Model-Aware Automatic Benchmark Generation with Self-Error Instructions for Data-Driven Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing number of domain-specific machine learning benchmarks has driven methodological progress, yet real-world deployments require a different evaluation approach. Model-aware synthetic benchmarks, designed to emphasize failure modes of existing models, are proposed to address this need. However, evaluating already well-performing models presents a significant challenge, as the limited number of high-quality data points where they exhibit errors makes it difficult to obtain statistically reliable estimates. To address this gap, we proposed a two-step benchmark construction process: (i) using a genetic algorithm to augment the data points where data-driven models exhibit poor prediction quality; (ii) using a generative model to approximate the distribution of these points. We established a general formulation for such benchmark construction, which can be adapted to non-classical machine learning models. Our experimental study demonstrates that our approach enables the accurate evaluation of data-driven models for both regression and classification problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it