A Theoretical Framework for Adaptive Utility-Weighted Benchmarking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12356v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 19:33:47 GMT
• Title: A Theoretical Framework for Adaptive Utility-Weighted Benchmarking
• Authors: Philip Waggoner,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a theoretical framework that reconceptualizes benchmarking as a multilayer, adaptive network linking evaluation metrics, model components, and stakeholder groups through weighted interactions.<n>Using conjoint-derived utilities and a human-in-the-loop update rule, we formalize how human tradeoffs can be embedded into benchmark structure and how benchmarks can evolve dynamically while preserving stability and interpretability.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarking has long served as a foundational practice in machine learning and, increasingly, in modern AI systems such as large language models, where shared tasks, metrics, and leaderboards offer a common basis for measuring progress and comparing approaches. As AI systems are deployed in more varied and consequential settings, though, there is growing value in complementing these established practices with a more holistic conceptualization of what evaluation should represent. Of note, recognizing the sociotechnical contexts in which these systems operate invites an opportunity for a deeper view of how multiple stakeholders and their unique priorities might inform what we consider meaningful or desirable model behavior. This paper introduces a theoretical framework that reconceptualizes benchmarking as a multilayer, adaptive network linking evaluation metrics, model components, and stakeholder groups through weighted interactions. Using conjoint-derived utilities and a human-in-the-loop update rule, we formalize how human tradeoffs can be embedded into benchmark structure and how benchmarks can evolve dynamically while preserving stability and interpretability. The resulting formulation generalizes classical leaderboards as a special case and provides a foundation for building evaluation protocols that are more context aware, resulting in new robust tools for analyzing the structural properties of benchmarks, which opens a path toward more accountable and human-aligned evaluation.

Related papers

• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• The Validity of Coreference-based Evaluations of Natural Language Understanding [3.505146496638911]
  I analyze standard coreference evaluations and show that their design often leads to non-generalizable conclusions.<n>I propose and implement a novel evaluation focused on testing systems' ability to infer the relative plausibility of events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T05:49:28Z)
• Efficient Generalization via Multimodal Co-Training under Data Scarcity and Distribution Shift [0.6331016589903705]
  multimodal co-training is designed to enhance model generalization in situations where labeled data is limited.<n>We examine the theoretical foundations of this framework, deriving conditions under which the use of unlabeled data leads to significant improvements in generalization.<n>We establish a novel generalization bound that, for the first time in a multimodal co-training context, decomposes and quantifies the advantages gained from leveraging unlabeled multimodal data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T20:13:17Z)
• What Makes LLMs Effective Sequential Recommenders? A Study on Preference Intensity and Temporal Context [56.590259941275434]
  RecPO is a preference optimization framework for sequential recommendation.<n>It exploits adaptive reward margins based on inferred preference hierarchies and temporal signals.<n>It mirrors key characteristics of human decision-making: favoring timely satisfaction, maintaining coherent preferences, and exercising discernment under shifting contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T21:09:29Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• Improving the Validity and Practical Usefulness of AI/ML Evaluations Using an Estimands Framework [2.4861619769660637]
  We propose an estimands framework adapted from international clinical trials guidelines. This framework provides a systematic structure for inference and reporting in evaluations. We demonstrate how the framework can help uncover underlying issues, their causes, and potential solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T18:47:37Z)
• A Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attributions [60.06461883533697]
  We first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill.<n>We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.<n>Our analysis also offers insights into defending against neural Trojans by utilizing the attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• KPEval: Towards Fine-Grained Semantic-Based Keyphrase Evaluation [69.57018875757622]
  We propose KPEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework consisting of four critical aspects: reference agreement, faithfulness, diversity, and utility. Using KPEval, we re-evaluate 23 keyphrase systems and discover that established model comparison results have blind-spots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T17:45:38Z)
• Vote'n'Rank: Revision of Benchmarking with Social Choice Theory [7.224599819499157]
  This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T20:19:11Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• A Computational Model of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework [0.0]
  This work presents the first attempt to turn the IAD framework into a computational model. We define the Action Situation Language -- or ASL -- whose syntax is tailored to the components of the IAD framework and that we use to write descriptions of social interactions. These models can be analyzed with the standard tools of game theory to predict which outcomes are being most incentivized, and evaluated according to their socially relevant properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-27T13:53:56Z)

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.