aiqbench analysis
The paper is a useful reminder that benchmark scores can reflect the evaluation setup as much as model capability. Switching answer extraction moved one result from 20.8% to 93.9%, and a single placeholder character in a system prompt reordered a model ranking, so readers should check how a score was produced before comparing numbers. The authors also report that a new benchmark was largely saturated within six weeks, which points to the short shelf life of static leaderboards.
OpenTWBench (Open Taiwan Benchmark): Taiwan-Domain Knowledge Evaluation for Large Language Models, and How the Measurement Apparatus Shapes the Score
arXiv:2610.19848v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present OpenTWBench, an open evaluation suite for Taiwan-domain knowledge in large language models, built around two benchmarks. tw-exam-bench contains 255,854 four-option questions across 148 academic subjects, from fifteen years of Taiwan's national examinations published as open data by the Ministry of Examination; answer keys agree across 31,312 duplicated question groups at 99.91%, with all 27 disagreements accounted for. A reviewed second pass withdrew 2,180 items whose stems depend on a figure the text does not carry; all scores use the remaining 253,674. tw-formosa-bench contains 1,696 difficulty-curated questions about everyday and contemporary Taiwan - the Taiwan that licensing examinations never ask about - generated from a community-curated corpus under a discipline in which no model writes a ground truth, and curated against a frozen seven-model pool so that the pool scored at the passing margin (46.9-74.6%, median ~54%); a leave-one-out experiment shows the selection preserves model ranking (near-zero bias). Within six weeks the frontier had cleared that band: of 108 models now on the public board, 22 score above its ceiling, the best 91.6%. We also document how much of a score comes from the apparatus rather than the model. On identical questions, switching answer extraction from pattern matching to an explicit \boxed{} answer moves accuracy from 20.8% to 93.9%; a single placeholder character in a system prompt moved one model from last (58.2%) to first (83.9%) on the same benchmark; doubling the thinking budget from 8k to 16k tokens bought 0.2% while shuffling which questions failed; and a three-judge validation panel proved to be one judge in disguise, two members approving 92-99% of everything shown. We release all datasets, per-item difficulty data, curation manifests and a leaderboard at https://opentwbench.ai
Abstract:We present OpenTWBench, an open evaluation suite for Taiwan-domain knowledge in large language models, built around two benchmarks. tw-exam-bench contains 255,854 four-option questions across 148 academic subjects, from fifteen years of Taiwan's national examinations published as open data by the Ministry of Examination; answer keys agree across 31,312 duplicated question groups at 99.91%, with all 27 disagreements accounted for. A reviewed second pass withdrew 2,180 items whose stems depend on a figure the text does not carry; all scores use the remaining 253,674. tw-formosa-bench contains 1,696 difficulty-curated questions about everyday and contemporary Taiwan - the Taiwan that licensing examinations never ask about - generated from a community-curated corpus under a discipline in which no model writes a ground truth, and curated against a frozen seven-model pool so that the pool scored at the passing margin (46.9-74.6%, median ~54%); a leave-one-out experiment shows the selection preserves model ranking (near-zero bias). Within six weeks the frontier had cleared that band: of 108 models now on the public board, 22 score above its ceiling, the best 91.6%. We also document how much of a score comes from the apparatus rather than the model. On identical questions, switching answer extraction from pattern matching to an explicit \boxed{} answer moves accuracy from 20.8% to 93.9%; a single placeholder character in a system prompt moved one model from last (58.2%) to first (83.9%) on the same benchmark; doubling the thinking budget from 8k to 16k tokens bought 0.2% while shuffling which questions failed; and a three-judge validation panel proved to be one judge in disguise, two members approving 92-99% of everything shown. We release all datasets, per-item difficulty data, curation manifests and a leaderboard at this https URL
19 pages, no figures. Datasets, per-item difficulty data and a public leaderboard at this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.19848 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.19848v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.19848 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 · 393 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

From Wafer-Out to First Token: Codifying Supply Chain Expertise with Nemotron and Palantir Foundry
NVIDIA · Sep 10, 2026

Benchtalks #3: We taught AI everything except how to learn
Snorkel AI Blog · Jun 25, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026