arxiv: 2604.12843 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

Growing Pains: Extensible and Efficient LLM Benchmarking Via Fixed Parameter Calibration

Eliya Habba , Itay Itzhak , Asaf Yehudai , Yotam Perlitz , Elron Bandel , Michal Shmueli-Scheuer , Leshem Choshen , Gabriel Stanovsky

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords LLM benchmarkingItem Response Theoryanchor itemsperformance predictionextensible evaluationmodel calibrationranking preservationfixed-parameter calibration

0 comments

The pith

A fixed set of 100 anchor questions per dataset lets new LLM benchmarks join an existing suite while predicting full performance within 2-3 points and preserving model rankings.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates a way to keep adding new test sets to LLM evaluation collections without forcing every prior model to be retested on them. A multidimensional IRT model treats each dataset's items as having stable difficulty and discrimination parameters; a small shared anchor subset links new datasets to the old scale. Once the anchors are evaluated, the model estimates how any model would have scored on the full new dataset. Experiments across more than 400 models show the estimates stay accurate enough to keep rankings intact, so the cost of expanding the suite remains fixed rather than growing with every addition.

Core claim

The central claim is that holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed while estimating only the parameters of new items via a shared anchor set allows the multidimensional IRT model to recover full-dataset performance from 100 anchors per dataset, with absolute error of 2-3 percentage points and Spearman rank correlation of at least 0.9, thereby supporting direct score comparison across models evaluated at different times.

What carries the argument

Multidimensional Item Response Theory model that calibrates new item parameters while holding anchor item parameters fixed across evaluation periods.

If this is right

New datasets can be introduced without requiring every existing model to be re-evaluated on them.
Scores obtained in different time periods remain directly comparable through the shared anchor scale.
The marginal cost of adding each new dataset stays constant regardless of how many models have already been tested.
Model rankings across the entire suite are preserved with high fidelity from the partial anchor evaluations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same anchor-based linking could be used to retire outdated datasets while still allowing historical model scores to be placed on the updated scale.
Public benchmark repositories could maintain a single growing evaluation ledger in which any model evaluated at any past or future date receives a comparable score vector.
The constant-cost property would make it feasible to keep adding specialized or adversarial datasets without the total evaluation budget exploding.

Load-bearing premise

LLM responses to the benchmark items behave according to the assumptions of a multidimensional IRT model so that a fixed set of 100 anchors is enough to recover accurate item parameters and full-dataset predictions.

What would settle it

Applying the same fixed-anchor procedure to a fresh collection of models and datasets and measuring that predicted accuracies deviate by more than 3 percentage points from actual full evaluations or that Spearman rank correlation drops below 0.9.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12843 by Asaf Yehudai, Eliya Habba, Elron Bandel, Gabriel Stanovsky, Itay Itzhak, Leshem Choshen, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer, Yotam Perlitz.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Fixed parameter calibration maintains low prediction error at constant evaluation cost as the benchmark suite grows (Open LLM Leaderboard, 100 anchors per dataset). Concurrent calibration’s cost grows linearly as it re-evaluates all accumulated anchors, with no corresponding improvement in accuracy. Random sampling shares the constant cost of fixed parameter calibration but incurs consistently higher pr… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A small anchor budget suffices for accurate prediction across chain steps, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Replacing the clustering-based anchor selection with top-K selection by discrimination parameter leads to substantially higher MAE on the Open LLM Leaderboard, while the rest of the fixed parameter calibration pipeline remains identical. Shaded regions denote 95% confidence intervals. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Chain Step 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean Absolute Error (%) |Mref|=25 Random Baseline Concurrent Calibration Fixed P… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The effect of reference model count varies across suites. On the Open LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Item maps showing the difficulty (b) and discrimination (a) of all items, with selected anchor items highlighted. Clustering-based selection (circles) distributes anchors across the full parameter space, while top-K selection (diamonds) concentrates them in a narrow high-discrimination region. Representative MMLU subjects. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Replacing the clustering-based anchor selection with top-K selection by discrimination parameter leads to substantially higher MAE on MMLU, while the rest of the fixed parameter calibration pipeline remains identical. Shaded regions denote 95% confidence intervals. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Difficulty (b) 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 Disc rimin atio n (a) ARC Challenge 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Difficult… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Item maps showing the difficulty (b) and discrimination (a) of all items, with selected anchor items highlighted. Clustering-based selection (circles) distributes anchors across the full parameter space, while top-K selection (diamonds) concentrates them in a narrow high-discrimination region. Open LLM Leaderboard datasets. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than $400$ models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only $100$ anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman $\rho \geq 0.9$ for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper offers a practical IRT-based calibration trick with anchors to add new LLM benchmarks over time while keeping scores comparable, backed by large experiments but with an open question on fitting when few models are available early on.

