Random Is Almost Enough? Stable and Low-Cost Benchmark Compression via BestRand
Abstract
Benchmark compression reduces the often prohibitive time and cost of model evaluation by evaluating models on a small benchmark subset that closely matches full-benchmark results. To quantify estimation error, we derive an accurate analytical approximation to the error distribution when estimating full-benchmark scores from a subset, showing that most subsets yield small errors, while a few produce much larger errors, resulting in a long-tailed distribution. This means random sampling alone can achieve surprisingly strong performance with high probability, but remains unstable due to rare large errors. We further show that this instability is inherent to modern foundation models and persists even as more models are evaluated. Based on these findings, we introduce BestRand, a stable and low-cost benchmark compression method that preserves the efficiency of random sampling while substantially reducing its high-error tail. We validate BestRand on 70+ text, multimodal, and agent benchmarks, and further extend it to VLA evaluation. Compared with competitive methods, BestRand reduces high-error risk by 50.2% and estimation error by 16.4% on average, while requiring only 51.3% of the construction cost. It further reduces OOD estimation error by 21.8% on average across score-range, model-family, and temporal shifts. Together, our theory provides practical guidance for understanding and predicting the accuracy and reliability of benchmark compression, while BestRand enables stable and accurate compression at low cost. The code and data are publicly available onhttps://github.com/George-Ling3/BestRand.
Community
Evaluating models on full benchmarks is often expensive. Benchmark compression reduces this cost by using small subsets to approximate full-benchmark results. This paper theoretically explains why random sampling works surprisingly well for benchmark compression but can be unstable, and introduces BestRand, a simple, stable, and low-cost solution. Across 70+ benchmarks, BestRand reduces high-error risk by 50.2% and estimation error by 16.4%, while requiring only 51.3% of the construction cost of competing methods.
The long tail is the part that stuck with me: random subsets usually look fine, and then one unlucky draw quietly lies about a model. Picking the best of several random draws feels like a very honest fix. Did you see the tail get heavier on agent benchmarks than on text ones?
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- HoloCosm: Beyond Single-Metric Benchmark Compression Across Multiple Metrics (2026)
- ZipBench: Low-Cost Framework for Compressing Comprehensive Benchmarks of Large Language Models (2026)
- Are We Testing Too Much? A Survey of Benchmark Compression for Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models (2026)
- Hierarchical Compression of Vision-Language Model Benchmarks (2026)
- EvalBuilder: Can LLMs Build Efficient Benchmarks? (2026)
- Benchmark Prediction with Sparse and Unpaired Cached Responses (2026)
- Uncheatable Eval: Dynamic Compression-Based Evaluation of Language Models (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper