Language Model Performance Prediction

Best-of-$N$ inference scaling (drawing $N$ candidate answers from a language model and returning the one a reward model ranks highest) improves accuracy by an amount that varies across models, but predicting that amount in advance currently requires running the procedure end-to-end. Prior work links cheap statistics of a model's sampled outputs and validation-set correctness (how often samples agree, how diverse they are, how confident the model is, and where correct samples appear) to model behavior, but does not isolate which of these form a stable, compact predictor of best-of-$N$ gain. We fit ridge predictors on features computed from a single labeled validation-set sampling pass, use bootstrap-Lasso as a stability analysis of the candidate feature set, and give a concentration analysis with an explicit linear-approximation residual. Across three base-model families, six post-training methods, and math and reasoning task domains, the stability analysis identifies a strict three-feature core spanning prompt-level agreement spread, label-assisted first-correct-sample position, and completion-length variance; a compact ridge predictor built from this core plus an entropy add-on reaches Spearman $ρ= 0.90$ with actual best-of-$N$ gain under a reward-model verifier. The intended use is labeled validation-set screening of candidate configurations before paying the full reward-model scoring cost.

Scaling laws provide a fundamental framework for understanding the performance of Language Models (LMs), yet deriving them requires prohibitively expensive evaluations across thousands of checkpoints or millions of inference samples. To address this, we introduce Item Response Scaling Laws (IRSL), a unified framework that integrates Item Response Theory (IRT) within the scaling law framework. Unlike traditional approaches that treat each model-benchmark pair in isolation, IRSL disentangles latent model ability from question characteristics, factorizing the scaling law estimation for $M$ models and $N$ questions to significantly reduce parameter complexity from $O(M \times N)$ to $O(M + N)$. We instantiate IRSL with Beta-IRT, which leverages the empirical probability responses of LMs -- such as token probabilities in pre-training and pass rates in test-time sampling -- to capture richer signals than binary responses. We validate our approach across two prevalent scaling paradigms: (1) pre-training downstream scaling, using 6,612 LM checkpoints and 37,682 questions from 10 benchmarks; and (2) test-time scaling, using 12 LMs and 120 questions from 4 benchmarks with up to 2,500 samples per question. Given a one-time calibration on existing model responses, IRSL yields more reliable scaling estimates using only 50 questions per benchmark (a 99.9% reduction), achieving comparable or superior decision accuracy to traditional approaches. Furthermore, we show that the estimated latent model abilities are generalizable, enabling accurate performance forecasting across benchmarks that share the same measurement objective.

Progress in language model development is often driven by comparative decisions: which architecture to adopt, which pretraining corpus to use, or which training recipe to apply. Making these decisions well requires reliable performance forecasts, yet the two commonly used signals are fundamentally limited. Cross-entropy loss is poorly aligned with downstream capabilities, and direct downstream evaluation is expensive, sparse, and often uninformative at early training stages. Instead, we propose to construct proxy metrics by aggregating token-level statistics, such as entropy, top-k accuracy, and expert token rank, from a candidate model's next token distribution over expert-written solutions. Across three settings, our proxies consistently outperform loss- and compute-based baselines: 1) For cross-family model selection, they rank a heterogeneous population of reasoning models with mean Spearman Rho = 0.81 (vs. Rho = 0.36 for cross-entropy loss); 2) For pretraining data selection, they reliably rank 25 candidate corpora for a target model at roughly $10{,}000\times$ less compute than direct evaluation, pushing the Pareto frontier beyond existing methods; and 3) for training-time forecasting, they extrapolate downstream accuracy across an $18\times$ compute horizon with roughly half the error of existing alternatives. Together, these results suggest that expert trajectories are a broadly useful source of signal for assessing model capabilities, enabling reliable performance forecasting throughout the model development life cycle.

Deploying large-scale LLM training and inference with optimal performance is exceptionally challenging due to a complex design space of parallelism strategies, system optimizations, and hardware configurations. Accurate and rapid performance simulation is critical for guiding optimization efforts and system studies by validating "what-if" Hooker Figure hypotheses. To address this, we introduce Charon, a unified, modular, and fine-grained simulator for accurately predicting LLM performance. Experiments show Charon achieves high accuracy across different models and configurations, with an overall prediction error consistently under 5.35%, and even under 3.74% for training with a large-scale GPU cluster. In a practical inference deployment case, Charon discovered a configuration that improved system throughput over an engineering-tuned baseline, demonstrating its significant real-world value.

