Are Benchmarks Reliable? Toward Structural Diagnosis via Sample-Level Capability Boundaries

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on benchmark scores, yet aggregate metrics can obscure whether benchmark samples reliably support model comparison. We introduce \textbf{BSDProbe}, a sample-level framework for \emph{benchmark structural diagnosis} that estimates capability boundaries from repeated-response trajectories along ordered model axes. BSDProbe summarizes samples by boundary position, boundary width, boundary-signal validity, and order consistency, then aggregates them into benchmark-level structural profiles. Experiments on six benchmarks show that benchmark reliability is axis-conditioned and heterogeneous: GSM8K and MATH exhibit the most stable measurement structures, MMLU and TriviaQA are relatively stable but heterogeneous, while GPQA and PopQA show stronger axis-conditioned risks. These profiles remain consistent across Qwen3, Qwen2.5, and cross-model axes. BSDProbe further selects compact high-value subsets whose model discriminability reaches up to $8.58\times$ that of the full benchmark. These results suggest that reliable benchmark use requires examining sample-level capability boundaries beyond leaderboard scores.