arXiv Machine Learning

Stop Guessing When to Stop Testing: Efficient Model Evaluation with Just Enough Data

arXiv:2607. 08522v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

Evaluating Multiple LLM Generations with Validated Task Coverage

The paper introduces VTC-Bench, a five‑domain benchmark designed to evaluate multiple outputs from large language models (LLMs) by measuring Validated Task Coverage (VTC). VTC quantifies how many distinct, useful results are produced within a set number of attempts, using real‑data tasks that allow automatic, reproducible checks of output quality and task‑relevant distinctness without relying on model‑based judges. Experiments show that models which perform best on single‑draw quality do not always achieve the highest coverage, and simple output‑variation metrics fail to capture task‑relevant diversity, highlighting the importance of evaluating finite candidate sets directly.

By Florian Le Bronnec, Rio Yokota
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 24

You Don't Need to Run Every Eval

arXiv:2606. 24020v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A modern model release reports scores on 40+ benchmarks and the same evaluations were run many more times before it: to track training progress, compare design choices, and select the checkpoint for the release.

By Yuchen Zeng, Dimitris Papailiopoulos
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 3

Mediocrity is the key for LLM as a Judge Anchor Selection

The paper examines how the choice of anchor model in LLM-as-a-judge evaluations affects reliability. By testing 22 anchors on the Arena-Hard-v2.0 dataset, it shows that extreme anchors (best or worst performers) are poor choices, reducing correlation with human rankings. The study quantifies the anchor effect size, compares it to judge model selection, and offers guidelines and power‑analysis recommendations for more reliable benchmark design.

By Shachar Don-Yehiya, Asaf Yehudai, Leshem Choshen, Omri Abend
arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

How Much Can Language Models Gain from Test-Time Computation?

The paper investigates how test‑time computation can enhance language models and at what cost, introducing the SELF‑POT benchmark to evaluate this across competition mathematics, competitive programming, and agentic workflows. SELF‑POT separates candidate coverage from final accuracy, tracks correctness transitions under revision, and measures protocol completion alongside task success. Using a unified budget rule, the study compares direct inference, parallel sampling, and self‑revision across five low‑cost reasoning models, revealing that selection rules and failure handling significantly influence gains and cost savings.

By Bangji Yang, Jingyuan Li, Jiajun Fan, Yi Evie Zhang, Ruihan Guo, Hongba Ma, Neil He, Chumeng Liang, Qinglong Zheng, Zhanghan Ni, Ge Liu