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...
By Jhen-Ke Lin
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: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: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:2607. 25891v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating AI agents in interactive environments is hindered by fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules.
By Stefan Krsteski, Charlotte Meyer, Guillaume Allegre, Tony O'Halloran, Alexandre Sallinen
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