mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

BehaviorBox: Automated Discovery of Fine-Grained Performance Differences Between Language Models

arXiv 2506.02204 ↗First posted 2 Jun 2025cs.CLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Language model evaluation is a daunting task: prompts are brittle, corpus-level perplexities are vague, and the choice of benchmarks are endless. Finding examples that show meaningful, generalizable differences between two LMs is crucial to understanding where one model succeeds and another fails. Can this process be done automatically? In this work, we propose methodology for automated comparison of language models that uses performance-aware contextual embeddings to find fine-grained features of text where one LM outperforms another. Our method, which we name BehaviorBox, extracts coherent features that demonstrate differences with respect to the ease of generation between two LMs. Specifically, BehaviorBox finds features that describe groups of words in fine-grained contexts, such as "conditional 'were' in the phrase 'if you were'" and "exclamation marks after emotional statements", where one model outperforms another within a particular datatset. We apply BehaviorBox to compare models that vary in size, model family, and post-training, and enumerate insights into specific contexts that illustrate meaningful differences in performance which cannot be found by measures such as corpus-level perplexity alone.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2025.

Builds on

20 of 36 references.

References · 20

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2020Longformer: The Long-Document Transformercited by 3,413
  4. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  5. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 1,006
  6. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
  7. 2024Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Researchcited by 483
  8. 2020Towards a Human-like Open-Domain Chatbotcited by 470
  9. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
  10. 2013k-Sparse Autoencoderscited by 215
  11. 2020No Subclass Left Behind: Fine-Grained Robustness in Coarse-Grained Classification Problemscited by 209
  12. 2022Domino: Discovering Systematic Errors with Cross-Modal Embeddingscited by 156
8 more
  1. 2022Training Trajectories of Language Models Across Scalescited by 81
  2. 2025Archetypal SAE: Adaptive and Stable Dictionary Learning for Concept Extraction in Large Vision Modelscited by 73
  3. 2018Automated Data Slicing for Model Validation:A Big data - AI Integration Approachcited by 70
  4. 2023Paloma: A Benchmark for Evaluating Language Model Fitcited by 54
  5. 2015Sparse Overcomplete Word Vector Representationscited by 44
  6. 2021Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanationscited by 26
  7. 2024Predicting vs. Acting: A Trade-off Between World Modeling & Agent Modelingcited by 20
  8. 2025Not-Just-Scaling Laws: Towards a Better Understanding of the Downstream Impact of Language Model Design Decisionscited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

5 papers.