Estimating problem difficulty without ground truth using Large Language Model comparisons

Recent advances in the finetuning of large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their performance on established benchmarks, emphasizing the need for increasingly difficult, synthetic data. A key step in this data generation pipeline is a method for estimating problem difficulty. Current approaches, such as human calibration or performance-based scoring, fail to generalize to out-of-distribution problems, i.e. problems currently unsolvable by humans and LLMs, because they are not scalable, time-consuming, and ground truth dependent. Therefore, we propose a new method for estimating problem difficulty, LLM compare, that addresses these limitations. An LLM performs pairwise difficulty comparisons, and then Bradley-Terry scores are computed based on the outcomes. To validate our method, we first propose a conceptual framework that positions existing approaches on three orthogonal planes--construction, scale and dependence--identifying which quadrants a measure needs to occupy to score out-of-distribution problems. LLM compare naturally occupies all desirable quadrants as the first measure that is continuous and dynamic, model-agnostic and independent of ground truth information. As a second validation, we show that LLM compare demonstrates strong alignment with human annotations: Pearson $r \geq 0.80$ for $n=1876$. Thirdly, we show that LLM compare is robust to hallucinations, with less than $6\%$ degradation in Pearson correlation for $10\%$ noise injection. Our work represents a significant step towards replacing time-consuming human annotations and synthetic data generation, and will be an important driver for curriculum design, model evaluation, and AI-assisted research ideation.