Large language models (LLMs) face a fundamental trade-off between computational efficiency (e.g., number of parameters) and output quality, especially when deployed on computationally limited devices such as phones or laptops. One way to address this challenge is by following the example of humans and have models ask for help when they believe they are incapable of solving a problem on their own; we can overcome this trade-off by allowing smaller models to respond to queries when they believe they can provide good responses, and deferring to larger models when they do not believe they can. To this end, in this paper, we investigate the viability of Predict-Answer/Act (PA) and Reason-Predict-Reason-Answer/Act (RPRA) paradigms where models predict -- prior to responding -- how an LLM judge would score their output. We evaluate three approaches: zero-shot prediction, prediction using an in-context report card, and supervised fine-tuning. Our results show that larger models (particularly reasoning models) perform well when predicting generic LLM judges zero-shot, while smaller models can reliably predict such judges well after being fine-tuned or provided with an in-context report card. Altogether, both approaches can substantially improve the prediction accuracy of smaller models, with report cards and fine-tuning achieving mean improvements of up to 55% and 52% across datasets, respectively. These findings suggest that models can learn to predict their own performance limitations, paving the way for more efficient and self-aware AI systems.

While context compression can mitigate the growing inference costs of Large Language Models (LLMs) by shortening contexts, existing methods that specify a target compression ratio or length suffer from unpredictable performance degradation, hindering their reliable deployment. We introduce a paradigm shift to Performance-oriented Context Compression (PoC), where developers specify an acceptable performance floor instead of a compression ratio. PoC employs a lightweight performance predictor to automatically find the most aggressive compression ratio that satisfies this constraint before steering an off-the-shelf compressor. We design and compare two predictor variants: a simple context-agnostic predictor and a more sophisticated context-aware one that considers the input's inherent compressibility. On both question-answering and summarization benchmarks, the context-aware predictor consistently achieves lower performance prediction error than the context-agnostic predictor, while the resulting context-aware PoC attains a superior overall performance. Our work paves the way for a more reliable, efficient, and performance-aware deployment of context compression for LLMs.

Geometric properties of Transformer weights, particularly the unembedding matrix, have been widely useful in language model interpretability research. Yet, their utility for estimating downstream performance remains unclear. In this work, we systematically investigate the relationship between model performance and the unembedding matrix geometry, particularly its effective rank. Our experiments, involving a suite of 108 OLMo-style language models trained under controlled variation, reveal several key findings. While the best-performing models often exhibit a high effective rank, this trend is not universal across tasks and training setups. Contrary to prior work, we find that low effective rank does not cause late-stage performance degradation in small models, but instead co-occurs with it; we find adversarial cases where low-rank models do not exhibit saturation. Moreover, we show that effective rank is strongly influenced by pre-training hyperparameters, such as batch size and weight decay, which in-turn affect the model's performance. Lastly, extending our analysis to other geometric metrics and final-layer representation, we find that these metrics are largely aligned, but none can reliably predict downstream performance. Overall, our findings suggest that the model's geometry, as captured by existing metrics, primarily reflects training choices rather than performance.

Machine learning model performance improvements tend to arise from competition and application. For deployment, we consider prescriptive scaling laws: given a pre-training compute budget, what downstream accuracy is attainable with contemporary post-training practice, and how stable is that mapping as the field evolves? Using large-scale observational evaluations with 5k existing and 2k newly evaluated model checkpoints spanning 2022-2026 across six benchmarks, we estimate capability boundaries, high conditional quantiles of benchmark scores as a function of log pre-training FLOPs, via smoothed quantile regression with a monotone, saturating sigmoid parameterization. We validate temporal reliability by fitting on earlier model generations and evaluating on later releases: across four of six tasks, the out-of-distribution coverage error remains below 2%, while math reasoning exhibits a consistently advancing boundary over time. For instance, at a budget of 10^24 FLOPs, the estimated attainable accuracies are 0.83 on IFEval and 0.54 on MATH Lvl 5. We then extend our approach to analyze task-dependent saturation and to probe contamination-related shifts on math reasoning tasks. Finally, we introduce a balanced I-optimal sampling algorithm that recovers near-full-data frontiers using roughly 20% of the parameter-count-weighted evaluation budget, as low as 5% on some tasks, while maintaining comparable calibration. Together, our work releases Proteus-2k, the latest model performance evaluation dataset, and introduces a practical methodology for translating compute budgets into reliable performance expectations and for monitoring when capability boundaries shift across time.

