Uncovering Competency Gaps in Large Language Models and Their Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20638v1
• Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2025 17:39:47 GMT
• Title: Uncovering Competency Gaps in Large Language Models and Their Benchmarks
• Authors: Matyas Bohacek, Nino Scherrer, Nicholas Dufour, Thomas Leung, Christoph Bregler, Stephanie C. Y. Chan,
• Abstract summary: We propose a new method that uses sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to automatically uncover both types of gaps.<n>We found that models consistently underperformed on concepts that stand in contrast to sycophantic behaviors.<n>Our method offers a representation-grounded approach to evaluation, enabling concept-level decomposition of benchmark scores.
• Score: 11.572508874955659
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on standardized benchmarks. These benchmarks provide useful aggregated metrics for a given capability, but those aggregated metrics can obscure (i) particular sub-areas where the LLMs are weak ("model gaps") and (ii) imbalanced coverage in the benchmarks themselves ("benchmark gaps"). We propose a new method that uses sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to automatically uncover both types of gaps. By extracting SAE concept activations and computing saliency-weighted performance scores across benchmark data, the method grounds evaluation in the model's internal representations and enables comparison across benchmarks. As examples demonstrating our approach, we applied the method to two popular open-source models and ten benchmarks. We found that these models consistently underperformed on concepts that stand in contrast to sycophantic behaviors (e.g., politely refusing a request or asserting boundaries) and concepts connected to safety discussions. These model gaps align with observations previously surfaced in the literature; our automated, unsupervised method was able to recover them without manual supervision. We also observed benchmark gaps: many of the evaluated benchmarks over-represented concepts related to obedience, authority, or instruction-following, while missing core concepts that should fall within their intended scope. In sum, our method offers a representation-grounded approach to evaluation, enabling concept-level decomposition of benchmark scores. Rather than replacing conventional aggregated metrics, CG complements them by providing a concept-level decomposition that can reveal why a model scored as it did and how benchmarks could evolve to better reflect their intended scope. Code is available at https://competency-gaps.github.io.

Related papers

• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• Learning More from Less: Unlocking Internal Representations for Benchmark Compression [37.69575776639016]
  We introduce REPCORE, which aligns heterogeneous hidden states into a unified latent space to construct representative coresets.<n>Experiments on five benchmarks and over 200 models show consistent gains over output-based baselines in ranking correlation and estimation accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T13:11:39Z)
• Reference-Specific Unlearning Metrics Can Hide the Truth: A Reality Check [60.77691669644931]
  We propose Functional Alignment for Distributional Equivalence (FADE), a novel metric that measures distributional similarity between unlearned and reference models.<n>We show that FADE captures functional alignment across the entire output distribution, providing a principled assessment of genuine unlearning.<n>These findings expose fundamental gaps in current evaluation practices and demonstrate that FADE provides a more robust foundation for developing and assessing truly effective unlearning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T20:50:30Z)
• VAL-Bench: Measuring Value Alignment in Language Models [10.745372809345412]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks where outputs shape human decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks mostly track refusals or predefined safety violations but do not reveal whether a model upholds a coherent value system.<n>We introduce the Value ALignment Benchmark (VAL-Bench), which evaluates whether models maintain a stable value stance across paired that frame opposing sides of public debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T23:55:48Z)
• 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)
• Where is this coming from? Making groundedness count in the evaluation of Document VQA models [12.951716701565019]
  We argue that common evaluation metrics do not account for the semantic and multimodal groundedness of a model's outputs.<n>We propose a new evaluation methodology that accounts for the groundedness of predictions.<n>Our proposed methodology is parameterized in such a way that users can configure the score according to their preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T20:14:46Z)
• 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)
• Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability? [66.1783478365998]
  We investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability.<n>Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks.<n>We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:58:19Z)
• A Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attributions [60.06461883533697]
  We first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill.<n>We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.<n>Our analysis also offers insights into defending against neural Trojans by utilizing the attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Not All Metrics Are Guilty: Improving NLG Evaluation by Diversifying References [123.39034752499076]
  Div-Ref is a method to enhance evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references. We conduct experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:53:29Z)

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.