The top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall ELBench score yet differ substantially at the module level, so module profiles are more informative than a single aggregate¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The top six models lie in overlapping 95% confidence intervals on overall score (roughly 83.1–83.7) and no adjacent pair is distinguishable at the P > 0.95 threshold. → Yilin Jiang 2026
q2 i? Among those overall-tied leaders, module scores spread 19.5 points on Safety, 9.7 on Basic Education, and 7.0 on General Capability. → Yilin Jiang 2026
Evidence¶
Yilin Jiang 2026¶
Yilin Jiang, Xiaorong Zhu, Fei Tan, Zicheng Zhang, Kaiyi Huang, Yang Yu, Zexuan Fei, Yiming Luo, Keqian Li, Hao Hao, Guangtao Zhai, Aimin Zhou. (2026). ELBench: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Education-Facing Large Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09548 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.09548
q2 · i? · design · r2
Results section of the nine-model evaluation of ELBench, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals over items (10,000 resamples). The results report that models "indistinguishable on the overall score differ substantially at the module level", with spreads of 19.5 (Safety), 9.7 (Basic Education), and 7.0 (General Capability) points; the printed interval test threshold is P > 0.95.
"The same six models that are indistinguishable on the overall score differ substantially at the module level, wherethescorespreadamongthemis19.5pointsonSafety, 9.7 on Basic Education, and 7.0 on General Capability."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Within General Capability, model spread concentrates in competition mathematics (AIME), which dominates the aggregate score — related
- The two education-specialized models lead neither education module, and the improvement from education-specific post-training is small relative to differences in general capability — related
- Claude Opus 4.8 has the highest overall score (0.803) and is the only model ranking in the top three on all three stages, yet does not saturate situated tutoring (0.773) or workflows (0.704) — related
- Statistical tests show significant grading differences among nearly all pairs of LLMs, with only 7 of 153 pairs statistically indistinguishable — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
top-six-indistinguishable-overall-module-profile |
title |
The top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall ELBench score yet differ substantially at the module level, so module profiles are more informative than a single aggregate |
description |
The top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall ELBench score yet differ substantially at the module level, so module profiles are more informative than a single aggregate |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2029 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yilin-jiang-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.