arXiv (All)
open access
How Reusable Are Benchmarks with Richer Feedback?
We study whether benchmarks reliably guide model selection as developers adapt to evaluation feedback across multiple criteria. We find that the worst-case test-set size needed to estimate the best score among $k$ adaptively chosen models, under any convex combination of the criteria, grows exponent
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Continuous benchmarking: Keeping pace with an evolving ecosystem of models and technologies#31243
- The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean#986988
- SciCode-Verified: How Benchmark Defects Underestimated the Scientific-Coding Ability of Language Models#429402
- (Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models#414122
- MetaBench-Harness: Unlocking End-to-End Optimization of Benchmark Harnesses#1118123
Record · ID 1116440
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive