Papers for

cloud infrastructure planners

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Vision language benchmark compression saves compute while keeping model rankings

Hierarchical Compression of Vision-Language Model Benchmarks

Abstract: Thorough evaluation of vision-language models (VLMs) has become prohibitively expensive, as benchmarks span an ever-broader spectrum of capabilities and new models arrive at a relentless pace. Benchmark compression methods that preserve model rankings at a fraction of the cost are well studied for language models, but for VLMs the question remains under-explored. We present PRIMEBench (Pruning Redundant Items for Multimodal Evaluation), a vision-aware hierarchical benchmark compression framework that substantially reduces evaluation cost while preserving model rankings. This hierarchical framework operates in four stages: data cleaning to remove items answerable without the image and all-correct items, category representative selection to pick one benchmark per capability category, item pruning with Vision-Aware Variance (VAW), and category-count pruning. VAW combines inter-model variance with a vision-dependence score computed from multimodal embeddings alone, while encouraging coverage of diverse items within each benchmark. On models held out from item selection, it has the highest mean fidelity at the released 5% retention. The hierarchical design lets practitioners stop at any stage to match their compute budget; the released suite removes over 97% of items while preserving model rankings. Beyond compression, our analyses show how VLM evaluation behaves as model panels grow and evolve, providing guidance for designing future benchmarks that are more efficient, robust to model turnover, and explicit about the limits of evaluation-side pruning.

Tue 29 SeptMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
Evaluating vision-language AI models is becoming very costly because benchmarks are growing larger and new models keep coming out. The authors developed PRIMEBench, a smart way to shrink these tests dramatically without changing how models rank against each other. Their method removes easy or redundant items, chooses representative tests per category, and prunes samples by measuring how much models differ and how much images matter. This approach cuts more than 97% of test items while preserving evaluation quality, letting users save lots of compute time. Their work also helps understand how to design better benchmarks as more models appear.
Open → 2609.37515v1

Capability improves with size but efficiency stays constant in large AI models

Scaling of Capability and Efficiency at Inference Time in Large Reasoning Models

Abstract: Capability and efficiency are two key dimensions of reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Capability refers to the ability to solve a given problem correctly, whereas efficiency refers to the ability to do so with limited resources. When LLMs use Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to solve problems of controlled hardness, both the number of problems solved correctly and the number of tokens required to reach a correct answer depend on problem hardness and model size. However, how these factors jointly shape capability and efficiency remains poorly understood. Here, we use hierarchical Bayesian models to evaluate the capability and efficiency of LLMs from the DeepSeek-R1-Distill model family across four classes of arithmetic and algorithmic reasoning problems. At a fixed model size, the probability of correctly solving an instance decays approximately exponentially with instance size, our proxy for problem hardness. The decay scale grows sublinearly with model size, indicating that larger models are more capable, but that capability gains diminish with scale. Output length grows as a power law with instance size, which serves as a proxy for difficulty. However, the parameters of this power law do not vary systematically with model size, suggesting that larger models do not become more efficient. Together, these findings reveal potential limitations of naive scaling as a strategy for developing more capable AI systems: capability improves with diminishing returns, while efficiency shows little to no improvement.

Tue 22 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
The paper looks at how big AI models solve math and logic problems. It finds that bigger models get better at solving harder problems, but the improvement slows down as they grow. The time or effort these models need to find answers doesn’t get shorter for bigger models. This means just making AI models bigger won’t make them much faster or more efficient at reasoning tasks.
Open → 2609.27166v1