arXiv:2607. 15190v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models, particularly item response theory (IRT), to estimate model capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality.
By Han Jiang, Sunbeom Kwon, Jinwen Luo, Ziang Xiao, Susu Zhang
arXiv:2607. 25257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Item Response Theory (IRT) has recently been proposed as a framework for evaluating large language model (LLM) benchmarks by separating a model's latent ability from the properties of individual benchmark items.
By Juan Francisco, Mandujano Reyes
arXiv:2606. 07616v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scaling laws provide a fundamental framework for understanding the performance of Language Models (LMs), yet deriving them requires prohibitively expensive evaluations across thousands of checkpoints or millions of inference samples.
By Sang Truong, Yuheng Tu, Rylan Schaeffer, Sanmi Koyejo
arXiv:2511. 04689v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) typically requires thousands of benchmark items, making the process expensive, slow, and increasingly impractical at scale.
By Peiyu Li, Xiuxiu Tang, Si Chen, Ying Cheng, Ronald Metoyer, Ting Hua, Nitesh V. Chawla
arXiv:2601. 02580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Traditional methods for determining assessment item parameters, such as difficulty and discrimination, rely heavily on expensive field testing to collect student performance data for Item Response Theory (IRT) calibration.
By Christopher Ormerod
arXiv:2511. 21692v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) generalize across different task difficulties, a key question for effective data curation and evaluation.
By Yeganeh Kordi, Nihal V. Nayak, Max Zuo, Ilana Nguyen, Stephen H. Bach
arXiv:2608. 15630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid development and growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly important to understand their capabilities.
By Alona Strugatski, Licol Zeinfeld, Giora Alexandron
arXiv:2606. 26836v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run.
By Bradley Fowler, Ryan Smith, Daniel Thi Graviet, William Myers, Joshua Greaves, Narmeen Fatimah Oozeer, Ant\'ia Garc\'ia, Philip Quirke, Amirali Abdullah, Fazl Barez, Shriyash Kaustubh Upadhyay
arXiv:2608. 05726v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts.
By Yuma Asato, Kiyoaki Shirai, Natthawut Kertkeidkachorn
arXiv:2605. 29223v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The parameter counts of the most widely used large language models (LLMs) are often withheld by their developers, leaving model size -- a primary reference point for interpreting capabilities and costs -- largely undisclosed.
By Ivica Nikolic
arXiv:2608. 11027v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmark leaderboards summarize how well a language model performs, but not how its behavior relates to that of other models or changes across generations.
By Dong Qiao, Chris Ding, Jicong Fan
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song