Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

PredictaBoard: Benchmarking LLM Score Predictability

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.14445 v2 pith:4BYA6DQX submitted 2025-02-20 cs.CL cs.AIstat.ML

classification cs.CLcs.AIstat.ML
keywords predictaboardassessorsllmserrorsbenchmarkingevaluateonlyperformance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite possessing impressive skills, Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably, demonstrating inconsistent success in even basic common sense reasoning tasks. This unpredictability poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment, as identifying and operating within a reliable "safe zone" is essential for mitigating risks. To address this, we present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework designed to evaluate the ability of score predictors (referred to as assessors) to anticipate LLM errors on specific task instances (i.e., prompts) from existing datasets. PredictaBoard evaluates pairs of LLMs and assessors by considering the rejection rate at different tolerance errors. As such, PredictaBoard stimulates research into developing better assessors and making LLMs more predictable, not only with a higher average performance. We conduct illustrative experiments using baseline assessors and state-of-the-art LLMs. PredictaBoard highlights the critical need to evaluate predictability alongside performance, paving the way for safer AI systems where errors are not only minimised but also anticipated and effectively mitigated. Code for our benchmark can be found at https://github.com/Kinds-of-Intelligence-CFI/PredictaBoard

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Benchmark Prediction from Fewer Data Misses the Mark

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Benchmark prediction methods mostly work by interpolation among similar models and fail on better, unfamiliar models, where random sampling with an AIPW-style correction is the only consistent improvement.

Pith tools