Ask Which, Not How Good: Sizing Benchmarks Scored by an LLM

Atul Anand

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.27787

Ask Which, Not How Good: Sizing Benchmarks Scored by an LLM

Atul Anand

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Benchmarks scored by an LLM judge routinely adjudicate differences of a tenth of a point, but the resolution of those benchmarks has never been measured. Existing sample-complexity work covers accuracy benchmarks and leaves the judged case open. Treating the system as the object of measurement, we decompose 373,019 judgments into system, item, judge and interaction components using generalizability theory. The central result is structural: under a single judge, generalizability asymptotes to sigma2_s/(sigma2_s+sigma2_sj) regardless of item count, because the system-by-judge term carries no n_i. Items saturate; judges do not. The item cost of a target diverges as the target nears that ceiling. The ceiling is a property of pointwise rubric scoring, not of LLM judging. Run as a pairwise preference in both presentation orders, sigma2_sj falls two orders of magnitude below sigma2_s and the ceiling rises to 0.986 (bootstrap [0.934, 1.000] on 11 systems), so one judge suffices. Pairwise buys a different problem: a system presented first wins 8.6 percentage points more often than the same system presented second, a bias 1.23x the median improvement claimed in the 53 published win-rate comparisons we recovered. Protocol design dominates panel size. Measured floors are 0.41-1.24 points on a 0-5 scale at native item counts, against a median reported improvement of 0.28 points; on the one benchmark recurring often enough for an exactly matched comparison, all 17 recovered MT-Bench improvements fall below MT-Bench's own floor, and 70% of the win-rate claims fall below the pairwise floor. An audit of 628 arXiv papers, double-coded by two independent models and validated against blind human coding (kappa=0.73), finds fewer than one paper in four states whether its evaluation was run more than once, and only 46-67% report uncertainty of any kind.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Atul Anand. 2026-08-17. Ask Which, Not How Good: Sizing Benchmarks Scored by an LLM. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.27787

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Benchmarking the Limits of In-Context Reinforcement Learning for Ad-Hoc Teamwork

In-Context Reinforcement Learning (ICRL) has enabled foundation agents to adapt instantaneously to novel tasks, yet its efficacy in Ad-Hoc Teamwork (AHT)-where coordination with unknown partners is required-remains unexplored. To rigorously evaluate this, we introduce a large-scale benchmark ICRL4AHT, built upon a high-throughput JAX implementation of Overcooked-V2. Our benchmark includes a large, diverse teammate suite spanning both RL and heuristic policies, enabling controlled train-test shifts, and provides a reproducible end-to-end pipeline for teammate generation, learning-history collection, dataset construction, and online multi-episode evaluation. We evaluate representative history-conditioned ICRL algorithms, including Algorithm Distillation (AD) and Decision-Pretrained Transformer (DPT), across millions of transitions. Results reveal notable limitations: contrary to their success in single-agent domains, these baselines fail to exhibit robust test-time adaptation in multi-agent settings. Specifically, these methods frequently underperform random baselines across both unseen teammate and unseen layout tracks, with no clear in-context improvement over long horizons. These findings highlight the challenges of strategic inference under partial observability within the OvercookedV2 AHT protocol, establishing our benchmark as a critical testbed for next-generation coordination algorithms.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Planning Takes More Than Token Prediction: Causal Plan for Benchmarking and Building Physically Grounded Embodied Reasoners

Current benchmarks for embodied vision-language planning inadvertently favor linguistic next-token prediction over physically grounded next-state reasoning. This rewards models that mimic statistical language priors rather than track true causal dependencies, reducing complex physical planning to shallow sequence modeling. Hence, achieving genuine physical autonomy requires a fundamental shift from linguistically grounded token prediction toward physically grounded causal reasoning. To this end, we introduce Causal-Plan-Bench, a high-fidelity diagnostic suite spanning four causal dimensions, curated via multi-stage verification. To endow models with this capability, a four-stage annotation pipeline extracts structured interaction records from egocentric videos to construct Causal-Plan-1M, a dense million-scale corpus of explicit causal reasoning traces. Extensive evaluation reveals a striking gap: leading models struggle to demonstrate genuine physical agency -- even GPT-6-astra scores only 43.04. In contrast, our tailored training recipe enables Causal Planner to internalize the complex physical logic required for accurate next-state estimation. Built upon Qwen3-VL-8B, Causal Planner raises its backbone's score from 33.23 to 45.28, a 36.3% relative gain, and improves on three external benchmarks without benchmark-specific adaptation. We further observe an empirical Causal-Supervision Scaling Trend. Paired no-vision controls also reveal substantial visual dependence, while cross-judge comparisons and human scoring assess the reliability of automated evaluation. More importantly, we initiate the first effort to turn agents from superficial token predictors into physically grounded causal reasoners, bridging language modeling and world modeling.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Omni-Decision: Evidence-Ledger Planning for Omni-Modal Agents

Omni-modal agents must seek evidence across video, audio, web pages, and computation to answer questions. Their main bottleneck is planning: noisy multimodal observations accumulate in conversation history and disrupt later decisions, while multimodal models have limited capacity for multi-step planning. Controlled backend replacements support this diagnosis: replacing the planner causes a much larger performance loss than replacing the perception backend. We present Omni-Decision, an omni-modal agent built on evidence-ledger planning: it replaces the growing dialogue history with an explicit evidence ledger that records what evidence is still missing, what has been confirmed, and where records conflict. A critic reads each noisy observation and passes only the usable content to the ledger, discarding the rest, so the planner works from a compact context throughout the task. Each run records the state, action, and verdict at every step, and supervised fine-tuning and decision-level reinforcement learning on these trajectories further improve the planner. Omni-Decision achieves state-of-the-art accuracy of 81.4% on OmniGAIA at approximately 43% of Gemini-3.1-Pro's cost per question, and 65.0% on WorldSense long-video understanding, level with the strongest end-to-end model.

cs.AI↗