The Metanym Game: An LLM Benchmark Without Ground Truth That Rises With the Models It Measures

We introduce a benchmark that is fully self-contained, needs no ground truth, and rises with the models it measures. Language models compete at making analogies and subjectively grade one another; nothing enters from outside. The benchmark reproduces GPQA Diamond, a keyed benchmark of expert-written questions, at r = 0.98, audited for a leak and found clean. We hypothesize that both benchmarks measure the same thing in different ways: a language model holds its knowledge as archetypal contexts, relationship patterns valid across many topic domains. GPQA instantiates the required knowledge in one domain; the Metanym Game instantiates one archetype into several domains, generating analogies, no reasoning required. The reasoning feature of an LLM hardly changes the game's ratings, while it lifts GPQA, which requires derivations. In the game, a player writes a context template whose slots, filled with a set of keywords from a topic domain, instantiate a factually true description of that domain; the instantiations are each other's metaphors, and keywords filling the same slot are metanyms, metaphorically synonymous. Correctness is settled sentence by sentence. Ground truth is replaced by the SVD of the factual rating matrix: its left and right singular vectors rate the players as judges and as generators, two ratings from one factorisation, to our knowledge a first for an LLM council of peers. On the subjective criteria, judges are weighted by their rating consistency under a swept calibration anchor. Generating and judging are different skills: on this roster the strongest generators were middling judges. A council of the five best issues the official ratings; its contestable seats keep it current, a candidate steering signal for self-improving AI. The paper is accompanied by a validating package that recomputes every number.