REVIEW 10 cited by
metabench -- A Sparse Benchmark of Reasoning and Knowledge in Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
metabench -- A Sparse Benchmark of Reasoning and Knowledge in Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) vary in their abilities on a range of tasks. Initiatives such as the Open LLM Leaderboard aim to quantify these differences with several large benchmarks (sets of test items to which an LLM can respond either correctly or incorrectly). However, high correlations within and between benchmark scores suggest that (1) there exists a small set of common underlying abilities that these benchmarks measure, and (2) items tap into redundant information and the benchmarks may thus be considerably compressed. We use data from n > 5000 LLMs to identify the most informative items of six benchmarks, ARC, GSM8K, HellaSwag, MMLU, TruthfulQA and WinoGrande (with d = 28,632 items in total). From them we distill a sparse benchmark, metabench, that has less than 3% of the original size of all six benchmarks combined. This new sparse benchmark goes beyond point scores by yielding estimators of the underlying benchmark-specific abilities. We show that these estimators (1) can be used to reconstruct each original individual benchmark score with, on average, 1.24% root mean square error (RMSE), (2) reconstruct the original total score with 0.58% RMSE, and (3) have a single underlying common factor whose Spearman correlation with the total score is r = 0.94.
Forward citations
Cited by 10 Pith papers
-
Safety, or Just Capability? A Validity Audit of Agent-Safety Benchmarks
Agent-safety benchmark scores are not interchangeable: R-Judge's F1 is matched by an always-unsafe baseline, rankings differ across benchmarks, and which held-out outcome you choose flips the capability–safety correlation.
-
Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results
Introduces the first community-governed unified JSON schema and crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results, with converters and a database spanning 22,235 models and 2,273 benchmarks.
-
Item Response Scaling Laws: A Measurement Theory Approach for Efficient and Generalizable Neural Scaling Estimation
IRSL applies IRT to reduce scaling law estimation from O(M×N) to O(M+N) parameters, enabling reliable estimates with only 50 questions per benchmark after calibration and generalizable ability scores across related be...
-
AGC-Bench: Measuring Artificial General Creativity
AGC-Bench standardizes measurement of LLM creativity across domains, recovers a dominant 'c' factor explaining 81.5% variance separable from reasoning, and shows humans still lead on matched tasks.
-
AGC-Bench: Measuring Artificial General Creativity
AGC-Bench introduces a multi-domain creativity benchmark for LLMs, recovers a general 'c' factor explaining 81.5% of variance, and finds humans still outperform top models on matched tasks.
-
Beyond Fixed Benchmarks and Worst-Case Attacks: Dynamic Boundary Evaluation for Language Models
Dynamic Boundary Evaluation locates each LLM's performance boundary at ~50% pass probability via a calibrated item bank and Skill-Guided Boundary Search algorithm to enable unified, adaptive evaluations across safety,...
-
Beyond Fixed Benchmarks and Worst-Case Attacks: Dynamic Boundary Evaluation for Language Models
Dynamic Boundary Evaluation adaptively identifies each LLM's performance boundary on a shared difficulty scale using a calibrated item bank and a search algorithm.
-
Growing Pains: Extensible and Efficient LLM Benchmarking Via Fixed Parameter Calibration
A fixed-parameter multidimensional IRT calibration approach allows extending LLM benchmark suites over time, predicting full performance within 2-3 points and preserving rankings (Spearman ρ ≥ 0.9) using only 100 anch...
-
Select Smarter, Not More: Prompt-Aware Evaluation Scheduling with Submodular Guarantees
POES frames prompt evaluation as online adaptive testing and uses a provably submodular objective to pick informative examples, delivering 6.2% higher average accuracy and 35-60% token savings versus naive full-set scoring.
-
Position: Stop Evaluating AI with Human Tests, Develop Principled, AI-specific Tests instead
Human tests should not be applied to AI to measure traits like intelligence due to calibration, validity, contamination, and prompt sensitivity issues; develop AI-specific evaluation frameworks instead.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.