Importance Sampling is All You Need: Predict LLM's performance on new benchmark by reusing existing benchmark
This provides a cost-effective tool for LLM developers and researchers to assess model performance without constructing new benchmarks, though it is incremental as it builds on existing importance sampling methods.
The paper tackles the high cost and data contamination issues in evaluating large language models for code generation by proposing BIS, a framework that predicts performance on new benchmarks using importance sampling on existing data, achieving an average absolute prediction error of 1.1% for code correctness scores.
With the rapid advancement of large language models , code generation has become a key benchmark for evaluating LLM capabilities. However, existing benchmarks face two major challenges: (1) the escalating cost of constructing high-quality test suites and reference solutions, and (2) the increasing risk of data contamination, which undermines the reliability of benchmark-based evaluations. In this paper, we propose BIS, a prompt-centric evaluation framework that enables ground-truth-free prediction of LLM performance on code generation tasks. Rather than executing generated code, BIS estimates performance metrics by analyzing the prompt distribution alone. Built on importance sampling theory and implemented using Importance Weighted Autoencoders, our method reweights samples from existing annotated benchmarks to estimate performance on new, unseen benchmarks. To stabilize the estimation, we introduce weight truncation strategies and compute marginal expectations across the fitted distributions. BIS serves as a complementary tool that supports benchmark development and validation under constrained resources, offering actionable and quick feedback for prompt selection and contamination assessment. We conduct extensive experiments involving 8,000 evaluation points across 4 CodeLlama models and 9 diverse benchmarks. Our framework achieves an average absolute prediction error of 1.1% for code correctness scores, with best- and worst-case errors of 0.3% and 1.9%, respectively. It also generalizes well to other metrics, attaining average absolute errors of 2.15% for pass@1. These results demonstrate the reliability and broad applicability of BIS, which can significantly reduce the cost and effort of benchmarking LLMs in code-related tasks.