BenchBench: Benchmarking Automated Benchmark Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20807v1
• Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:05:32 GMT
• Title: BenchBench: Benchmarking Automated Benchmark Generation
• Abstract summary: BenchBench is a pipeline and dataset for benchmarking automated benchmark generation.<n>We generate 16.7K items, retain 15K core items post-filtering, and produce 152K graded model--item responses.
• Score: 10.44497524694021
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarks are the de facto standard for tracking progress in large language models (LLMs), yet static test sets can rapidly saturate, become vulnerable to contamination, and are costly to refresh. Scalable evaluation of open-ended items often relies on LLM judges, introducing additional sources of bias and prompt sensitivity. We argue that evaluation must extend beyond how well models answer benchmarks to how well models design them. We introduce BenchBench, a three-stage pipeline and dataset for benchmarking automated benchmark generation: (i) extract structured domain cards from seed benchmarks, (ii) prompt multiple designer LLMs to generate quota-controlled suites, and (iii) validate items with a multi-model answerer panel using exact/numeric/symbolic verifiers when possible and rubric-guided judging otherwise, yielding designer--answerer matrices with item-level quality flags and psychometric diagnostics. Across nine variants spanning computer science, mathematics, medicine, and theory-of-mind reasoning (including multilingual and multimodal settings), we generate 16.7K items, retain ~15K core items post-filtering, and produce ~152K graded model--item responses. BenchBench shows that benchmark-design ability is only moderately correlated with answer-time strength (Spearman rho ~0.37), invalidity is negatively associated with discrimination (Pearson r~0.62), and the resulting designer--answerer matrices enable scalable audits of format/modality/language fidelity and suite-dependent self/family interactions. The project is available at: https://github.com/koanatakiyo/BenchBench.

Related papers

• Item Response Theory for AI Safety [23.16156306184828]
  Item Response Theory (IRT) is a statistical toolkit for measuring latents from performance on items with inferred psychometric properties.<n>IRT is a ready-made toolkit for reading, reducing, and auditing safety benchmarks, which we recommend frontier labs and evaluators adopt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T17:25:27Z)
• 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)
• Benchmark^2: Systematic Evaluation of LLM Benchmarks [66.2731798872668]
  We propose Benchmark2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics.<n>We conduct experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains.<n>Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction can achieve comparable evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T14:59:03Z)
• 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)
• MR$^2$-Bench: Going Beyond Matching to Reasoning in Multimodal Retrieval [86.35779264575154]
  Multimodal retrieval is becoming a crucial component of modern AI applications, yet its evaluation lags behind the demands of more realistic and challenging scenarios.<n>We introduce MR$2$-Bench, a reasoning-intensive benchmark for multimodal retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T15:09:14Z)
• 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)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• YourBench: Easy Custom Evaluation Sets for Everyone [12.995134931278056]
  YourBench is a novel, open-source framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>It generates reliable, up-to-date, and domain-tailored benchmarks cheaply and without manual annotation.<n>We release the YourBench library, the Tempora-0325 dataset, 150k+ question answer pairs based on Tempora and all evaluation and inference traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T15:40:24Z)
• 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)
• BenchAgents: Multi-Agent Systems for Structured Benchmark Creation [23.653678381444276]
  BenchAgents is a framework that automates the creation of evaluation benchmarks.<n>We use BenchAgents to create benchmarks to evaluate capabilities related to planning, constraint satisfaction, and causal reasoning.<n>We then use these benchmarks to study state-of-the-art models and extract new insights into common failure modes and model differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T22:56:18Z)
• ACCORD: Closing the Commonsense Measurability Gap [16.572584339052753]
  ACCORD is a framework for disentangling the commonsense grounding and reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>It introduces formal elements to commonsense reasoning to explicitly control and quantify reasoning complexity beyond the typical 1 or 2 hops.<n>It can automatically generate benchmarks of arbitrary reasoning complexity, and so it scales with future LLM improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T22:08:24Z)
• ERBench: An Entity-Relationship based Automatically Verifiable Hallucination Benchmark for Large Language Models [46.07900122810749]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performances in various applications, yet evaluating them is still challenging. We contend that utilizing existing relational databases is a promising approach for constructing benchmarks. We propose ERBench, which uses these integrity constraints to convert any database into an LLM benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T12:42:36Z)

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.