Position: State-of-the-Art Claims Require State-of-the-Art Evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17273v2
• Date: Sun, 24 May 2026 15:35:33 GMT
• Title: Position: State-of-the-Art Claims Require State-of-the-Art Evidence
• Abstract summary: State-of-the-Art (SOTA) claims pervade Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) research.<n>These claims rest on benchmark evaluations, where models are ranked by aggregate scores across tasks.<n>We identify a widespread claim-evidence gap in AI benchmarking.<n>We argue that claim language should reflect the strength of the underlying evidence.
• Score: 7.225436467899107
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: State-of-the-Art (SOTA) claims pervade Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) research. These claims rest on benchmark evaluations, where models are ranked by aggregate scores across tasks. Public benchmarks or leaderboards are the most visible instance, but the same structure appears in paper tables throughout the literature. However, such minimal evidence often cannot support these strong claims. We identify a widespread claim-evidence gap in AI benchmarking. Claiming SOTA carries implicit assumptions beyond mean score superiority, suggesting that a model meaningfully outperforms alternatives across most tasks. However, a marginal improvement in the mean score merely indicates a top average rank rather than true superiority. Analyzing ten cross-domain benchmarks from public leaderboards, we found that in more than half of top-model comparisons, at least one commonly assumed property of superiority does not hold. These properties include meaningful effect size, consistency across tasks, or robustness to dataset removal. Instead, aggregate gains are frequently driven by outlier datasets. This fragility persists even in benchmarks with many tasks. We argue that claim language should reflect the strength of the underlying evidence. This requires no additional experiments, only honest reporting of what results actually show, enabling more precise and interpretable comparisons across models.

Related papers

• An Embarrassingly Simple Graph Heuristic Reveals Shortcut-Solvable Benchmarks for Sequential Recommendation [50.09718257952108]
  Sequentialsolv has increasingly shifted toward generative recommenders that combine sequential patterns with semantic item information.<n>These methods are often evaluated on a small set of widely used benchmarks, raising a key question: do these benchmarks actually require the advanced modeling capabilities that modern generative recommenders claim to provide?<n>We conduct a benchmark audit with an intentionally simple graph. Starting from only the last one or two items, it retrieves candidates from a few-hop item-transition graph and ranks them by item-feature similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T02:00:11Z)
• When AI Benchmarks Plateau: A Systematic Study of Benchmark Saturation [80.66788281323414]
  We analyze benchmark saturation across 60 Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarks selected from technical reports by major model developers.<n>Our analysis reveals that nearly half of the benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing as benchmarks age.<n>Expert-curated benchmarks resist saturation better than crowdsourced ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T16:51:37Z)
• Uncovering Competency Gaps in Large Language Models and Their Benchmarks [11.572508874955659]
  We propose a new method that uses sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to automatically uncover both types of gaps.<n>We found that models consistently underperformed on concepts that stand in contrast to sycophantic behaviors.<n>Our method offers a representation-grounded approach to evaluation, enabling concept-level decomposition of benchmark scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-06T17:39:47Z)
• Benchmark Profiling: Mechanistic Diagnosis of LLM Benchmarks [34.09939383415074]
  Benchmark Profiling decomposes benchmark performance into ten cognitively grounded abilities.<n>It explains why performance gains do not always translate into user-perceived competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T15:32:47Z)
• Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability? [66.1783478365998]
  We investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability.<n>Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks.<n>We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:58:19Z)
• More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners [42.73526862595375]
  In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress.<n>In product and policy, benchmarks were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions.<n>We conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T03:35:39Z)
• 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)
• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers.<n>LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs.<n>We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• 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)
• A Closer Look at Debiased Temporal Sentence Grounding in Videos: Dataset, Metric, and Approach [53.727460222955266]
  Temporal Sentence Grounding in Videos (TSGV) aims to ground a natural language sentence in an untrimmed video. Recent studies have found that current benchmark datasets may have obvious moment annotation biases. We introduce a new evaluation metric "dR@n,IoU@m" that discounts the basic recall scores to alleviate the inflating evaluation caused by biased datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-10T08:58:18Z)

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.