Dropping Just a Handful of Preferences Can Change Top Large Language Model Rankings

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only $ρ= 0.04$ (57% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation ($ρ= 0.43$). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

Ranking LLMs via pairwise human feedback underpins current leaderboards for open-ended tasks, such as creative writing and problem-solving. We analyze ~89K comparisons in 116 languages from 52 LLMs from Arena, and show that the best-fit global Bradley-Terry (BT) ranking is misleading. Nearly 2/3 of the decisive votes cancel out, and even the top 50 models according to the global BT ranking are statistically indistinguishable (pairwise win probabilities are at most 0.53 within the top 50 models). We trace this failure to strong, structured heterogeneity of opinions across language, task, and time. Moreover, we find an important characteristic - language plays a key role. Grouping by language (and families) increases the agreement of votes massively, resulting in two orders of magnitude higher spread in the ELO scores (i.e., very consistent rankings). What appears as global noise is in fact a mixture of coherent but conflicting subpopulations. To address such heterogeneity in supervised machine learning, we introduce the framework of $(λ, ν)$-portfolios, which are small sets of models that achieve a prediction error at most $λ$, "covering" at least a $ν$ fraction of users. We formulate this as a variant of the set cover problem and provide guarantees using the VC dimension of the underlying set system. On the Arena data, our algorithms recover just 5 distinct BT rankings that cover over 96% of votes at a modest $λ$, compared to the 21% coverage by the global ranking. We also provide a portfolio of 6 LLMs that cover twice as many votes as the top-6 LLMs from a global ranking. We further construct portfolios for a classification problem on the COMPAS dataset using an ensemble of fairness-regularized classification models and show that these portfolios can be used to detect blind spots in the data, which might be of independent interest to policymakers.

Evaluation leaderboards such as LMArena play a central role in benchmarking large language models by aggregating pairwise human preferences into model rankings, yet the robustness of these rankings remains poorly understood. We present a unified perturbation framework for analyzing Bradley-Terry leaderboards under structured data modifications using influence-based approximations. Our framework studies three match-level perturbations -- Drop, Add, and Flip -- together with player removal, and evaluates their effects on top-k membership, global ranking consistency via Kendall's tau, and confidence-interval-based uncertainty. Across Chatbot Arena and six additional pairwise-comparison datasets, we show that modern leaderboards are non-robust across all three objectives: sub-1% targeted perturbations can change the top-ranked model, degrade Kendall's tau, and alter confidence intervals. Beyond robustness auditing, we show that the same influence scores enable efficient targeted perturbations, promoting or demoting specific models and reducing target-model uncertainty with fewer actions than previous manipulation and active-sampling baselines. By summarizing these effects with normalized dataset-level robustness scores, our framework provides a practical and helpful tool for auditing leaderboard stability and motivating more robust evaluation protocols.