# IDGen: Item Discrimination Induced Prompt Generation for LLM Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18892 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.18892/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10560/) (2022)
- [A Survey of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.18223/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12244/) (2023)
- [WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08568/) (2023)
- [AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06364/) (2023)
- [C-Eval: A Multi-Level Multi-Discipline Chinese Evaluation Suite for Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.08322/) (2023)
- [WizardMath: Empowering Mathematical Reasoning for Large Language Models via Reinforced Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09583/) (2023)
- [From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12032/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [From Objectives to Questions: A Planning-based Framework for Educational Mathematical Question Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00963/) (2025)
- [Diagnosing Failures in Large Language Models' Answers: Integrating Error Attribution into Evaluation Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.08459/) (2025)
- [AI Evaluation Should Require Standardized Item-Level Data Releases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03244/) (2026)
- [AAPA: Adversarially Anchored Preference Alignment for Post-Training of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25148/) (2025)
- [You Really Didn't Get That? Benchmarking Social Pragmatic Inference for Indirect and Playful Chinese Online Comments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04384/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Models (LLMs) grow increasingly adept at managing complex tasks, the evaluation set must keep pace with these advancements to ensure it remains sufficiently discriminative. Item Discrimination (ID) theory, which is widely used in educational assessment, measures the ability of individual test items to differentiate between high and low performers. Inspired by this theory, we propose an ID-induced prompt synthesis framework for evaluating LLMs to ensure the evaluation set can continually update and refine according to model abilities. Our data synthesis framework prioritizes both breadth and specificity. It can generate prompts that comprehensively evaluate the capabilities of LLMs while revealing meaningful performance differences between models, allowing for effective discrimination of their relative strengths and weaknesses across various tasks and domains. To produce high-quality data, we incorporate a self-correct mechanism into our generalization framework, and develop two models to predict prompt discrimination and difficulty score to facilitate our data synthesis framework, contributing valuable tools to evaluation data synthesis research. We apply our generated data to evaluate five SOTA models. Our data achieves an average score of 51.92, accompanied by a variance of 10.06. By contrast, previous works (i.e., SELF-INSTRUCT and WizardLM) obtain an average score exceeding 67, with a variance below 3.2. The results demonstrate that the data generated by our framework is more challenging and discriminative compared to previous works. We will release a dataset of over 3,000 carefully crafted prompts to facilitate evaluation research of LLMs.