Benchmarking AI for low-resource contexts: Thinking beyond leaderboards

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28508v2
• Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:52:51 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking AI for low-resource contexts: Thinking beyond leaderboards
• Abstract summary: Existing AI evaluation practices often fail to capture how systems actually perform in low-resource environments.<n>We propose a shared reporting framework that preserves comparability across systems and application types.<n>We emphasize the need for concise and actionable reporting artifacts for policymakers, donors, and implementers.
• Score: 0.39583175274885346
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing AI evaluation practices often fail to capture how systems actually perform in low-resource environments, where operational constraints shape usability as much as model quality. Through a structured analysis of existing benchmark families across speech, chat/RAG, and vision systems, we identify critical gaps between laboratory evaluation practices and real-world deployment conditions in low-resource environments. We argue that the meaningful unit of assessment is the deployed system rather than an isolated model and that effective evaluation frameworks must integrate task performance with deployment conditions such as noisy inputs, code-switching, intermittent connectivity, low-end hardware, and domain shift. At the same time, benchmarks should recognize that different application classes require distinct evaluation profiles rather than a single aggregate score that obscures operational differences. To support practical decision-making, we propose a shared reporting framework that preserves comparability across systems and application types while remaining sensitive to deployment context. Finally, we emphasize the need for concise and actionable reporting artifacts for policymakers, donors, and implementers, including standardized one-page benchmark cards, deployment profiles, and explicit documentation of failure handling procedures and human oversight mechanisms.

Related papers

• A Unified Framework for the Evaluation of LLM Agentic Capabilities [36.43241368835721]
  We present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities.<n> Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction--tool--environment format.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:20:45Z)
• 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)
• An Agentic Retrieval Framework for Autonomous Context-Aware Data Quality Assessment [0.0]
  We propose a unified agentic-retrieval framework for autonomous context-aware data quality assessment.<n>The framework interprets natural-language descriptions of intended data usage, derives context-aware assessment strategies, and generates executable validation logic.<n>We implement the proposed framework as an end-to-end prototype and evaluate it across multiple usage scenarios applied to the same dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T11:24:53Z)
• A Sanity Check on Composed Image Retrieval [91.95275287747499]
  Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) aims to retrieve a target image based on a query composed of a reference image, and a relative caption that specifies the desired modification.<n>We introduce FISD, a Fully-Informed Semantically-Diverse benchmark, which employs generative models to precisely control the variables of reference-target image pairs.<n>We propose an automatic multi-round agentic evaluation framework to probe the potential of the existing models in the interactive scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T15:52:22Z)
• AlphaEval: Evaluating Agents in Production [32.52315519888507]
  We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business.<n>Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T00:43:20Z)
• UniDial-EvalKit: A Unified Toolkit for Evaluating Multi-Faceted Conversational Abilities [70.79422099851506]
  We present UniDial-EvalKit (UDE), a unified evaluation toolkit for assessing interactive AI systems.<n>UDE standardizes heterogeneous data formats into a universal schema, streamlines complex evaluation pipelines through a modular architecture, and aligns metric calculations under a consistent scoring interface.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T13:01:31Z)
• CUAAudit: Meta-Evaluation of Vision-Language Models as Auditors of Autonomous Computer-Use Agents [15.119045051735633]
  Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) are emerging as a new paradigm in human-computer interaction, enabling autonomous execution of tasks in desktop environment by perceiving high-level natural-language instructions.<n>Existing evaluation pipelines rely on static benchmarks, rule-based success checks, or manual inspection, which are brittle, costly, and poorly aligned with real-world usage.<n>We study Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as autonomous auditors for assessing CUA task completion directly from observable interactions.<n>We find that while state-of-the-art VLMs achieve strong accuracy and calibration, all auditors exhibit notable performance degradation in more complex
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T09:28:41Z)
• Case-Aware LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation for Enterprise-Scale RAG Systems [0.0]
  We present a case-aware LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework for enterprise multi-turn RAG systems.<n>The framework evaluates each turn using eight operationally grounded metrics that separate retrieval quality, grounding fidelity, answer utility, precision integrity, and case/workflow alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T21:37:06Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• RADDLE: An Evaluation Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Robust Task-oriented Dialog Systems [75.87418236410296]
  We introduce the RADDLE benchmark, a collection of corpora and tools for evaluating the performance of models across a diverse set of domains. RADDLE is designed to favor and encourage models with a strong generalization ability. We evaluate recent state-of-the-art systems based on pre-training and fine-tuning, and find that grounded pre-training on heterogeneous dialog corpora performs better than training a separate model per domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-29T08:58:49Z)

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.