More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05520v1
• Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2024 03:35:39 GMT
• Title: More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners
• Authors: Amelia Hardy, Anka Reuel, Kiana Jafari Meimandi, Lisa Soder, Allie Griffith, Dylan M. Asmar, Sanmi Koyejo, Michael S. Bernstein, Mykel J. Kochenderfer,
• Abstract summary: In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress. In product and policy, benchmarks were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions. We conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals.
• Score: 42.73526862595375
• License:
• Abstract: Public AI benchmark results are widely broadcast by model developers as indicators of model quality within a growing and competitive market. However, these advertised scores do not necessarily reflect the traits of interest to those who will ultimately apply AI models. In this paper, we seek to understand if and how AI benchmarks are used to inform decision-making. Based on the analyses of interviews with 19 individuals who have used, or decided against using, benchmarks in their day-to-day work, we find that across these settings, participants use benchmarks as a signal of relative performance difference between models. However, whether this signal was considered a definitive sign of model superiority, sufficient for downstream decisions, varied. In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress. By contrast, in both product and policy, benchmarks -- even those developed internally for specific tasks -- were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions. Of the benchmarks deemed unsatisfactory, respondents reported that their goals were neither well-defined nor reflective of real-world use. Based on the study results, we conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals. They must capture diverse, task-relevant capabilities, be challenging enough to avoid quick saturation, and account for trade-offs in model performance rather than relying on a single score. Additionally, proprietary data collection and contamination prevention are critical for producing reliable and actionable results. By adhering to these criteria, benchmarks can move beyond mere marketing tricks into robust evaluative frameworks.

Related papers

• Improving LLM Leaderboards with Psychometrical Methodology [0.0]
  The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has necessitated the creation of benchmarks to evaluate their performance. These benchmarks resemble human tests and surveys, as they consist of questions designed to measure emergent properties in the cognitive behavior of these systems. However, unlike the well-defined traits and abilities studied in social sciences, the properties measured by these benchmarks are often vaguer and less rigorously defined.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T21:21:46Z)
• BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices [28.70453947993952]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T02:38:24Z)
• Beyond the Numbers: Transparency in Relation Extraction Benchmark Creation and Leaderboards [5.632231145349045]
  This paper investigates the transparency in the creation of benchmarks and the use of leaderboards for measuring progress in NLP. Existing relation extraction benchmarks often suffer from insufficient documentation and lack crucial details. While our discussion centers on the transparency of RE benchmarks and leaderboards, the observations we discuss are broadly applicable to other NLP tasks as well.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T22:36:19Z)
• A Comparative Analysis on Ethical Benchmarking in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This work contributes to the field of Machine Ethics (ME) benchmarking, which develops tests to assess whether intelligent systems accurately represent human values and act accordingly. We identify three major issues with current ME benchmarks: limited ecological validity due to unrealistic ethical dilemmas, unstructured question generation without clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a lack of scalability due to reliance on human annotations. We introduce two new ME benchmarks: the Triage Benchmark and the Medical Law (MedLaw) Benchmark, both featuring real-world ethical dilemmas from the medical domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T05:05:21Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• 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)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• A Review of Benchmarks for Visual Defect Detection in the Manufacturing Industry [63.52264764099532]
  We propose a study of existing benchmarks to compare and expose their characteristics and their use-cases. A study of industrial metrics requirements, as well as testing procedures, will be presented and applied to the studied benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T07:44:23Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)

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.