read the letter

The main thing here is a calibration setup that lets you tack on new benchmarks to an LLM evaluation suite using a fixed set of 100 anchor questions per dataset and multidimensional IRT, then hold the item parameters steady so later models can be scored consistently without full re-runs. Their tests across more than 400 models claim full-score predictions within 2-3 percentage points and Spearman rho at or above 0.9 for rankings, all at constant per-dataset cost. That matches the real-world pattern where datasets arrive at different times and models only see what's out then. The anchor approach and fixed-parameter rule are the concrete moves that make the comparability work. The scale of the experiment and the released code give it some grounding that many eval papers lack. What they did well is spell out the incremental addition process and back it with numbers instead of just theory. The soft spot is the calibration step itself. Item parameters in multidimensional IRT come from the response matrix across models, and the paper fits them on the full 400-plus set. In practice a new dataset starts with only a few models, so the estimates for difficulty and discrimination could be noisy or biased, and it's not obvious the 2-3 point accuracy or ranking stability would carry over to later models evaluated only on anchors. They don't appear to have stress-tested the low-model regime directly. The assumption that the latent dimensions capture LLM item responses well enough for out-of-sample prediction also sits on top of that. This is for labs or groups that maintain growing benchmark collections and want to avoid exploding evaluation budgets while still tracking progress across studies. It deserves a serious referee because the problem is timely, the claims are testable, and the experiments are big enough to be worth checking even if the early-data case needs tightening.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multidimensional IRT framework that uses a fixed set of 100 anchor questions per dataset to calibrate new benchmarks while holding item parameters fixed, enabling prediction of full-evaluation LLM performance and preservation of model rankings as new datasets are added over time. Large-scale experiments on >400 models report that full scores can be predicted within 2-3 percentage points with Spearman ρ ≥ 0.9 for rankings, at constant per-model evaluation cost.

Significance. If the central claims hold under realistic introduction conditions, the work provides a concrete, extensible method for maintaining comparable LLM benchmark scores without repeated full evaluations, directly addressing the practical problem of benchmark proliferation. The scale of the reported experiments (>400 models) and public code release are notable strengths that support reproducibility and empirical grounding.

major comments (1)

The large-scale experiments fit IRT parameters using the full set of >400 models, but the framework targets the realistic regime in which a new dataset is introduced with only a small number of early models available for anchor-based calibration. No results are shown for item-parameter estimation or downstream prediction accuracy when the response matrix is small (e.g., 5–20 models), leaving the 2–3 pp accuracy and ρ ≥ 0.9 guarantees untested in the low-data regime that is load-bearing for the extensibility claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which correctly identifies a gap between our large-scale experimental setup and the low-data regime most relevant to the framework's extensibility claims. We address this point directly below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The large-scale experiments fit IRT parameters using the full set of >400 models, but the framework targets the realistic regime in which a new dataset is introduced with only a small number of early models available for anchor-based calibration. No results are shown for item-parameter estimation or downstream prediction accuracy when the response matrix is small (e.g., 5–20 models), leaving the 2–3 pp accuracy and ρ ≥ 0.9 guarantees untested in the low-data regime that is load-bearing for the extensibility claim.

Authors: We agree that this is a substantive limitation of the current experiments. While fitting on the full >400-model response matrix demonstrates the upper-bound performance of the fixed-parameter approach, it does not test the realistic case in which a new dataset's 100 anchor items must be calibrated using only the small number of early models that have been evaluated on it. In the revised manuscript we will add a new set of experiments that simulate the low-data regime: for each dataset we will randomly subsample the response matrix to 5, 10, 15, and 20 models to re-estimate the anchor item parameters (keeping the multidimensional IRT structure and all other hyperparameters fixed), then use the resulting fixed parameters to predict full-dataset scores and rankings for the remaining held-out models. We will report mean absolute prediction error and Spearman ρ under these conditions, together with a discussion of the minimum number of models needed for stable calibration. This will either substantiate the reported accuracy guarantees in the target regime or qualify them appropriately. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper presents a multidimensional IRT calibration framework for extending benchmarks via fixed anchor items and validates its performance empirically by comparing anchor-based predictions to full-dataset evaluations across >400 models, achieving the reported 2-3 pp accuracy and Spearman ρ ≥ 0.9. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to inputs: the IRT fitting and prediction use standard parameter estimation on response matrices, with held-out validation providing external grounding rather than tautological equivalence. No self-citations, ansatzes, or renamings of known results are invoked as the central justification, and the method remains self-contained against the experimental benchmarks without definitional loops or fitted inputs relabeled as independent predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard IRT modeling assumptions and empirical parameter estimation from anchors rather than new invented entities or many ad-hoc free parameters beyond the core model.

free parameters (2)

IRT item parameters (difficulty, discrimination)
Calibrated on anchor items and then held fixed for new benchmarks; these are fitted values central to the calibration.
Model ability parameters
Estimated per model on the anchor set to enable predictions.

axioms (2)

domain assumption LLM responses to benchmark questions conform to the assumptions of multidimensional Item Response Theory
Invoked as the basis for the entire calibration and prediction procedure.
domain assumption Anchor items are representative and sufficient to calibrate new dataset items without bias
Required for the claimed prediction accuracy and ranking preservation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5527 in / 1584 out tokens · 81990 ms · 2026-05-10T16:32:00.295465+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Beyond Fixed Benchmarks and Worst-Case Attacks: Dynamic Boundary Evaluation for Language Models
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Dynamic Boundary Evaluation adaptively identifies each LLM's performance boundary on a shared difficulty scale using a calibrated item bank and a search algorithm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

R., and Orallo, J

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10062. Cl´ementine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, Alina Lozovskaya, Konrad Szafer, and Thomas Wolf. Open llm leaderboard v2. https://huggingface.co/spaces/open-llm-leaderboard/ open llm leaderboard,

work page arXiv
[2]

Measuring massive multitask language understanding

Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7,

2021
[3]

A rosetta stone for ai benchmarks, 2025

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00193. Valentin Hofmann, David Heineman, Ian Magnusson, Kyle Lo, Jesse Dodge, Maarten Sap, Pang Wei Koh, Chun Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Noah A. Smith. Fluid language model benchmarking,

work page arXiv
[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11106 , year=

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11106. David Ili´c and Gilles E. Gignac. Evidence of interrelated cognitive-like capabilities in large language models: Indications of artificial general intelligence or achievement?Intelligence, 106:101858, September

work page arXiv
[5]

doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101858

ISSN 0160-2896. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101858. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2024.101858. Douwe Kiela, Max Bartolo, Yixin Nie, Divyansh Kaushik, Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Bertie Vidgen, Grusha Prasad, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, Zhiyi Ma, Tristan Thrush, Sebastian Riedel, Zeerak Waseem, Pontus Stenetorp, Robin Jia, Mohit Bansal, Chr...

work page doi:10.1016/j.intell.2024.101858 2024
[6]

Dynabench: Rethinking benchmarking in NLP

Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.324. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.324. 10 Preprint. Under review. Seock-Ho Kim and Allan S. Cohen. A comparison of linking and concurrent calibration under item response theory.Applied Psychological Measurement, 22:131 – 143,

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.324 2021
[7]

metabench– a sparse benchmark of reasoning and knowledge in large language models

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12844. Michael J. Kolen and Robert L. Brennan. Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices

work page arXiv
[8]

URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:119066024. John P . Lalor, Hao Wu, and Hong Yu. Building an evaluation scale using item re- sponse theory. In Jian Su, Kevin Duh, and Xavier Carreras (eds.),Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 648– 657li2026adaptivetestingllmevaluation, Austin, Texas,

2016
[9]

and Wu, Hao and Yu, Hong

Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D16-1062. URL https://aclanthology.org/ D16-1062. Peiyu Li, Xiuxiu Tang, Si Chen, Ying Cheng, Ronald A. Metoyer, Ting Hua, and Nitesh V . Chawla. Adaptive testing for llm evaluation: A psychometric alternative to static bench- marks.ArXiv preprint, abs/2511.04689,

work page doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1062
[10]

Frederic M

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04689. Frederic M. Lord and Marilyn S. Wingersky. Comparison of irt true-score and equipercentile observed-score ”equatings”.Applied Psychological Measurement, 8:453 – 461,

work page arXiv
[11]

Sasha Luccioni, Yacine Jernite, and Emma Strubell

URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:121685628. Sasha Luccioni, Yacine Jernite, and Emma Strubell. Power hungry processing: Watts driving the cost of ai deployment? InThe 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency, FAccT ’24. ACM,

2024
[12]

Luccioni, Y

doi: 10.1145/3630106.3658542. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658542. Aviya Maimon, Amir DN Cohen, Gal Vishne, Shauli Ravfogel, and Reut Tsarfaty. Iq test for llms: An evaluation framework for uncovering core skills in llms,

work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658542
[13]

Yotam Perlitz, Elron Bandel, Ariel Gera, Ofir Arviv, Liat Ein-Dor, Eyal Shnarch, Noam Slonim, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer, and Leshem Choshen

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.20208. Yotam Perlitz, Elron Bandel, Ariel Gera, Ofir Arviv, Liat Ein-Dor, Eyal Shnarch, Noam Slonim, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer, and Leshem Choshen. Efficient benchmarking (of language models). In Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard (eds.),Pro- ceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associat...

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=qAml3FpfhG

OpenReview.net, 2024b. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=qAml3FpfhG. Felipe Maia Polo, Ronald Xu, Lucas Weber, M ´ırian Silva, Onkar Bhardwaj, Leshem Choshen, Allysson Flavio Melo de Oliveira, Yuekai Sun, and Mikhail Yurochkin. Effi- cient multi-prompt evaluation of llms. In Amir Globersons, Lester Mackey, Danielle Belgrave, Angela Fan, Ulrich Paquet, Ja...

2024
[15]

and Jia, Robin and Boyd-Graber, Jordan

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.346. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.346. Martha L. Stocking and Frederic M. Lord. Developing a common metric in item response theory.ETS Research Report Series, 1982(1):i–29,

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.346 2021
[16]

2333-8504.1982.tb01311.x

doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/j. 2333-8504.1982.tb01311.x. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j. 2333-8504.1982.tb01311.x. Sang Truong, Yuheng Tu, Percy Liang, Bo Li, and Sanmi Koyejo. Reliable and efficient amortized model-based evaluation,

work page doi:10.1002/j 1982
[17]

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13335. Colin White, Samuel Dooley, Manley Roberts, Arka Pal, Benjamin Feuer, Siddhartha Jain, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Neel Jain, Khalid Saifullah, Sreemanti Dey, Shubh-Agrawal, Sandeep Singh Sandha, Siddartha Venkat Naidu, Chinmay Hegde, Yann LeCun, Tom Goldstein, Willie Neiswanger, and Micah Goldblum. Livebench: A challenging, co...

work page arXiv