores without accessing logits or updating weights, achieving superior discrimination and calibration across diverse benchmarks. The method demonstrates significant gains in selective prediction, improving success rates on agent tasks by up to 8.7 points.
The paper investigates the reliability of tool‑using agents, focusing on two failure modes: selecting the wrong tool and constructing incorrect arguments. It introduces a correct‑invocation rate metric to distinguish these errors and evaluates five open‑weight models on multi‑step tasks up to depth 8, finding that by depth 6 about 70% of a model’s clean‑context capability is lost due to earlier mistakes. The study reveals that exact‑match scoring against a fixed gold trajectory forces severity and recovery parameters to extreme values, and proposes a conditional‑on‑state scoring remedy that yields more realistic severity estimates.
arXiv:2608. 14711v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI coding agent benchmarks rank agents with the Chen et al.
arXiv:2607. 21480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An initial high-recall stage in an empirical pipeline decides which items pass to later review, labelling, or modelling, and relevant items it misses are lost to every subsequent stage.
arXiv:2604. 24827v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Closed-source frontier labs do not disclose parameter counts.
The paper introduces Speculative Evaluation, a method to reduce variance in evaluating stochastic large language models (LLMs) under a fixed rollout budget. It employs a Hierarchical Bayesian Neyman (HBN) policy that first runs a short uniform pilot, then pools task-level success counts via a hierarchical Bayesian model to compute posterior expectations of task-level sampling variances. Using these expectations, the method applies exact positive-integer Neyman allocation to allocate rollouts, and an asynchronous variant (HBN-async) speculatively executes continuations from partial pilot feedback to mitigate synchronization overhead. Across six checkpoints and 18 benchmark groups, Speculative Evaluation achieves 12.8%-33.6% lower variance compared to uniform allocation, outperforming empirical and independent Bayesian baselines, and demonstrates practical benefits in real-generation experiments.
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.