Traditional fixed test datasets fall short in evaluating the open-ended capabilities of foundation models. To address this, we propose ONEBench (OpeN-Ended Benchmarking), a new paradigm that consolidates individual evaluation datasets into a unified, ever-expanding sample pool. ONEBench enables custom benchmarks for specific capabilities while reusing and aggregating samples, mitigating overfitting and dataset bias for broader capability assessment. It reframes model evaluation as selecting and aggregating sample-level tests.Transitioning from task-specific benchmarks to ONEBench introduces two challenges: heterogeneity (aggregating diverse metrics) and incompleteness(comparing models tested on different data subsets). To address these, we propose an aggregation algorithm that ensures identifiability (asymptotically recovering ground-truth scores) and rapid convergence, enabling accurate model comparisons with relatively little data. On homogenous datasets, our algorithm produces rankings that highly correlate with average scores. Moreover, it remains robust to over 95% missing measurements, reducing evaluation costs by up to 20x with minimal impact on rankings. We introduce ONEBench-LLM for language models and ONEBench-LMM for vision-language models, unifying evaluations across these domains, and enabling targeted model testing across diverse capabilities.

In the last decade, the generalization and adaptation abilities of deep learning models were typically evaluated on fixed training and test distributions. Contrary to traditional deep learning, large language models (LLMs) are (i) even more overparameterized, (ii) trained on unlabeled text corpora curated from the Internet with minimal human intervention, and (iii) trained in an online fashion. These stark contrasts prevent researchers from transferring lessons learned on model generalization and adaptation in deep learning contexts to LLMs.To this end, our short paper introduces empirical observations that aim to shed light on further training of already pretrained language models. Specifically, we demonstrate that training a model on a text domain could degrade its perplexity on the test portion of the same domain. We observe with our subsequent analysis that the performance degradation is positively correlated with the similarity between the additional and the original pretraining dataset of the LLM. Our further token-level perplexity analysis reveals that the perplexity degradation is due to a handful of tokens that are not informative about the domain. We hope these findings will guide us in determining when to adapt a model vs when to rely on its foundational capabilities.