Pushing the Boundaries of Multiple Choice Evaluation to One Hundred Options

Compressing large language models reduces memory use and inference cost, but it can also create failures that standard benchmarks miss. A pruned model may still perform well on multiple-choice evaluations, yet fail to answer the same question in open generation. We ask what pruning changes: does it erase the correct answer, or does it make the answer harder to produce as the top output? We study this question with multilingual question answering, tracking the same questions before and after pruning. We find a benchmark illusion. Under high-sparsity pruning, especially Wanda, models often fail in greedy open generation while still selecting the correct answer under multiple-choice scoring. In these recognition-only errors, the answer is usually not gone, but demoted: it often reappears with beam search, sampling, or one in-context example. Overall, multiple-choice benchmarks can overstate the usability of compressed LLMs, creating an evaluation blind spot. Compressed models should be tested on what they can produce, not only on what they can recognize.

Multiple-choice (MCQA) benchmarks are the standard for evaluating pretrained large language models, but their reliance on log-likelihood scoring makes them unreliable. Specifically, standard scores are highly sensitive to the exact phrasing (surface form) of the answers, conflating a model's familiarity with a specific phrase with its actual capability. We demonstrate this flaw using a controlled testbed of 1B-8B models trained on the same knowledge. Despite having identical knowledge, standard metrics falsely report a performance gap of over 2 points. To solve this, we propose ParaEval, an evaluation framework that queries models using multiple paraphrases per answer option. By scoring each model based on its most favorable phrasing, ParaEval successfully reduces the false performance gap to below 1 point. We confirm that these evaluation artifacts, and the improvements from ParaEval, persist in frontier 70B and 120B open-source models. Ultimately, ParaEval provides a robust and efficient way to evaluate true underlying capability rather than surface-form familiarity.

Most multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) only by whether they select the correct answers. This binary scoring treats all incorrect responses alike, even though an LLM's preferences among incorrect options may contain systematic and useful information about its behavior and ability. We introduce the LLM Nominal Response Model (LLM-NRM), an option-aware psychometric framework that models the full distribution over answer choices to jointly estimate LLM ability and option-level item characteristics, while separating model-specific response calibration sharpness, positional preference, and difficulty-dependent fallback behavior. Across 189 LLMs and 31,554 items from 14 benchmarks, LLM-NRM predicts held-out LLM-item interactions more accurately than binary Item Response models and conventional nominal-response baselines, and its ability estimates achieve the strongest Spearman correlation of 0.920 with the external human-preference Arena.ai Elo leaderboard. Distractor identity contributes +101% additional Fisher Information per item beyond correctness, and incorrect responses alone recover full-information ability estimates with Spearman 0.943. The learned item parameters also enable efficient benchmarking, where 41 selected items preserve the full-bank ranking with Kendall's correlation 0.85, corresponding to a 770 times reduction. In conclusion, we show that incorrect answers carry distinct and useful measurement information rather than representing equivalent mistakes.