Can We Trust Item Response Theory for AI Evaluation?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15190v2
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 07:01:44 GMT
• Title: Can We Trust Item Response Theory for AI Evaluation?
• Abstract summary: AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models to estimate capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality.<n>IRT tools were originally developed for human testing, but AI benchmarks often involve fewer models, far more items, and capability distributions that may be skewed, clustered, or multimodal.<n>This study examines how these regime mismatches challenge the reliability of IRT modeling for AI evaluation.
• Score: 10.509963423246974
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models, particularly item response theory (IRT), to estimate model capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality. However, AI benchmark data often departs from the data regime of human testing, for which standard IRT estimation tools were originally developed: benchmarks typically involve fewer evaluated models, far more items, and capability distributions that may be skewed, clustered, or multimodal. We examine how these regime mismatches challenge the reliability of IRT modeling for AI evaluation. Using item parameters and capability distributions derived from six widely used LLM benchmarks, we simulate response matrices under three common IRT models and compare four estimation tools used in recent benchmark studies: marginal maximum likelihood, Markov chain Monte Carlo, variational inference, and a neural pseudo-Siamese estimator. Across 18,000 simulation conditions, we systematically evaluate computational feasibility, scalability, and the reliability of IRT inferences about model rankings, predicted performance, and item characteristics. Results show that classical estimators can become infeasible in large benchmark settings, whereas scalable estimators can produce unreliable item-level and ranking inferences with small or non-normally distributed model sets. This study identifies when latent trait models reliably support or risk distorting AI benchmarking claims, and what sample sizes and diagnostics are needed for trustworthy use.

Related papers

• Valid Best-Model Identification for LLM Evaluation via Low-Rank Factorization [17.34147279018477]
  We propose a principled framework that combines MAB with cheap predicted scores without compromising statistical validity.<n>We derive doubly robust estimators of each model's performance that use the low-rank predictions to reduce variance.<n> Empirical results on real-world benchmarks show that our approach reduces the number of required evaluations, yielding meaningful savings in compute and cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T11:43:28Z)
• First-Order Efficiency for Probabilistic Value Estimation via A Statistical Viewpoint [18.696678371045216]
  We propose an efficiency-Aware Surrogate-adjusted Estimator (EASE) that directly chooses the sampling law and surrogate to minimize the first-order MSE.<n>We demonstrate that EASE consistently outperforms state-of-the-art estimators for various probabilistic values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T17:02:17Z)
• A Theoretical Framework for Statistical Evaluability of Generative Models [57.9316356505791]
  We introduce a theoretical framework for evaluating generative models and establish evaluability results for commonly used metrics.<n>We study two categories of metrics: test-based metrics, including integral probability metrics (IPMs) and Rényi divergences.<n>We show that IPMs with respect to any bounded test class can be evaluated from finite samples up to multiplicative and additive approximation errors.<n>In contrast, Rényi and KL divergences are not evaluable from finite samples, as their values can be critically determined by rare events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T01:53:59Z)
• Post-Selection Distributional Model Evaluation [31.006941545235396]
  Post-selection distributional model evaluation (PS-DME)<n>PS-DME is a framework for statistically valid distributional model assessment after arbitrary data-dependent model pre-selection.<n>Results: PS-DME enables reliable comparison of candidate configurations across a range of reliability levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T10:51:30Z)
• STAR : Bridging Statistical and Agentic Reasoning for Large Model Performance Prediction [78.0692157478247]
  We propose STAR, a framework that bridges data-driven STatistical expectations with knowledge-driven Agentic Reasoning.<n>We show that STAR consistently outperforms all baselines on both score-based and rank-based metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T16:30:07Z)
• 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)
• Model Correlation Detection via Random Selection Probing [62.093777777813756]
  Existing similarity-based methods require access to model parameters or produce scores without thresholds.<n>We introduce Random Selection Probing (RSP), a hypothesis-testing framework that formulates model correlation detection as a statistical test.<n>RSP produces rigorous p-values that quantify evidence of correlation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T01:40:26Z)
• 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)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)

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.