BenchScope: How Many Independent Signals Does Your Benchmark Provide?

While aggregate leaderboard scores drive AI development, they contain substantial measurement noise whose sources and magnitudes remain unquantified, making it unclear when rankings reflect genuine capability differences versus evaluation artifacts. We introduce a framework for measuring the latent landscape in AI benchmark ecosystems. Applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Generalizability Theory to 4,000+ models from the Open LLM Leaderboard, we decompose sources of ranking variance and establish: (1) structures assumed in current reporting practice underestimate the strength of relationships between benchmarks; (2) evidence of local dependence among leaderboard items, undermining uses of benchmarks as measurement instruments under current scoring systems; (3) contributor metadata explains more rank-relevant variance ($\approx9\%$) than architecture or deployment categories in this context; (4) a manifest-score "scaling law" slope has low reliability ($R_β=0.53$); by contrast, the latent general-factor size slope is highly stable across ecosystem controls ($R_g=0.97$). We are able to provide unique insights into benchmark dynamics, such as which benchmarks are a function of LLM size and which can be oppositely impacted by post-training practices. We provide actionable diagnostics to determine how benchmark rankings can be trusted and how benchmark design can be improved.

Do language model benchmarks actually measure what practitioners intend them to ? High-level metadata is too coarse to convey the granular reality of benchmarks: a "poetry" benchmark may never test for haikus, while "instruction-following" benchmarks will often test for an arbitrary mix of skills. This opacity makes verifying alignment with practitioner goals a laborious process, risking an illusion of competence even when models fail on untested facets of user interests. We introduce BenchBrowser, a retriever that surfaces evaluation items relevant to natural language use cases over 20 benchmark suites. Validated by a human study confirming high retrieval precision, BenchBrowser generates evidence to help practitioners diagnose low content validity (narrow coverage of a capability's facets) and low convergent validity (lack of stable rankings when measuring the same capability). BenchBrowser, thus, helps quantify a critical gap between practitioner intent and what benchmarks actually test.

We give a stereological theory of LLM benchmark coverage. For any suite with effective dimensionality d_eff, the visible Hausdorff distance between two convex capability profiles consistent with the same scores is bounded by epsilon + C R m^(-1/(d_eff-1)), with matching Lipschitz lower bound. Empirically, three independent leaderboards (Open LLM v2, an extended 12-benchmark suite, LiveBench) all have d_eff in [2.86, 4.80] on their competitive frontier; the structural blind spot exceeds the observed runner-up score gap by two orders of magnitude and dominates statistical noise by 52-127x. Under a chi-squared projection model, the isotropic prior is the optimistic case; across six hidden-capability priors and four ambient dimensions the simulated half-split swap rate of the top two models stays in [0.38, 0.49], and a 500-trial random visible/held-out split shows that 92% of trials swap the top-1 ranking with on average 2.83 of 5 top-5 models changing. A submodular greedy algorithm with the Nemhauser (1 - 1/e) guarantee finds a stable core of 4 benchmarks; 7 of 12 suffice for 90% coverage, and the trained subset transfers across temporal quarters with 93-97% retention. A counterfactual validation across 12 internal benchmarks and 27 Chatbot Arena categories confirms that the eigenstructure predicts which evaluations are irreplaceable (rho = -0.69, p = 0.013 for removal disruption) and which external evaluations bring new information (rho = +0.38). As a second, independent theoretical contribution, we resolve Gardner's Problem 1.5 (1995) for C^2 support functions, establishing the minimax rate Theta(R/(kappa m^(2/(D-1)))) in general dimension via optimal recovery theory on S^(D-1).