aiqbench analysis
This paper argues that overall benchmark scores can hide meaningful differences between language models, since models with nearly identical accuracy can succeed on different items. Its latent space item response model maps where models and items diverge, and it shows that answer-label patterns and scoring format can shift rankings. For evaluators, the practical takeaway is that leaderboard positions may depend on how answers are scored, so item-level analysis is worth checking before drawing conclusions from close results.
Diagnosing Model--Item Interactions in Language Model Benchmarks with LSIRM
arXiv:2611.02432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models with similar benchmark accuracy can succeed on different items. Overall scores do not show where their performance differs or which item properties might explain those differences. We demonstrate how the latent space item response model (LSIRM) can help evaluators investigate these patterns and their consequences for model comparison. We analyze 1,348 language models on 5,761 BBH items and compare ways of presenting and scoring answers across BBH, GPQA, MMLU-Pro, and MuSR. We examine LSIRM maps, which summarize differences in performance across models and items, alongside item properties and records of correct and incorrect responses. In BBH, nearby items on these maps often share the same correct answer, such as "Yes" or "No." Across the four benchmarks, this pattern is stronger when answers are scored using option labels, such as A, B, C, and D, than when using the text of the options. We then estimate each model's tendency to perform better or worse on items with particular correct answers and quantify how this tendency contributes to its score. This separates an estimated contribution associated with correct answers from the remaining differences in item performance. Two models' total numbers of correct answers differed by only 14 out of 5,761 items. Excluding the estimated answer-category contribution from their scores moved their ranks hundreds of places in opposite directions, while keeping all other estimates unchanged. The approach helps evaluators identify differences hidden by overall accuracy and understand how the choice of what to include in a score affects model rankings.
Abstract:Language models with similar benchmark accuracy can succeed on different items. Overall scores do not show where their performance differs or which item properties might explain those differences. We demonstrate how the latent space item response model (LSIRM) can help evaluators investigate these patterns and their consequences for model comparison. We analyze 1,348 language models on 5,761 BBH items and compare ways of presenting and scoring answers across BBH, GPQA, MMLU-Pro, and MuSR. We examine LSIRM maps, which summarize differences in performance across models and items, alongside item properties and records of correct and incorrect responses. In BBH, nearby items on these maps often share the same correct answer, such as "Yes" or "No." Across the four benchmarks, this pattern is stronger when answers are scored using option labels, such as A, B, C, and D, than when using the text of the options. We then estimate each model's tendency to perform better or worse on items with particular correct answers and quantify how this tendency contributes to its score. This separates an estimated contribution associated with correct answers from the remaining differences in item performance. Two models' total numbers of correct answers differed by only 14 out of 5,761 items. Excluding the estimated answer-category contribution from their scores moved their ranks hundreds of places in opposite directions, while keeping all other estimates unchanged. The approach helps evaluators identify differences hidden by overall accuracy and understand how the choice of what to include in a score affects model rankings.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Methodology (stat.ME)
arXiv:2611.02432 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2611.02432v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.02432 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 · 349 words
Related coverage
LCAM: A Framework for Diagnosing Interactional Alignment Failures in Con-versational AI
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026
Ask When It Pays: Cost-Aware Open-Ended Interaction for Instance Goal Navigation
arXiv · Jun 4, 2026
Ask When It Pays: Cost-Aware Open-Ended Interaction for Instance Goal Navigation
arXiv · Jun 3, 2026
OntoAct: Hypothesis-Based Neuro-Symbolic Agents through Ontological Abstraction
arXiv · Oct 17, 2026