Good Papers

Welfare, Improvability, and Variance: A Principal-Agent Approach to Optimal Benchmark Item Aggregation

Benchmark aggregation is modeled as a principal-agent game where welfare loss depends on item alignment, improvability, and variance; auditing OLMES reveals Pareto-inferior items under pro-worker welfare.

Andreas Haupt, Justin Hartenstein, Anka Reuel-Lamparth, Mykel J Kochenderfer, Sanmi Koyejo

Published 2026Sydney Poster Session 4 · Wed, Dec 9, 5:00 PM–8:00 PM local time · Hall 1-4arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

86%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel14/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 8/10
strict 1/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

AI benchmarks have well-documented limitations, with prior work examining contamination, saturation, and construct underspecification. Aggregation has received far less attention: benchmarks are typically summarized by uniformly averaging item-level scores, implicitly treating every test item as equally valuable. We model benchmarking as a multitask principal-agent game and show that the welfare loss from a benchmark is determined jointly by three item-level primitives: alignment with normative welfare priorities, marginal improvability, and performance variance. We translate the theory into an audit framework that ranks items along each of these three axes, and apply it to OLMES items using WORKBank for welfare, the EvoLM 4B suite for improvability, and the PolyPythias 410M panel for variance. The framework surfaces items that are Pareto-inferior within OLMES subject to a pro-worker welfare operationalization. All code is available at https://github.com/stair-lab/principal-agent-benchmarks.