# Large-scale factor analysis shows machine intelligence is only partially interpretable

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.36515 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36515/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 68 of its 320 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 68)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03426/) (2018)
- [The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00027/) (2020)
- [No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04672/) (2022)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07858/) (2022)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [Measuring short-form factuality in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04368/) (2024)
- [FinanceBench: A New Benchmark for Financial Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.11944/) (2023)
- [FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04872/) (2024)
- [MedDialog: Two Large-scale Medical Dialogue Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03329/) (2020)
- [On the Measure of Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.01547/) (2019)
- [GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12348/) (2024)
- [Multi-IF: Benchmarking LLMs on Multi-Turn and Multilingual Instructions Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15553/) (2024)
- [Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.02462/) (2023)
- [EQ-Bench: An Emotional Intelligence Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06281/) (2023)
- [SimpleSafetyTests: a Test Suite for Identifying Critical Safety Risks in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08370/) (2023)
- [MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23802/) (2025)
- [SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.07968/) (2025)
- [The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Input](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03200/) (2025)
- [AR-LSAT: Investigating Analytical Reasoning of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.06598/) (2021)
- [Do Large Language Models Know about Facts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05177/) (2023)
- [MTRAG: A Multi-Turn Conversational Benchmark for Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03468/) (2025)
- [AGENTIF: Benchmarking Instruction Following of Large Language Models in Agentic Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16944/) (2025)
- [Lost in Benchmarks? Rethinking Large Language Model Benchmarking with Item Response Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15055/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A common assumption in language model development is that cognitive abilities are organized around a general, domain-free intelligence factor, like fluid intelligence in humans. This assumption is rarely tested directly, and prior attempts have done so only at a much smaller scale. We take a latent variable approach to intelligence in language models, similar to how psychometricians study psychological constructs. Performance in every specific problem set is influenced by a domain-specific and a domain-agnostic latent factor. Using factor analysis as a dimension-reduction technique, we analyzed 13,251 published evaluation scores covering 1,618 language models across 456 different text-only benchmarks. Due to the super-sparse nature of the dataset, we triangulate our analysis across different data densifiers and imputation methods. A robust pattern across different modes of bias is that 1. A general intelligence factor accounts for 70.8% of variance in model performance at our most generous estimate, and far less than that in most of our solutions, 2. Content-similar benchmarks do not necessarily cluster together, and 3. The g factor is not dominated by any common theme, and there is a lack of evidence that it is well-proxied by standard "intelligence" benchmarks. Our findings go against current endeavors of defining, identifying, and targeting general intelligence as a tangible construct in language model development. This leaves the strategy of targeting a single conceptual ability without support, since the first-order abilities it would have to reach are often partially idiosyncratic and not identifiable in practice.