Benchmark of Benchmarks: Unpacking Influence and Code Repository Quality in LLM Safety Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04459v2
• Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:49:16 GMT
• Title: Benchmark of Benchmarks: Unpacking Influence and Code Repository Quality in LLM Safety Benchmarks
• Abstract summary: This paper presents the first multi-dimensional evaluation of the influence (based on five metrics) and code quality on LLM safety benchmarks.<n>We find that benchmark papers show no significant advantage in academic influence (e.g., citation count and density) over non-benchmark papers.<n>We uncover a key misalignment: while author prominence correlates with paper influence, neither author prominence nor paper influence shows a significant correlation with code quality.
• Score: 31.87029149284585
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid growth of research in LLM safety makes it hard to track all advances. Benchmarks are therefore crucial for capturing key trends and enabling systematic comparisons. Yet, it remains unclear why certain benchmarks gain prominence, and no systematic assessment has been conducted on their academic influence or code quality. This paper fills this gap by presenting the first multi-dimensional evaluation of the influence (based on five metrics) and code quality (based on both automated and human assessment) on LLM safety benchmarks, analyzing 31 benchmarks and 382 non-benchmarks across prompt injection, jailbreak, and hallucination. We find that benchmark papers show no significant advantage in academic influence (e.g., citation count and density) over non-benchmark papers. We uncover a key misalignment: while author prominence correlates with paper influence, neither author prominence nor paper influence shows a significant correlation with code quality. Our results also indicate substantial room for improvement in code and supplementary materials: only 39% of repositories are ready-to-use, 16% include flawless installation guides, and a mere 6% address ethical considerations. Given that the work of prominent researchers tends to attract greater attention, they need to lead the effort in setting higher standards.

Related papers

• Practice Makes (Im)Perfect: A Look Back at Benchmarking Practices for Microarchitectural Side-Channel Attacks [2.1990852305468533]
  Microarchitectural side-channel research has grown at an exceptional pace in recent years.<n>Current benchmarks may not be the most relevant to assess specific properties of new primitives.<n>Inadequate evaluation practices undermine and cast doubt on the relevance of comparisons.<n>We survey 83 attack papers published in top-ranked security and architecture conferences from 2014 to 2024.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T14:12:19Z)
• Large language models for post-publication research evaluation: Evidence from expert recommendations and citation indicators [2.952559770088323]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for automated research evaluation based on textual content.<n>This study examines whether LLMs can support post-publication peer review tasks by benchmarking their outputs against expert judgments and citation-based indicators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-27T11:32:18Z)
• CRISP: Characterizing Relative Impact of Scholarly Publications [70.25915589244961]
  We propose CRISP, which jointly ranks all cited papers within a citing paper using large language models (LLMs)<n>To mitigate LLMs' positional bias, we rank each list three times in a randomized order and aggregate the impact labels through majority voting.<n>CRISP outperforms a prior state-of-the-art impact classifier by +9.5% accuracy and +8.3% F1 on a dataset of human-annotated citations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T16:42:30Z)
• LLM4SCREENLIT: Recommendations on Assessing the Performance of Large Language Models for Screening Literature in Systematic Reviews [2.2175470459999636]
  We identify problems with the use of traditional metrics for assessing the performance of Gen-AI tools for identifying relevant literature in systematic reviews.<n>Major weaknesses included a failure to use metrics that are robust to imbalanced data and do not directly indicate whether results are better than chance.<n>On the positive side, we extract good (evaluation) practices on which our recommendations for researchers and practitioners, as well as policymakers, are built.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T15:04:50Z)
• ELAIPBench: A Benchmark for Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence Paper Understanding [49.67493845115009]
  ELAIPBench is a benchmark curated by domain experts to evaluate large language models' comprehension of AI research papers.<n>It spans three difficulty levels and emphasizes non-trivial reasoning rather than shallow retrieval.<n>Experiments show that the best-performing LLM achieves an accuracy of only 39.95%, far below human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-12T11:11:20Z)
• The Medium Is Not the Message: Deconfounding Document Embeddings via Linear Concept Erasure [98.71456610527598]
  Embedding-based similarity metrics can be influenced by spurious attributes like the text's source or language.<n>This paper shows that a debiasing algorithm that removes information about observed confounders from the encoder representations substantially reduces these biases at a minimal computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T23:17:12Z)
• How Should We Build A Benchmark? Revisiting 274 Code-Related Benchmarks For LLMs [60.25940747590386]
  We propose How2Bench, which is comprised of a 55-criteria checklist as a set of guidelines to govern the development of code-related benchmarks comprehensively.<n>We profiled 274 benchmarks released within the past decade and found concerning issues.<n>Nearly 70% of the benchmarks did not take measures for data quality assurance; over 10% did not even open source or only partially open source.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-18T09:51:57Z)
• DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generation [11.010557279355885]
  This study empirically analyzes benchmark comments using a novel set of criteria informed by prior research and developer interviews.<n>Our evaluation framework, DeepCRCEval, integrates human evaluators and Large Language Models (LLMs) for a comprehensive reassessment of current techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T08:53:54Z)
• 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)
• The Fault in our Stars: Quality Assessment of Code Generation Benchmarks [0.5137309756089941]
  We conduct the first-of-its-kind study of the quality of prompts within benchmarks used to compare the performance of different code generation models. We analyzed 3,566 prompts from 9 code generation benchmarks to identify quality issues in them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T22:02:58Z)
• Is Reference Necessary in the Evaluation of NLG Systems? When and Where? [58.52957222172377]
  We show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T10:31:11Z)
• Exploring the Use of Large Language Models for Reference-Free Text Quality Evaluation: An Empirical Study [63.27346930921658]
  ChatGPT is capable of evaluating text quality effectively from various perspectives without reference. The Explicit Score, which utilizes ChatGPT to generate a numeric score measuring text quality, is the most effective and reliable method among the three exploited approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-03T05:29:58Z)

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.