How Reusable Are Benchmarks with Richer Feedback?

A modern model release reports scores on 40+ benchmarks and the same evaluations were run many more times before it: to track training progress, compare design choices, and select the checkpoint for the release. But do we need to run every eval? We compile a public score matrix of 84 frontier models on 133 benchmarks (2,604 cells, 23.3% filled) and find it is approximately rank-2: a model's scores across all 133 benchmarks are largely determined by just two numbers. We confirm this in two ways: scores hidden from the matrix are best recovered using two factors, and two factors already explain over 90% of the variation among models on the benchmarks they share. Building on this, we design BenchPress: a logit-space rank-2 matrix completion method that recovers held-out scores to within 4.6 points, and a confidence layer that says when each prediction can be trusted. Using BenchPress, we find a subset of five benchmarks {GPQA-D, HLE, Codeforces, MMLU-Pro, ARC-AGI-1} that can recover the rest of a model's public scorecard to within 3.93 points. For a tighter inference budget, a cheaper set {GPQA-D, MMLU-Pro, Aider Polyglot, MATH-500, AIME 2026} can predict a model's evals to within 4.55. We release the score matrix, the BenchPress code, and an interactive tool that predicts any model's score on any benchmark.

Benchmark scores increasingly influence the development, marketing, and selection of large language models (LLMs). Yet an overall score is interpretable only in relation to the system tested, the questions included, and the conditions of evaluation. This perspective examines five connected limitations of general LLM rankings: differences between evaluated and publicly available systems; commercial incentives and dependencies in external evaluation; benchmark saturation, defective tests, and data contamination; models exploiting scoring procedures; and the limited relevance of general scores to users' tasks. Documented cases illustrate why these problems require different responses. I argue for evaluation procedures that disclose the tested configuration, validate questions and successful task completion, report performance alongside cost and execution time, and make the scope of generalization explicit. I then discuss Isotanta, a crowdsourced benchmarking platform, as a practical example of contributed questions and repeated evaluation. A larger question pool may improve task coverage, while repeated sampling can improve the stability of estimates on that pool; neither guarantees validity or personalization. The paper distinguishes the platform's current shared ranking from proposed task-specific and user-provided evaluations. Its central argument is that model selection requires evidence about performance on the intended work, not simply a high position on a general leaderboard.

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.