Automated Capability Evaluation of Foundation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current evaluation frameworks for foundation models rely heavily on static, manually curated benchmarks, limiting their ability to capture the full breadth of model capabilities. This paper introduces Active learning for Capability Evaluation (ACE), a novel framework for scalable, automated, and fine-grained evaluation of foundation models. ACE leverages the knowledge embedded in powerful frontier models to decompose a domain into semantically meaningful capabilities and generates diverse evaluation tasks, significantly reducing human effort. In Mathematics, ACE generated 433 capabilities and 11,800 tasks, covering 94% of Wikipedia-defined skills in the domain while introducing novel, coherent ones. To maximize efficiency, ACE fits a capability model in latent semantic space, allowing reliable approximation of a subject model's performance by evaluating only a subset of capabilities via active learning. It reaches within 0.01 RMSE of exhaustive evaluation by evaluating less than half of capabilities. Compared to static datasets, ACE provides more balanced coverage and uncovers fine-grained differences that aggregate metrics fail to capture. Our results demonstrate that ACE provides a more complete and informative picture of model capabilities, which is essential for safe and well-informed deployment of foundation models.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".