Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.02145 v3 pith:5LZPZHSV submitted 2021-04-05 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords benchmarkswillarguecriteriacurrentevaluationlanguagenatural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluation for many natural language understanding (NLU) tasks is broken: Unreliable and biased systems score so highly on standard benchmarks that there is little room for researchers who develop better systems to demonstrate their improvements. The recent trend to abandon IID benchmarks in favor of adversarially-constructed, out-of-distribution test sets ensures that current models will perform poorly, but ultimately only obscures the abilities that we want our benchmarks to measure. In this position paper, we lay out four criteria that we argue NLU benchmarks should meet. We argue most current benchmarks fail at these criteria, and that adversarial data collection does not meaningfully address the causes of these failures. Instead, restoring a healthy evaluation ecosystem will require significant progress in the design of benchmark datasets, the reliability with which they are annotated, their size, and the ways they handle social bias.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs frequently pass definition questions yet fail to use the same concepts in classification, generation, and editing tasks, a gap the authors call potemkin understanding.

  2. AUTOLAW: Enhancing Legal Compliance in Large Language Models via Case Law Generation and Jury-Inspired Deliberation

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AutoLaw's verifier-ranked legal-role jury with a similar-case demonstration beats majority voting for violation detection on three law and policy benchmarks.

  3. Private, Verifiable, and Auditable AI Systems

    cs.CR 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A thesis demonstrating partial prototypes for zk-verifiable model evaluation and privacy-preserving retrieval, and arguing these pieces can compose into end-to-end auditable AI systems.

Pith tools