# SKATE, a Scalable Tournament Eval: Weaker LLMs differentiate between stronger ones using verifiable challenges

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06111 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06111/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [CLEVR: A Diagnostic Dataset for Compositional Language and Elementary Visual Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.06890/) (2016)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03286/) (2022)
- [Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04359/) (2021)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Tree of Attacks: Jailbreaking Black-Box LLMs Automatically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.02119/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09390/) (2023)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [Text and Code Embeddings by Contrastive Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.10005/) (2022)
- [Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.05698/) (2015)
- [Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03540/) (2022)
- [AI Agents That Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01502/) (2024)
- [GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12348/) (2024)
- [Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.09089/) (2025)
- [Curiosity-driven Red-teaming for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19464/) (2024)
- [Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21792/) (2024)
- [JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Ranking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09569/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models with Grid-Based Game Competitions: An Extensible LLM Benchmark and Leaderboard](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.07796/) (2024)
- [Explore the Reasoning Capability of LLMs in the Chess Testbed](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.06655/) (2024)
- [Complete Chess Games Enable LLM Become A Chess Master](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17186/) (2025)
- [Automated Capability Discovery via Foundation Model Self-Exploration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.07577/) (2025)
- [Recent advancements in LLM Red-Teaming: Techniques, Defenses, and Ethical Considerations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09097/) (2024)
- [ZeroSumEval: An Extensible Framework For Scaling LLM Evaluation with Inter-Model Competition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10673/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [LivingArena: Do LLMs Know What Other LLMs Don't? Peer-Probing as Scalable Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.24780/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating the capabilities and risks of foundation models is paramount, yet current methods demand extensive domain expertise, hindering their scalability as these models rapidly evolve. We introduce SKATE: a novel evaluation framework in which large language models (LLMs) compete by generating and solving verifiable tasks for one another. Our core insight is to treat evaluation as a game: models act as both task-setters and solvers, incentivized to create questions which highlight their own strengths while exposing others' weaknesses. SKATE offers several key advantages, balancing scalability, open-endedness, and objectivity. It is fully automated, data-free, and scalable, requiring no human input or domain expertise. By using verifiable tasks rather than LLM judges, scoring is objective. Unlike domain-limited programmatically-generated benchmarks (e.g. chess-playing or spatial reasoning), having LLMs creatively pose challenges enables open-ended and scalable evaluation. As a proof of concept, we introduce LLM-set code-output-prediction (COP) challenges as a verifiable and extensible framework in which to test our approach. Using a TrueSkill-based ranking system, we evaluate six frontier LLMs and find that: (1) weaker models can reliably differentiate and score stronger ones, (2) LLM-based systems are capable of self-preferencing behavior, generating questions that align with their own capabilities, and (3) SKATE automatically surfaces fine-grained capability differences between models. Our findings are an important step towards general, scalable evaluation frameworks which can keep pace with LLM progress.