Grading Needs a Rubric, Not Intelligence
Small language models can grade open-ended examination answers as reliably as substantially more expensive models when they grade against an explicit rubric. We test this claim as the design principle behind any-to-bench: a frontier model reads source documents once, at ingestion, to extract each question and its rubric; lower-cost models then perform all repeated grading work. We evaluate six cost-efficient model configurations from two model families at three reasoning-effort levels. Each configuration answers 24 open-ended examination questions, and each also grades every answer sheet three
Lineage graph
Paper → model → repo connections mined from source citations (Tier-1 exact match).
Why these links exist
Every edge carries a method, confidence, and the source snippet that justified it — so bad links are debuggable.
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 51%New benchmark exposes reasoning gaps in top models →
- FuzzyOverlapping authors or contributors · 62%Zeyi-Lin/HivisionIDPhotos →
“Shared author/contributor keys: lin”
- FuzzyOverlapping authors or contributors · 62%hiyouga/LlamaFactory →
“Shared author/contributor keys: lin”
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Jhen-Ke Lin →
“Grading Needs a Rubric, Not Intelligence”
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 51%I built an LLM benchmark harness that lets you browse and compare how models answered each question →
