Efficiently Ranking Software Variants with Minimal Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06716v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:11:35 GMT
• Title: Efficiently Ranking Software Variants with Minimal Benchmarks
• Authors: Théo Matricon, Mathieu Acher, Helge Spieker, Arnaud Gotlieb,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel approach for reducing benchmarks while maintaining stable rankings, using test suite optimization techniques.<n>That is, we remove instances from the benchmarks while trying to keep the same rankings of the variants on all tests.<n>Our method, BISection Sampling, BISS, strategically retains the most critical tests and applies a novel divide-and-conquer approach to efficiently sample among relevant remaining tests.
• Score: 7.542554018860094
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarking is a common practice in software engineering to assess the qualities and performance of software variants, coming from multiple competing systems or from configurations of the same system. Benchmarks are used notably to compare and understand variant performance, fine-tune software, detect regressions, or design new software systems. The execution of benchmarks to get a complete picture of software variants is highly costly in terms of computational resources and time. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for reducing benchmarks while maintaining stable rankings, using test suite optimization techniques. That is, we remove instances from the benchmarks while trying to keep the same rankings of the variants on all tests. Our method, BISection Sampling, BISS, strategically retains the most critical tests and applies a novel divide-and-conquer approach to efficiently sample among relevant remaining tests. We experiment with datasets and use cases from LLM leaderboards, SAT competitions, and configurable systems for performance modeling. Our results show that our method outperforms baselines even when operating on a subset of variants. Using BISS, we reduce the computational cost of the benchmarks on average to 44% and on more than half the benchmarks by up to 99% without loss in ranking stability.

Related papers

• When AI Benchmarks Plateau: A Systematic Study of Benchmark Saturation [80.66788281323414]
  We analyze benchmark saturation across 60 Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarks selected from technical reports by major model developers.<n>Our analysis reveals that nearly half of the benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing as benchmarks age.<n>Expert-curated benchmarks resist saturation better than crowdsourced ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T16:51:37Z)
• Benchmark Designers Should "Train on the Test Set" to Expose Exploitable Non-Visual Shortcuts [49.99400612296149]
  We find that models can ace many benchmarks without strong visual understanding.<n>This is especially problematic for vision-centric benchmarks that are meant to require visual inputs.<n>We adopt a diagnostic principle for benchmark design: if a benchmark can be gamed, it will be gamed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T18:43:21Z)
• Rethinking LLM Evaluation: Can We Evaluate LLMs with 200x Less Data? [82.09573568241724]
  EssenceBench is a coarse-to-fine framework utilizing an iterative Genetic Algorithm (GA)<n>Our approach yields superior compression results with lower reconstruction error and markedly higher efficiency.<n>On the HellaSwag benchmark (10K samples), our method preserves the ranking of all models shifting within 5% using 25x fewer samples, and achieves 95% ranking preservation shifting within 5% using only 200x fewer samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-12T05:38:10Z)
• Benchmark Profiling: Mechanistic Diagnosis of LLM Benchmarks [34.09939383415074]
  Benchmark Profiling decomposes benchmark performance into ten cognitively grounded abilities.<n>It explains why performance gains do not always translate into user-perceived competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T15:32:47Z)
• Fluid Language Model Benchmarking [126.92394365620525]
  We introduce Fluid Benchmarking, a new evaluation approach that advances LM benchmarking across multiple dimensions.<n>Inspired by psychometrics, Fluid Benchmarking is based on the insight that the relative value of benchmark items depends on an LM's capability level.<n>We examine four dimensions -- efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation -- and find that Fluid Benchmarking achieves superior performance in all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-14T05:49:42Z)
• Sample, Don't Search: Rethinking Test-Time Alignment for Language Models [55.2480439325792]
  We introduce QAlign, a new test-time alignment approach.<n>As we scale test-time compute, QAlign converges to sampling from the optimal aligned distribution for each individual prompt.<n>By adopting recent advances in Markov chain Monte Carlo for text generation, our method enables better-aligned outputs without modifying the underlying model or even requiring logit access.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T00:41:40Z)
• Benchmarking Post-Training Quantization in LLMs: Comprehensive Taxonomy, Unified Evaluation, and Comparative Analysis [89.60263788590893]
  Post-training Quantization (PTQ) technique has been extensively adopted for large language models (LLMs) compression.<n>Existing algorithms focus primarily on performance, overlooking the trade-off among model size, performance, and quantization bitwidth.<n>We provide a novel benchmark for LLMs PTQ in this paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T07:35:35Z)
• BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices [28.70453947993952]
  We develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T02:38:24Z)
• Automating Dataset Updates Towards Reliable and Timely Evaluation of Large Language Models [81.27391252152199]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various natural language benchmarks. We propose to automate dataset updating and provide systematic analysis regarding its effectiveness. There are two updating strategies: 1) mimicking strategy to generate similar samples based on original data, and 2) extending strategy that further expands existing samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T07:15:59Z)
• Efficient Benchmarking of Language Models [22.696230279151166]
  We present the problem of Efficient Benchmarking, namely, intelligently reducing the costs of LM evaluation without compromising reliability. Using the HELM benchmark as a test case, we investigate how different benchmark design choices affect the computation-reliability trade-off. We propose an evaluation algorithm, that, when applied to the HELM benchmark, leads to dramatic cost savings with minimal loss of benchmark reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T17:59:30Z)
• Analyzing the Impact of Undersampling on the Benchmarking and Configuration of Evolutionary Algorithms [3.967483941966979]
  We show that care should be taken when making decisions based on limited data. We show examples of performance losses of more than 20%, even when using statistical races to dynamically adjust the number of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-20T09:53:59Z)
• On the Assessment of Benchmark Suites for Algorithm Comparison [7.501426386641256]
  We show that most benchmark functions of BBOB suite have high difficulty levels (compared to the optimization algorithms) and low discrimination. We discuss potential uses of IRT in benchmarking, including its use to improve the design of benchmark suites.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-15T11:20:11Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

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.