A Unified Perturbation Framework for Analyzing Leaderboard Stability and Manipulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15761v1
• Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 09:21:33 GMT
• Title: A Unified Perturbation Framework for Analyzing Leaderboard Stability and Manipulation
• Abstract summary: We present a unified perturbation framework for analyzing Bradley-Terry leaderboards.<n>Our framework studies three match-level perturbations -- Drop, Add, and Flip.<n>We show that modern leaderboards are non-robust across all three objectives.
• Score: 47.21240079171094
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluation leaderboards such as LMArena play a central role in benchmarking large language models by aggregating pairwise human preferences into model rankings, yet the robustness of these rankings remains poorly understood. We present a unified perturbation framework for analyzing Bradley-Terry leaderboards under structured data modifications using influence-based approximations. Our framework studies three match-level perturbations -- Drop, Add, and Flip -- together with player removal, and evaluates their effects on top-k membership, global ranking consistency via Kendall's tau, and confidence-interval-based uncertainty. Across Chatbot Arena and six additional pairwise-comparison datasets, we show that modern leaderboards are non-robust across all three objectives: sub-1% targeted perturbations can change the top-ranked model, degrade Kendall's tau, and alter confidence intervals. Beyond robustness auditing, we show that the same influence scores enable efficient targeted perturbations, promoting or demoting specific models and reducing target-model uncertainty with fewer actions than previous manipulation and active-sampling baselines. By summarizing these effects with normalized dataset-level robustness scores, our framework provides a practical and helpful tool for auditing leaderboard stability and motivating more robust evaluation protocols.

Related papers

• The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean [2.822987192839875]
  Agent benchmarks are increasingly used to compare large language models (LLMs) and guide deployment decisions.<n>We identify a double measurement confound: execution-critical decisions are performed by a fixed scaffold instead of the model, while the scorer evaluates outputs using criteria that may not reflect task correctness.<n>We unify these issues within a measurement-theoretic framework that characterizes when benchmark scores can be interpreted as evidence of model capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-06T21:23:11Z)
• STABLEVAL: Disagreement-Aware and Stable Evaluation of AI Systems [3.263813419432528]
  Majority vote discards annotator reliability and item-level ambiguity, often yielding unstable comparisons.<n>We introduce STABLEVAL, a disagreement-aware evaluation framework.<n>STABLEVAL is explicitly designed for stable and uncertainty-aware system evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T01:03:48Z)
• Evaluating Uplift Modeling under Structural Biases: Insights into Metric Stability and Model Robustness [8.135022024189306]
  In personalized marketing, uplift models estimate incremental effects by modeling how customer behavior changes under alternative treatments.<n>Real-world data often exhibit biases, such as selection bias, spillover effects, and unobserved confounding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T11:54:25Z)
• RoHOI: Robustness Benchmark for Human-Object Interaction Detection [84.78366452133514]
  Human-Object Interaction (HOI) detection is crucial for robot-human assistance, enabling context-aware support.<n>We introduce the first benchmark for HOI detection, evaluating model resilience under diverse challenges.<n>Our benchmark, RoHOI, includes 20 corruption types based on the HICO-DET and V-COCO datasets and a new robustness-focused metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T01:58:04Z)
• JAB: Joint Adversarial Prompting and Belief Augmentation [81.39548637776365]
  We introduce a joint framework in which we probe and improve the robustness of a black-box target model via adversarial prompting and belief augmentation. This framework utilizes an automated red teaming approach to probe the target model, along with a belief augmenter to generate instructions for the target model to improve its robustness to those adversarial probes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T00:35:54Z)
• 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)
• TRUST-LAPSE: An Explainable and Actionable Mistrust Scoring Framework for Model Monitoring [4.262769931159288]
  We propose TRUST-LAPSE, a "mistrust" scoring framework for continuous model monitoring. We assess the trustworthiness of each input sample's model prediction using a sequence of latent-space embeddings. Our latent-space mistrust scores achieve state-of-the-art results with AUROCs of 84.1 (vision), 73.9 (audio), and 77.1 (clinical EEGs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-22T18:32:38Z)
• RobustBench: a standardized adversarial robustness benchmark [84.50044645539305]
  Key challenge in benchmarking robustness is that its evaluation is often error-prone leading to robustness overestimation. We evaluate adversarial robustness with AutoAttack, an ensemble of white- and black-box attacks. We analyze the impact of robustness on the performance on distribution shifts, calibration, out-of-distribution detection, fairness, privacy leakage, smoothness, and transferability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T17:06:18Z)
• Offline Contextual Bandits with Overparameterized Models [52.788628474552276]
  We ask whether the same phenomenon occurs for offline contextual bandits. We show that this discrepancy is due to the emphaction-stability of their objectives. In experiments with large neural networks, this gap between action-stable value-based objectives and unstable policy-based objectives leads to significant performance differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-27T13:52:07Z)

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.