How much of zero-shot benchmark accuracy is captured by word-level alignment between a pre-training corpus and the benchmark target? We study this question through word-level unigram cross-entropy (UCE), a tokenizer-agnostic, model-free measure of lexical alignment between a reference corpus and a target benchmark. Likelihood training shapes the model's predictive distribution from the pre-training corpus, and zero-shot scores under likelihood-based evaluation depend in part on the lexical alignment between that corpus and the benchmark target. Cleanly tracing how the lexical imprint of pre-training data scales with corpus--benchmark alignment requires controlled from-scratch pre-training that varies corpus identity while holding the training recipe fixed. Across this controlled sweep, spanning $10$ zero-shot benchmarks, $4$ pre-training corpora, and $3$ model scales, we find that corpus--benchmark lexical alignment, UCE, consistently tracks zero-shot accuracy on every benchmark, with corpora more aligned with the benchmark (lower UCE) achieving higher accuracy. The same signal extends from measurement to control at finer scopes. At the document level, strengthening the imprint by selecting training documents to maximize lexical alignment with the benchmark produces the accuracy gains predicted by the mechanism. At the prompt level, matching the imprint per prompt by routing each prompt to the drafter whose domain corpus is most lexically aligned with it produces measurable throughput gains over a generalist-drafter baseline. Taken together, pre-training corpora leave a measurable lexical imprint on base-model zero-shot behavior, and UCE provides a model-free probe of lexical alignment between reference and target data.

Neural scaling laws predict how language model performance improves with increased training inputs. While aggregate metrics like validation loss can follow smooth power-law curves, individual downstream tasks exhibit diverse scaling behaviors: some improve monotonically, others plateau, and some even degrade with scale. We argue that predicting downstream performance from validation loss suffers from two limitations: averaging token-level losses obscures signal, and no simple parametric family can capture the full spectrum of scaling behaviors. To address this, we propose Neural Neural Scaling Laws (NeuNeu), a neural network that frames scaling law prediction as time-series extrapolation. NeuNeu combines temporal context from observed accuracy trajectories with token-level validation losses, learning to predict future performance without the limitations inherent in assuming a specific functional form. Trained entirely on open-source model checkpoints from HuggingFace, NeuNeu achieves 1.99% mean absolute error in predicting model accuracy on 66 downstream tasks -- a 44% reduction compared to logistic scaling laws (3.56% MAE). Furthermore, NeuNeu generalizes zero-shot to unseen model families, architectures, parameter counts, and downstream tasks. Our work suggests that predicting downstream scaling directly from data outperforms parametric alternatives.

Modern ML research increasingly faces an evaluation bottleneck: building benchmarks and running experiments is costly, slowing iteration. We ask how much can be inferred about evaluation outcomes before experiments, given only a natural-language description of the task and setup. We call this setting anticipatory evaluation. We introduce EVALCAST, a literature-grounded resource of 2,290 description-performance pairs from 1,519 arXiv papers, including a test set of papers published after the model's knowledge cutoff. We evaluate two tasks: predicting absolute performance through regression and comparing benchmark difficulty through pairwise prediction. Experiments with frontier LLMs show that accurate regression remains challenging, while pairwise predictions can recover relative performance ordering under matched settings. Comparable performance on post-cutoff and streaming evaluations suggests that the observed signal is not solely attributable to previously reported results. Overall, EVALCAST provides a resource and evaluation framework for studying anticipatory evaluation and its potential use in prioritizing benchmarks.