Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.08861

API Benchmark Scores Do Not Reliably Transfer to Chatbot Interfaces

Jennifer Wang·Joachim Baumann·Daniel E. Ho·Sanmi Koyejo
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Benchmark scores are a central currency in model releases: they inform purchasing decisions, shape public trust, and influence policy. Yet, a key assumption underlying benchmark scores is that the model performance measured through APIs faithfully reflects the behavior of deployed systems. We challenge this assumption by auditing ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini across seven systems and nine benchmarks spanning general capability, social bias, and sycophancy. We find systematic API--interface differences in both accuracy and consistency. On average, API evaluations score 3.4 percentage points higher in accuracy and 2.1 percentage points higher in test--retest agreement than corresponding interface evaluations. For ChatGPT, the performance difference between API and interface access exceeds the API-only difference between GPT 5.3 and GPT 5.4. Put differently, switching access surfaces can degrade performance as much as downgrading a full model generation. We further test whether exposed API controls can reproduce interface behavior by varying system prompts, sampling parameters, and reasoning settings. These controls shift behavior in some cases but do not reliably eliminate the gap. Our findings document a context-validity gap: measurements obtained through APIs do not necessarily generalize to corresponding deployed interfaces, complicating the use of API evaluations as proxies for deployed systems.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jennifer Wang, Joachim Baumann, Daniel E. Ho, Sanmi Koyejo. 2026-09-08. API Benchmark Scores Do Not Reliably Transfer to Chatbot Interfaces. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.08861

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subjectcs.SE subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim Replay in Inspect Evals

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

SE-GoS: Self-Evolving Graph-of-Skills for Skill Library at Scale

Modern LLM agents increasingly rely on reusable skills, yet as skill libraries scale to thousands of entries, effective retrieval becomes a bottleneck. Graph-of-Skills (GoS) addresses this challenge by exploiting dependency-aware graph structure for scalable skill retrieval, while SkillDAG further demonstrates that skill graphs can accumulate execution-backed structure online. However, these approaches leave open whether historical execution traces can be systematically distilled into a better retrieval graph that generalizes to unseen tasks. We present Self-Evolving Graph-of-Skills (SE-GoS), a training-free framework that evolves an existing GoS graph from execution traces while preserving the original retrieval pipeline. SE-GoS performs three complementary updates: topology evolution that discovers and prunes skill relationships from execution evidence, edge-weight evolution that reinforces retrieval-relevant relationships based on historical effectiveness, and description evolution that optimizes retrieval-facing skill descriptions using execution feedback. Across three LLMs on SkillsBench, SE-GoS consistently improves task reward while reducing input tokens relative to full skill loading, with gains varying across model families. In a representative setting, one evolution round improves reward from 52.4\% to 59.4\% while reducing input tokens by approximately one-third relative to full skill loading, and the resulting graph transfers to a disjoint held-out split with a 5.4-point improvement over the static GoS baseline. These results show that skill graphs can be improved from execution experience without model training, changes to the retrieval algorithm, or modifications to skill content, turning a static retrieval graph into an evolving retrieval infrastructure.

cs.AI↗