REVIEW 8 cited by
Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence
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
read the original abstract
The rapid rise in popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) with emerging capabilities has spurred public curiosity to evaluate and compare different LLMs, leading many researchers to propose their own LLM benchmarks. Noticing preliminary inadequacies in those benchmarks, we embarked on a study to critically assess 23 state-of-the-art LLM benchmarks, using our novel unified evaluation framework through the lenses of people, process, and technology, under the pillars of benchmark functionality and integrity. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, evaluator diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms in one comprehensive assessment. Our discussions emphasized the urgent need for standardized methodologies, regulatory certainties, and ethical guidelines in light of Artificial Intelligence (AI) advancements, including advocating for an evolution from static benchmarks to dynamic behavioral profiling to accurately capture LLMs' complex behaviors and potential risks. Our study highlighted the necessity for a paradigm shift in LLM evaluation methodologies, underlining the importance of collaborative efforts for the development of universally accepted benchmarks and the enhancement of AI systems' integration into society.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
DecompSR: A dataset for decomposed analyses of compositional multihop spatial reasoning
DecompSR is a large, symbolically verified benchmark dataset and generation framework that independently varies productivity, substitutivity, overgeneralisation, and systematicity to probe compositional multihop spati...
-
Simplicity Paradox: Debunking myths about prompting and datasets for LLM evaluation
In a 430k-evaluation study, plain baseline prompting beats most elaborate prompting techniques on non-reasoning LLMs across MCQA benchmarks, with only small role-framing variants gaining about 3 percentage points.
-
Deprecating Benchmarks: Criteria and Framework
A framework for deprecating outdated or flawed AI benchmarks, with seven criteria and a three-phase process of assessment, reporting, and notification.
-
Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks
Agentic benchmarks frequently mis-grade agents, and the new ABC checklist helps identify and correct such errors in ten popular benchmarks.
-
Evaluating the Sensitivity of LLMs to Prior Context
Prior conversational context, especially from a different knowledge domain, can sharply reduce LLM multiple-choice accuracy, and repeating the task near the query mitigates the drop.
-
Benchmarking the Pedagogical Knowledge of Large Language Models
The authors release an open benchmark of 1,143 pedagogical knowledge questions from Chilean teacher exams and report accuracy, cost, and size trade-offs for 97 large language models.
-
A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations
A descriptive conceptual framework with seven elements (target, task, subject, inputs, instance, measurement, result analysis) for systematizing analysis of AI capability evaluations.
-
Software Engineering for Large Language Models: Research Status, Challenges and the Road Ahead
A literature review organizes LLM development into a six-phase software engineering lifecycle and identifies challenges and research directions for each phase.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.