CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-02

Coresets Before Score Sets: Evaluation-Unsupervised Prompt Subset Selection for LLM Benchmarks

Jihan Yao, Gantavya Bhatt, Arnav Das, Peter Jin, Ke Bao, Qiaolin Yu, Khushi Bhardwaj, Chang Su, Jialei Wang, Yikai Zhu, Sugam Devare, Damon Mosk-Aoyama, Zhen Dong, Venkat Krishna Srinivasan, Yineng Zhang, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jiantao Jiao, Banghua Zhu, Jeff Bilmes

We study LLM benchmark coreset selection: selecting a small subset of prompts over multiple benchmarks whose induced model scores and rankings approximate those obtained from the full benchmark suite. In evaluation-unsupervised benchmark coreset selection (our approach), the selection algorithm uses no model evaluation outcomes, and operates on a fine granularity by producing subsets of prompts over multiple benchmarks rather than producing a sub-collection of entire benchmarks. We use submodular subset selection, and we develop and evaluate many different submodular functions for this purpose, including determinantal point process (DPP) based approaches, submodular mutual information functions, and facility location-based functions. On a new large-scale suite of 35 heterogeneous benchmarks spanning five different capability categories, 18 frontier LLMs, and over 61K prompts, we find that the facility location (FL) function operating exclusively on inexpensive semantic prompt embeddings preserves LLM scores better than twelve separate score-based and diversity-based baselines, across a range of coreset budgets. Moreover, we show our proposed objective is not limited to the evaluation-unsupervised regime: in the setting where only a handful of whole benchmarks must be selected and a large amount of model scores are available, the same objective matches or outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on the MMLU and MTEB leaderboards, while being substantially cheaper to compute. Together, our results suggest that submodularity, in general, is a strong and reliable tool for benchmark compression.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-31

CalibratedRubric: Task-Adaptive Rubric Banks for Open-Ended LLM Evaluation

Mengting Chen, Yanshu Sun, Wanting Liang, Beidi Luan, Rui Sun, Dezhi Chen, et al.

Reliable evaluation of open-ended LLM outputs requires fine-grained rubrics, yet expert curation is costly and difficult to scale. Existing automated pipelines rely on strict judge unanimity and binary variance filters, which cannot distinguish measurable rubrics from informative…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.DBcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG2026-07-24

DBA-Bench: A Production-Fidelity Benchmark for LLM-Based Database Operations Agents

Junming Chen, Junyang Jiang, Xu Chen, Zibo Liang, Kai Zheng

LLM-based database agents show promise, but differing task scopes, testbeds, and metrics hinder comparison. We identify four gaps between evaluation and production operations: live-environment fidelity (multi-turn read-write interaction with a running database); observation-space…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-31

ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation

Gaetano Perrone, Simon Pietro Romano

Standard AI-text detection benchmarks compare human-written text against text generated directly by large language models (LLMs). While prior work has shown that rewriting and paraphrasing can degrade detector performance, it remains unclear whether performance measured on this c…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-24

Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity

Pengzhao Lyu, Yeun Joon Kim, Hanlin Xiao, Yingyue Luna Luan

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed, raising the question of when and why their judgments converge with or diverge from human judgments. Across three studies and six wid…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-23

A Comparative Evaluation of Embeddings and LLMs in a Greek Book Publisher Setting - The CUP Dataset

Katerina Papantoniou, Panagiotis Papadakos, Theodore Patkos, Dimitris Garefalakis, Nikos Vardakis, Dimitris Plexousakis

We present CUP, a Greek book retrieval benchmark consisting of 868 catalog records and 104 expert-annotated queries with graded relevance judgments. We evaluate sparse (BM25), dense (sentence-transformers), hybrid, and LLM-assisted retrieval methods in this book-search setting. M…

View free PDFSource page