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.
By Jhen-Ke Lin, Hong-Yun Lin
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...
By Tanmoy Chakraborty, Ayan Sengupta, Suparna Bhattacharya, Partha Pratim Chakrabarti, Amlan Chakrabarti, Supratik Chakraborty, Partha Pratim Das, Lipika Dey, Richa Singh, Mayank Vatsa
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.
By Jihan Yao, Gantavya Bhatt, Arnav Das, Peter Jin, Ke Bao, Qiaolin Yu, Khushi Bhardwaj, Chang Su, Jialei Wang, Yikai Zhu, Sugam Devare, Damon Mosk-Aoyama, Zhen Dong, Venkat Krishna Srinivasan, Yineng Zhang, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jiantao Jiao, Banghua Zhu, Jeff Bilmes
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.
By Egor Shibaev, Vera Kudrevskaia, Timur Galimzyanov, Mikhail Evtikhiev, Ana Terna, Rastislav Rabatin, Timur Kudashev, Timofey Bryksin, Arina Puchkova, Patrik Bartak, Egor Bogomolov, Sergey Titov
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.
By Philipp D. Siedler, Jordan Sassoon
The paper introduces a low‑rank framework for ranking large language models (LLMs) on task‑specific benchmarks using sparse pairwise comparisons. By modeling the task‑by‑model ability matrix as low rank, the method shares information across related tasks while preserving task‑specific differences, and it provides uncertainty‑aware ranking through debiased estimators and simultaneous confidence sets. Experiments on synthetic data and the Chatbot Arena benchmark demonstrate improved sample efficiency and tighter, better‑calibrated ranking certificates, especially in the sparse comparison regime typical of real LLM evaluations.
By Jiachun Li, David Simchi-Levi, Will Wei Sun
The paper demonstrates that Item Response Theory (IRT) can uncover meaningful structure in safety benchmarks for language models, allowing adaptive item selection to approximate full benchmark rankings with Spearman’s ρ > 0.90 while cutting evaluation costs by at least 80% and up to 99.9% on some suites. It also proposes a static method to extract a small, informative subset of items that can be reused across models, achieving 80–99.8% cost savings. These findings show that psychometric techniques can make safety evaluation more efficient without sacrificing ranking accuracy.
By Fabio Spagliardi, M\'irian Silva, Ayan Datta, Aiden Zhou, Vamshi Bonagiri, Diogo Cruz
arXiv:2610.07990v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Model merging aims to build a multi-task model cheaply by combining the weights of individual task-specific models. To perform well across multiple tas...
By Sin-Han Yang, Shih-Cheng Huang, Chieh-Yen Lin, Yun-Nung Chen, Shao-Hua Sun, Hung-yi Lee
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.
By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
arXiv:2606. 26429v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current LLM evaluation relies on two complementary but often disconnected signals: static benchmarks with objective correctness labels and arena-style preference data that better reflect open-ended user interactions.
By Aaron J. Li, Hao Huang, Youngmin Park, Yitong Ma, Wei-Lin Chiang, Li Chen, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Bin Yu, Ion Stoica
arXiv:2608.22432v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Multilingual LLM judges produce different evaluator-backbone rankings depending on the prompt language: on an eight-language Agent-as-a-Judge benchma...
By Alhasan Mahmood, Samir Abdaljalil, Hasan Kurban
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
By Zejun Xie, Xintong Li, Guang Wang, Desheng Zhang