SAGE: Scalable Automated Robustness Augmentation for LLM Knowledge Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12022v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 12:09:05 GMT
• Title: SAGE: Scalable Automated Robustness Augmentation for LLM Knowledge Evaluation
• Abstract summary: We propose SAGE, a framework for scalable robustness augmentation of knowledge evaluation benchmarks using fine-tuned smaller models.<n> Experiments on HellaSwag show that SAGE constructs a large-scale robustness-augmented benchmark with quality comparable to the human-annotated HellaSwag-Pro at substantially lower cost.
• Score: 65.49183294872877
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on standard knowledge evaluation benchmarks, yet recent work shows that their knowledge capabilities remain brittle under question variants that test the same knowledge in different forms. Robustness augmentation of existing knowledge evaluation benchmarks is therefore necessary, but current LLM-assisted generate-then-verify pipelines are costly and difficult to scale due to low-yield variant generation and unreliable variant verification. We propose SAGE (Scalable Automated Generation of Robustness BEnchmarks), a framework for scalable robustness augmentation of knowledge evaluation benchmarks using fine-tuned smaller models. SAGE consists of VariantQual, a rubric-based verifier trained on human-labeled seed data, and VariantGen, a variant generator initialized with supervised fine-tuning and further optimized with reinforcement learning using VariantQual as the reward model. Experiments on HellaSwag show that SAGE constructs a large-scale robustness-augmented benchmark with quality comparable to the human-annotated HellaSwag-Pro at substantially lower cost, while the fine-tuned models further generalize to MMLU without benchmark-specific fine-tuning.

Related papers

• Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models [47.009623327601226]
  We introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions.<n>Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size.<n>We show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:41:26Z)
• A Comparative Benchmark of Large Language Models for Labelling Wind Turbine Maintenance Logs [0.0]
  This paper presents a framework for benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) on the task of classifying complex industrial records.<n>To promote transparency and encourage further research, this framework has been made publicly available as an open-source tool.<n>We quantify a clear performance hierarchy, identifying top models that exhibit high alignment with a benchmark standard and trustworthy, well-calibrated confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T15:48:17Z)
• Statistical Runtime Verification for LLMs via Robustness Estimation [0.0]
  Adversarial robustness verification is essential for ensuring the safe deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in runtime-critical applications.<n>This paper presents a case study adapting and extending the RoMA statistical verification framework to assess its feasibility as an online runtime robustness monitor for LLMs in black-box deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T16:36:19Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Calibrating Large Language Models with Sample Consistency [76.23956851098598]
  We explore the potential of deriving confidence from the distribution of multiple randomly sampled model generations, via three measures of consistency. Results show that consistency-based calibration methods outperform existing post-hoc approaches. We offer practical guidance on choosing suitable consistency metrics for calibration, tailored to the characteristics of various LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T16:15:20Z)
• 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)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• CATfOOD: Counterfactual Augmented Training for Improving Out-of-Domain Performance and Calibration [59.48235003469116]
  We show that data augmentation consistently enhances OOD performance. We also show that CF augmented models which are easier to calibrate also exhibit much lower entropy when assigning importance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T16:16:40Z)

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.