Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices

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 2411.12990 v1 pith:6VLOCLUD submitted 2024-11-20 cs.AI cs.LG

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

AI models are increasingly prevalent in high-stakes environments, necessitating thorough assessment of their capabilities and risks. Benchmarks are popular for measuring these attributes and for comparing model performance, tracking progress, and identifying weaknesses in foundation and non-foundation models. They can inform model selection for downstream tasks and influence policy initiatives. However, not all benchmarks are the same: their quality depends on their design and usability. In this paper, we develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues. We further find that most benchmarks do not report statistical significance of their results nor allow for their results to be easily replicated. To support benchmark developers in aligning with best practices, we provide a checklist for minimum quality assurance based on our assessment. We also develop a living repository of benchmark assessments to support benchmark comparability, accessible at betterbench.stanford.edu.

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. Deprecating Benchmarks: Criteria and Framework

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A framework for deprecating outdated or flawed AI benchmarks, with seven criteria and a three-phase process of assessment, reporting, and notification.

  2. 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.

  3. Policy-Driven AI in Dataspaces: Taxonomy, Explainability, and Pathways for Compliant Innovation

    cs.CR 2025-07 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper is a literature review that classifies privacy-preserving AI techniques in dataspaces using a qualitative taxonomy of privacy, performance, and compliance ratings.

Pith tools