Data and Evaluation Closed-Loop for Model Capability Enhancement

Zhixuan Li; Jiangan Yuan; Han Xu

cs.AIJun 26, 2026

Data and Evaluation Closed-Loop for Model Capability Enhancement

Authors: Zhixuan Li, Jiangan Yuan, Han Xu

Organizations: Baidu Inc.

Abstract

Model capability is the central variable in LLM pre-training, yet is never observed directly: data shapes it prospectively, while evaluation reveals it only retrospectively, compressing samples, prompts, decoding, and scoring rules into one noisy score. Practical optimization runs this backward: a failure is observed first, and the engineer must infer the corpus fix. The two sides speak incompatible vocabularies -- benchmark names and per-sample correctness versus data sources, domains, and quality labels -- so this inference is usually intuition, not method. We close this gap with the \emph{capability slice}: a group of evaluation samples sharing background condition, task type, solving operation, and output constraint -- precise enough to localize a single weakness yet stable enough to survive aggregation, unlike a benchmark name, too coarse, or a single sample, too noisy. Built around this unit, an evaluation taxonomy, a non-instruction data taxonomy, and mapping rules form a closed loop turning a benchmark-level failure into a targeted, testable data intervention. We test this loop on two case studies pulling in opposite directions. First, the loop rules the data out: continued pre-training drives BBH down by $-46.82\%$ , but diagnosis traces this to a single masked \texttt{\textless EOS\textgreater} loss rather than weakened reasoning; restoring it recovers BBH to $66.44$ , above the original checkpoint, without changing the data. Second, the loop rules the data in: a persistent math-reasoning weakness is decomposed by solving operation into specific failing combinations, and a weakness-targeted sampling procedure built from it lifts AIME2025/AIME2026 Pass@128 from $6.67$ / $0.00$ to $26.67$ each. The same unmodified loop reaches opposite, correct verdicts in both cases, showing the evaluation-to-data inference can be routine, auditable, and experimentally validated rather than intuitive.

Explore similar work

Jul 17, 2026cs.AI

CRAFT: Clustering Rubrics to Diagnose Weak LLM Capabilities and Generate Targeted Fine-Tuning Data

Evaluations should do more than measure a models current performance. They should tell us what to fix for the next model iteration and provide a way to generate targeted post training data. Most evaluation pipelines identify weak examples, topics, or categories, but they leave the underlying capability failure implicit: they say where a model fails, not why. We introduce CRAFT, a method that converts any rubric based evaluation dataset into a model specific diagnosis of weak capabilities. CRAFT treats each grading criterion as a capability probe: it extracts a capability description from every prompt rubric pair, clusters these descriptions into a hierarchical capability tree, scores the target model at every node, and selects low performing nodes dynamically across tree levels, at the granularity where each failure is clearest. The selected weak capabilities then direct the generation of targeted supervised finetuning data. Holding the data generation, finetuning, and evaluation setup fixed, we compare CRAFT against prompt level EvalTree clustering and untargeted random generation on four open source models, two professional domains (finance and legal), and 13 held out benchmarks disjoint from the diagnostic data. CRAFT achieves the strongest finance domain average for all four models under repeated temperature decoding; on legal domain, it is strongest for three of four models and remains within the decoding variance bands of the best baseline on the fourth. Diagnosing weaknesses at the level of rubric criteria, rather than prompts or categories, thus yields both a sharper picture of what a model cannot do and measurably better models after finetuning on that diagnosis.

Vipul Gupta, Zihao Wang, Razvan-Gabriel Dumitru +3

Large Language Model Evaluation Rubrics

Ask PDF

Jun 25, 2026cs.AI

The Capability Frontier: Benchmarks Miss 82% of Model Performance

Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run. This systematically understates real-world LLM capabilities, particularly under heterogeneous data distributions: (i) different models get different questions correct according to their specializations, and (ii) given a budget, multiple generations can be sampled and selectively retained. To quantify this gap, we introduce the Capability Frontier: a Pareto frontier over a set of models that characterizes the best achievable performance at each cost level under optimal selection across models and generations (i.e., via an oracle). Our construction corrects for two opposing biases: underestimation from single-model evaluation and overestimation from taking maxima over noisy samples. We study 21 LLMs across 16 widely used benchmarks spanning coding, reasoning, medicine, factuality, instruction following, and agentic tasks, comparing Capability Frontier performance at matched cost to each benchmark's top-performing model. Correcting for single-model evaluation yields a 54% error rate reduction; additionally correcting for single runs yields an 82% improvement, with SOTA accuracy matched at 85% cost reduction. Complementing these empirical results, we use controlled probabilistic simulations to show that higher query topic entropy produces a near-monotonic increase in the performance gap between oracle routing and the best single model. Our findings suggest collective LLM capabilities are substantially underestimated, with implications for evaluation and deployment in data-heterogeneous, multi-domain settings.

Bradley Fowler, Ryan Smith, Daniel Thi Graviet +8

Frontiers Pareto Frontier

Ask PDF

Apr 30, 2026cs.LG

Diagnosing Capability Gaps in Fine-Tuning Data

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for domain-specific tasks requires training datasets that comprehensively cover the target capabilities a practitioner needs. Yet identifying which capabilities a dataset fails to support, and doing so before an expensive fine-tuning run, remains a largely unsolved problem. We introduce GoalCover, a framework that helps practitioners systematically detect capability gaps in fine-tuning datasets through interactive goal decomposition and automated coverage assessment. GoalCover guides a practitioner through structured decomposition of a high-level goal into atomic, independently evaluable subgoals; assigns each training sample an LLM-based alignment score against every subgoal; and surfaces missing capabilities through automated analysis of low-scoring sample explanations. We validate the framework along two complementary axes. First, through controlled corruption experiments across three domains (medical QA, legal summarization, code generation), we show that GoalCover reliably distinguishes targeted from non-targeted capability impacts: target subgoals degrade by 25.6% on average versus 2.1% for non-target subgoals (Cohen's d=1.24). Second, we demonstrate downstream utility on a financial-summarization Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) task with Qwen-3-14B: training on GoalCover-filtered data improves the LLM-judge reward from 3.77 to 4.12 (out of 5) over the unfiltered baseline, and combining filtered data with goal-conditioned synthetic samples yields the strongest result (4.20). The two results together show that GoalCover works as a practical pre-fine-tuning diagnostic: it detects capability gaps and produces concrete signal for closing them.

Saeid Asgari Taghanaki, Rakshanda Agarwal, Bruce Sun +10

Large Language Model Fine-Tuning Objectives Synthetic Samples

Ask PDF