BenchmarkCards: Standardized Documentation for Large Language Model Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12974v3
• Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 19:50:17 GMT
• Title: BenchmarkCards: Standardized Documentation for Large Language Model Benchmarks
• Authors: Anna Sokol, Elizabeth Daly, Michael Hind, David Piorkowski, Xiangliang Zhang, Nuno Moniz, Nitesh Chawla,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools capable of handling diverse tasks.<n>Finding suitable benchmarks is difficult given the many available options.<n>We introduce textttBenchmarkCards, an intuitive and validated documentation framework.
• Score: 23.263430784766026
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools capable of handling diverse tasks. Comparing and selecting appropriate LLMs for specific tasks requires systematic evaluation methods, as models exhibit varying capabilities across different domains. However, finding suitable benchmarks is difficult given the many available options. This complexity not only increases the risk of benchmark misuse and misinterpretation but also demands substantial effort from LLM users, seeking the most suitable benchmarks for their specific needs. To address these issues, we introduce \texttt{BenchmarkCards}, an intuitive and validated documentation framework that standardizes critical benchmark attributes such as objectives, methodologies, data sources, and limitations. Through user studies involving benchmark creators and users, we show that \texttt{BenchmarkCards} can simplify benchmark selection and enhance transparency, facilitating informed decision-making in evaluating LLMs. Data & Code: https://github.com/SokolAnn/BenchmarkCards

Related papers

• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Re-Evaluating Code LLM Benchmarks Under Semantic Mutation [8.58692613099365]
  We present an empirical study to investigate prompt sensitivity in code benchmarks.<n>We propose a general framework that modifies prompt templates in a manner that preserves both their semantics and their structure.<n>Our findings suggest that even slight prompt variations can lead to significant shifts in performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T15:30:36Z)
• BenchHub: A Unified Benchmark Suite for Holistic and Customizable LLM Evaluation [13.897645524385274]
  BenchHub is a dynamic benchmark repository that empowers researchers and developers to evaluate large language models (LLMs) more effectively.<n>It is designed to support continuous updates and scalable data management, enabling flexible and customizable evaluation tailored to various domains or use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T09:24:32Z)
• SEOE: A Scalable and Reliable Semantic Evaluation Framework for Open Domain Event Detection [70.23196257213829]
  We propose a scalable and reliable Semantic-level Evaluation framework for Open domain Event detection. Our proposed framework first constructs a scalable evaluation benchmark that currently includes 564 event types covering 7 major domains. We then leverage large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluation agents to compute a semantic F1-score, incorporating fine-grained definitions of semantically similar labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T09:37:05Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications. Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs. Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets. We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance? [1.3810901729134184]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability. Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum. We lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:49:21Z)
• Unveiling Context-Aware Criteria in Self-Assessing LLMs [28.156979106994537]
  We propose a novel Self-Assessing LLM framework that integrates Context-Aware Criteria (SALC) with dynamic knowledge tailored to each evaluation instance. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing baseline evaluation frameworks. Our method also exhibits a improvement in LC Win-Rate in AlpacaEval2 leaderboard up to a 12% when employed for preference data generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T21:18:49Z)
• Position: LLM Unlearning Benchmarks are Weak Measures of Progress [31.957968729934745]
  We find that existing benchmarks provide an overly optimistic and potentially misleading view on the effectiveness of candidate unlearning methods. We identify that existing benchmarks are particularly vulnerable to modifications that introduce even loose dependencies between the forget and retain information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T18:07:25Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [69.4501863547618]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios. With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance. Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
  Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• ERBench: An Entity-Relationship based Automatically Verifiable Hallucination Benchmark for Large Language Models [46.07900122810749]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performances in various applications, yet evaluating them is still challenging. We contend that utilizing existing relational databases is a promising approach for constructing benchmarks. We propose ERBench, which uses these integrity constraints to convert any database into an LLM benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T12:42:36Z)
• PPTC-R benchmark: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
  We construct adversarial user instructions by attacking user instructions at sentence, semantic, and multi-language levels. We test 3 closed-source and 4 open-source LLMs using a benchmark that incorporates robustness settings. We find that GPT-4 exhibits the highest performance and strong robustness in our benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T15:33:32Z)
• TRUCE: Private Benchmarking to Prevent Contamination and Improve Comparative Evaluation of LLMs [12.839640915518443]
  Benchmarking is the de-facto standard for evaluating LLMs, due to its speed, replicability and low cost. Recent work has pointed out that the majority of the open source benchmarks available today have been contaminated or leaked into LLMs. We propose Private Benchmarking, a solution where test datasets are kept private and models are evaluated without revealing the test data to the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T09:28:38Z)
• tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples [42.95407654805037]
  We release evaluation tools and tiny versions of popular benchmarks: Open LLM Leaderboard, MMLU, HELM, and AlpacaEval 2.0. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that these tools and tiny benchmarks are sufficient to reliably and efficiently reproduce the original evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T22:05:23Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence. Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Efficient Benchmarking of Language Models [22.696230279151166]
  We present the problem of Efficient Benchmarking, namely, intelligently reducing the costs of LM evaluation without compromising reliability. Using the HELM benchmark as a test case, we investigate how different benchmark design choices affect the computation-reliability trade-off. We propose an evaluation algorithm, that, when applied to the HELM benchmark, leads to dramatic cost savings with minimal loss of benchmark reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T17:59:30Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• GEMv2: Multilingual NLG Benchmarking in a Single Line of Code [161.1761414080574]
  Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics Benchmark introduces a modular infrastructure for dataset, model, and metric developers. GEMv2 supports 40 documented datasets in 51 languages. Models for all datasets can be evaluated online and our interactive data card creation and rendering tools make it easier to add new datasets to the living benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T17:52:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.