Importance Sampling is All You Need: Predict LLM's performance on new benchmark by reusing existing benchmark
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01203v1
- Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2025 05:34:05 GMT
- Title: Importance Sampling is All You Need: Predict LLM's performance on new benchmark by reusing existing benchmark
- Authors: Junjie Shi, Wei Ma, Shi Ying, Lingxiao Jiang, Yang liu, Bo Du,
- Abstract summary: Existing benchmarks face two major challenges: (1) the escalating cost of constructing high-quality test suites and reference solutions, and (2) the increasing risk of data contamination.<n>We propose BIS, a prompt-centric evaluation framework that enables ground-truth-free prediction of LLM performance on code generation tasks.<n>Our framework achieves an average absolute prediction error of 1.1% for code correctness scores, with best- and worst-case errors of 0.3% and 1.9%, respectively.
- Score: 38.42021928363628
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models , code generation has become a key benchmark for evaluating LLM capabilities. However, existing benchmarks face two major challenges: (1) the escalating cost of constructing high-quality test suites and reference solutions, and (2) the increasing risk of data contamination, which undermines the reliability of benchmark-based evaluations. In this paper, we propose BIS, a prompt-centric evaluation framework that enables ground-truth-free prediction of LLM performance on code generation tasks. Rather than executing generated code, BIS estimates performance metrics by analyzing the prompt distribution alone. Built on importance sampling theory and implemented using Importance Weighted Autoencoders, our method reweights samples from existing annotated benchmarks to estimate performance on new, unseen benchmarks. To stabilize the estimation, we introduce weight truncation strategies and compute marginal expectations across the fitted distributions. BIS serves as a complementary tool that supports benchmark development and validation under constrained resources, offering actionable and quick feedback for prompt selection and contamination assessment. We conduct extensive experiments involving 8,000 evaluation points across 4 CodeLlama models and 9 diverse benchmarks. Our framework achieves an average absolute prediction error of 1.1% for code correctness scores, with best- and worst-case errors of 0.3% and 1.9%, respectively. It also generalizes well to other metrics, attaining average absolute errors of 2.15% for pass@1. These results demonstrate the reliability and broad applicability of BIS, which can significantly reduce the cost and effort of benchmarking LLMs in code-related tasks.
Related papers
- Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z) - Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z) - LLM-Powered Benchmark Factory: Reliable, Generic, and Efficient [19.673388630963807]
We propose an automated and unbiased evaluation framework, structured around four dimensions and ten criteria.<n>Under this framework, we analyze the advantages and weaknesses of directly prompting large language models (LLMs) as generic benchmark generators.<n>We then introduce a series of methods to address the identified weaknesses and integrate them as BenchMaker.<n>Experiments confirm that BenchMaker achieves superior or comparable performance to human-annotated benchmarks on all metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-02T06:36:01Z) - Data Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models and Text-to-Image Models via Adaptive Sampling [3.7467864495337624]
SubLIME is a data-efficient evaluation framework for text-to-image models.
Our approach ensures statistically aligned model rankings compared to full datasets.
We leverage the HEIM leaderboard to cover 25 text-to-image models on 17 different benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-21T07:38:55Z) - Inference-Time Decontamination: Reusing Leaked Benchmarks for Large Language Model Evaluation [61.350306618479365]
Leakage of benchmarks can prevent the accurate assessment of large language models' true performance.
We propose Inference-Time Decontamination (ITD) to address this issue.
ITD reduces inflated accuracy by 22.9% on GSM8K and 19.0% on MMLU.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-20T04:35:59Z) - Uncertainty Aware Learning for Language Model Alignment [97.36361196793929]
We propose uncertainty-aware learning (UAL) to improve the model alignment of different task scenarios.
We implement UAL in a simple fashion -- adaptively setting the label smoothing value of training according to the uncertainty of individual samples.
Experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that our UAL significantly and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-07T11:37:45Z) - MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures [57.886592207948844]
We propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks.
It bridges (1) comprehensive and well-distributed real-world user queries and (2) efficient and fairly-graded ground-truth-based benchmarks, by matching queries mined from the web with similar queries from existing benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-03T05:47:05Z) - Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks.
We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers.
We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z) - LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits.
Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance.
The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.