Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as safety' androbustness' requires strong construct validity, that is, having measures that represent what matters to the phenomenon. With a team of 29 expert reviewers, we conduct a systematic review of 445 LLM benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning. Across the reviewed articles, we find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims. To address these shortcomings, we provide eight key recommendations and detailed actionable guidance to researchers and practitioners in developing LLM benchmarks.

Reinforcement learning is widely adopted in post-training large language models, especially for reasoning-style tasks such as maths questions. However, as we show, most existing methods will provably fail to learn from questions that are too hard, where the model always fails, or too easy, where the model always succeeds. Much human effort is therefore spent continually producing datasets of questions of a suitable difficulty for state-of-the-art models. Given this, we consider how to algorithmically identify questions that allow for maximally efficient training. We introduce a method, LILO (Learnability Improves LLMs Optimally), that prioritises training on questions with high variance of success, known as learnability, and we provide theory proving LILO maximises the expected improvement of the model. We run a wide range of experiments over multiple base models, algorithms and reasoning datasets to demonstrate that LILO consistently improves final test accuracy and can yield a 3x reduction in the number of training steps required to reach it. We explore how questions with high learnability can be efficiently identified, and discuss how learnability can be scaled to produce LLM agents that autonomously and open-endedly expand the frontier of human knowledge.

Rapidly improving large language models (LLMs) have the potential to assist in scientific progress. One critical skill in this endeavor is the ability to faithfully reproduce existing work. To evaluate the capability of AI agents to reproduce complex code in an active research area, we introduce the Automated LLM Speedrunning Benchmark, leveraging the research community's contributions to the $\textit{NanoGPT speedrun}$, a competition to train a GPT-2 model in the shortest time. Each of the 19 speedrun tasks provides the agent with the previous record's training script, optionally paired with one of three hint formats, ranging from pseudocode to paper-like descriptions of the new record's improvements. Records execute quickly by design and speedrun improvements encompass diverse code-level changes, ranging from high-level algorithmic advancements to hardware-aware optimizations. These features make the benchmark both accessible and realistic for the frontier problem of improving LLM training. We find that recent frontier reasoning LLMs combined with SoTA scaffolds struggle to reimplement already-known innovations in our benchmark, even when given detailed hints. Our benchmark thus provides a simple, non-saturated measure of an LLM's ability to automate scientific reproduction, a necessary (but not sufficient) skill for an autonomous research agent.