Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This survey reviews 119 papers on reducing the cost of LLM evaluation by estimating full benchmark scores and rankings from partial runs. Its taxonomy covers compression within single benchmarks, across suites, and during adaptive testing, and it weighs each approach's information needs, costs, and reliability checks. For readers, the practical takeaway is that subset-based estimates can save compute, but they carry real risks of poor coverage, biased estimates, and slower sequential workflows.
Sources coveringarXiv, Quantum Zeitgeist, Latent Space
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Are We Testing Too Much? A Survey of Benchmark Compression for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.18248v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks are essential for evaluating and improving large language models (LLMs). Yet many widely used benchmarks are redundant, making evaluation unnecessarily expensive. Benchmark compression lowers this cost by estimating full-benchmark scores and rankings from a partial evaluation. Research in this area has grown rapidly since 2024, but to our knowledge no survey has systematically organized its methods and findings. We review 119 papers to explain how methods choose what to evaluate, recover full-benchmark results, and verify their reliability. From this analysis, we develop a taxonomy covering compression within individual benchmarks, across benchmark suites, and during adaptive evaluation, together with work on redundancy and reliability. We compare their information needs, total costs, reliability checks, and limitations. Methods reduce evaluation costs by selecting representative subsets, using cheaper or reusable information, and testing adaptively, but risk poor coverage, inaccurate estimates, and sequential delays. The resulting taxonomy and practical guide help researchers choose, validate, and deploy methods for more efficient and reliable LLM evaluation.

Title:Are We Testing Too Much? A Survey of Benchmark Compression for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models

Abstract:Benchmarks are essential for evaluating and improving large language models (LLMs). Yet many widely used benchmarks are redundant, making evaluation unnecessarily expensive. Benchmark compression lowers this cost by estimating full-benchmark scores and rankings from a partial evaluation. Research in this area has grown rapidly since 2024, but to our knowledge no survey has systematically organized its methods and findings. We review 119 papers to explain how methods choose what to evaluate, recover full-benchmark results, and verify their reliability. From this analysis, we develop a taxonomy covering compression within individual benchmarks, across benchmark suites, and during adaptive evaluation, together with work on redundancy and reliability. We compare their information needs, total costs, reliability checks, and limitations. Methods reduce evaluation costs by selecting representative subsets, using cheaper or reusable information, and testing adaptively, but risk poor coverage, inaccurate estimates, and sequential delays. The resulting taxonomy and practical guide help researchers choose, validate, and deploy methods for more efficient and reliable LLM evaluation.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.18248 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.18248v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.18248 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 272 words

Related coverage