Papers › The Scaling Law of Evaluation Failure: Why Simple Averaging Collapses Under Data...

The Scaling Law of Evaluation Failure: Why Simple Averaging Collapses Under Data Sparsity and Item Difficulty Gaps, and How Item Response Theory Recovers Ground Truth Across Domains

11 May 2026arXiv:2605.11205added by Syntology

Jung Min Kang

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Benchmark evaluation across AI and safety-critical domains overwhelmingly relies on simple averaging. We demonstrate that this practice produces substantially misleading rankings when two conditions co-occur: (1) the evaluation matrix is sparse and (2) items vary substantially in difficulty. Through controlled simulation experiments across four domains -- NLP (GLUE), clinical drug trials, autonomous vehicle safety, and cybersecurity -- we show that Spearman rank correlation ρ between simple-average rankings and ground-truth rankings degrades from ρ= 1.000 at 100% coverage to ρ= 0.809 at 67% coverage with high difficulty heterogeneity (mean over 20 seeds). A standard two-parameter logistic (2PL) Item Response Theory (IRT) model maintains ρ≥0.996 across all conditions. A 150-condition grid sweep over sparsity S ∈[0, 0.70] and difficulty gap D ∈[0.5, 5.0] confirms that ranking error forms a failure surface with a strong S ×D interaction (γ₃ = +0.20, t = 13.05), while IRT maintains ρ≥0.993 throughout. We discuss implications for Physical AI benchmarking, where evaluation matrices are often incomplete and difficulty gaps are extreme.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 3 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from testofschool/evaluation-failure-scaling-law. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.11205, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections