Your Benchmark Is Not Saturated: Reviving Multiple-Choice Evaluation with Answer Pooling

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 question answering (MCQA) benchmarks in NLP use number-right scoring (accuracy), but in educational testing, the scoring scheme, the combination of the response mode models follow and the rule for grading responses, is a key design choice that dictates which abilities to reward. We examine how alternatives to number right change what MCQA measures with six education-inspired schemes that assess abilities beyond accuracy: distractor elimination, abstention, confidence calibration, and self-correction. On LLM benchmarks, these schemes: 1) shift rankings of 31 LLMs beyond rephrased number right prompts; 2) better predict the LLMs users prefer in LLM Arena; and 3) reveal distinct model capabilities, like that GPT-5 rarely abstains and readily self-corrects, while weaker open-weight models often abstain and hesitate to eliminate choices. Given the benefits of alternative scoring schemes, we discuss ways to extend them to tasks beyond MCQA.

Multiple-choice benchmarks are graded on whether a model picks the right option, not on whether it needed the question. Measuring that gap takes care: a model answering A to most items scores above chance wherever the key sits at A, and reads as recognition when it is not. We measure it on UA-JudgeExam: 11,990 four-option items with official keys, published by Ukraine's Higher Qualification Commission of Judges. Shown the options and no question, Claude Haiku 4.5 scores 0.383 against chance, and the leak is concentrated: 11.8% of items are answered blind on all eight option orders, against 0.2 items expected by chance. It is not quotation: search over 280,059 editions of Ukrainian legislation recovers 0.128. Gating those out retains 8,128 items, on which the gating model itself now scores 0.204, and GPT-5.6, which took no part in the selection, still answers 0.515 of them with the question hidden. Scoring twelve held-out models on the whole set and subtracting each one's answer-position habit, only two keep an excess: GPT-5.6 at +0.265, Sonnet 4.6 at +0.081. Without it the ranking misleads: Llama 3.1 8B scores 0.292 blind, above every model but those two, purely by answering A to 92% of items. The gate does select something real: on the items it rejected, eleven of twelve models score 0.518-0.789, every interval clear of what the same model scores on the items it kept. But that signal is one model's, and filtering on it does not transfer upward. Neither is visible on a 400-item sample, where nine models read as "statistically at chance". Rewriting distractors instead overshoots to 0.168, below chance and as exploitable. The same probe on LEXam returns chance: every option there points into the stem, none longer than 33 characters. Item format decides whether the problem can arise; capability decides how much is extracted. We release the corpus, the predictions and the harness.