IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v110y2025ics016028962500025x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometrically derived 60-question benchmarks: Substantial efficiencies and the possibility of human-AI comparisons

Author

Listed:
  • Gignac, Gilles E.
  • Ilić, David

Abstract

Large Language Model (LLM) benchmark evaluation tests often comprise thousands of questions. Based on psychometric principles, reliable and valid benchmark tests can likely be developed with as few as 60 items, comparable to human intelligence tests, which typically include only 15 to 60 items. The establishment of shorter benchmark tests offers numerous potential benefits, including more efficient evaluation of LLMs, the practical feasibility of creating parallel forms, and the ability to directly compare LLM performance with human capabilities. Consequently, we analysed the performance of 591 LLMs across three widely recognized benchmarks—HellaSwag, Winogrande, and GSM8K—and developed short-forms (≈ 60 questions each) using psychometric principles. The short-forms exhibited high internal consistency reliability, with coefficient omega values ranging from 0.96 for Winogrande to 0.99 for HellaSwag and GSM8K. Additionally, strong correlations between short- and long-form scores (r ≈ 0.90) provided evidence of concurrent validity. Finally, model size (number of parameters) was a slightly stronger predictor of overall LLM performance for the short-forms compared to the long-forms, indicating that the short forms exhibited comparable, if not slightly superior, convergent validity. It is concluded that shorter benchmarks may accelerate AI development by enabling more efficient evaluations. Additionally, research into the nature of intelligence may be facilitated by benchmark short-forms by enabling direct comparisons between AI and human performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Gignac, Gilles E. & Ilić, David, 2025. "Psychometrically derived 60-question benchmarks: Substantial efficiencies and the possibility of human-AI comparisons," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:110:y:2025:i:c:s016028962500025x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2025.101922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028962500025X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101922?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:110:y:2025:i:c:s016028962500025x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.