The Evaluation Trap: Benchmark Design as Theoretical Commitment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14167v1
• Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 22:41:29 GMT
• Title: The Evaluation Trap: Benchmark Design as Theoretical Commitment
• Abstract summary: We introduce Epistematics, a methodology for deriving evaluation criteria directly from technical capability claims.<n>We demonstrate the procedure through a worked audit of Dupoux et al. (2026), a proposal that revises the dominant paradigm's theoretical assumptions at the architectural level.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Every AI benchmark operationalizes theoretical assumptions about the capability it claims to assess. When assumptions function as unexamined commitments, benchmarks stabilize the dominant paradigm by narrowing what counts as progress. Over time, narrow evaluation reorganizes capability concepts: architectures and definitions are selected for benchmark legibility until evaluation ceases to track an independent object and instead produces a version of the target defined by its own operational assumptions. The result is a trap: evaluation frameworks treat self-reinforcing assessments as valid, both creating and obscuring structural limits on what the current paradigm can accomplish. We introduce Epistematics, a methodology for deriving evaluation criteria directly from technical capability claims and auditing whether proposed benchmarks can discriminate the claimed capability from proxy behaviors. The contribution is meta-evaluative: an audit procedure, a failure mode taxonomy, and benchmark-design criteria for evaluating capability-evaluation coherence. We demonstrate the procedure through a worked audit of Dupoux et al. (2026), a proposal that revises the dominant paradigm's theoretical assumptions at the architectural level while reproducing them in its evaluation criteria, thereby entrenching the constraint it seeks to overcome in a form the evaluation cannot detect.

Related papers

• Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods [1.0749048269398973]
  Existing meta-evaluation measures agreement with human judgments or benchmark labels.<n>We introduce behavioral correctness assumptions, a complementary framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T15:43:09Z)
• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science [90.62695599188204]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents.<n>The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented.<n>This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T04:03:18Z)
• DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics [21.555357444628044]
  We propose DREAM (Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics), a framework that makes evaluation itself agentic.<n> DREAM structures assessment through an evaluation protocol combining query-agnostic metrics with adaptive metrics generated by a tool-calling agent.<n>Controlled evaluations demonstrate DREAM is significantly more sensitive to factual and temporal decay than existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T19:14:31Z)
• 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)
• Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation [12.55408229639344]
  We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence.<n>Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T20:36:22Z)
• 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.<n>Our proposed framework first constructs a scalable evaluation benchmark that currently includes 564 event types covering 7 major domains.<n>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)
• 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)
• From Adversarial Arms Race to Model-centric Evaluation: Motivating a Unified Automatic Robustness Evaluation Framework [91.94389491920309]
  Textual adversarial attacks can discover models' weaknesses by adding semantic-preserved but misleading perturbations to the inputs. The existing practice of robustness evaluation may exhibit issues of incomprehensive evaluation, impractical evaluation protocol, and invalid adversarial samples. We set up a unified automatic robustness evaluation framework, shifting towards model-centric evaluation to exploit the advantages of adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T14:55:20Z)
• Unifying Gradient Estimators for Meta-Reinforcement Learning via Off-Policy Evaluation [53.83642844626703]
  We provide a unifying framework for estimating higher-order derivatives of value functions, based on off-policy evaluation. Our framework interprets a number of prior approaches as special cases and elucidates the bias and variance trade-off of Hessian estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T15:58:01Z)

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.