Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Testing the Predictive Validity of Commonsense Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03340v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 08:49:34 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Testing the Predictive Validity of Commonsense Benchmarks
• Abstract summary: We evaluate 23 models from six families on four established commonsense benchmarks, four reworked variants, three non-commonsense controls, and eight downstream tasks.<n>We compare model rankings, compute controlled correlations, and use leave-one-family-out cross-validation to assess the criterion validity of commonsense benchmarks.
• Score: 1.671764884922859
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Predicting LLM's capabilities on real-world tasks is essential, yet the extent to which performance on commonsense benchmarks predicts downstream performance remains underspecified. To establish the practical usability of widely adopted commonsense benchmarks, we evaluate 23 models from six families on four established commonsense benchmarks, four reworked variants, three non-commonsense controls, and eight downstream tasks requiring implicit social, pragmatic, temporal, or physical reasoning. We compare model rankings, compute controlled correlations, and use leave-one-family-out cross-validation to assess the criterion validity of commonsense benchmarks. Our results show that revised benchmarks largely preserve original model rankings and do not improve downstream predictive power. Commonsense benchmarks show consistent cross-family predictive validity for only a narrow subset of downstream tasks, with smaller or metric-specific gains elsewhere. Overall, standardized commonsense benchmarks provide task-dependent rather than broad evidence of downstream commonsense competence.

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)
• Silicon Bureaucracy and AI Test-Oriented Education: Contamination Sensitivity and Score Confidence in LLM Benchmarks [43.45152572188735]
  We propose an audit framework for analyzing contamination sensitivity and score confidence in language models.<n>We find widespread but heterogeneous above-baseline gains under noisy conditions.<n>These results suggest that similar benchmark scores may carry substantially different levels of confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T07:03:07Z)
• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• Benchmark^2: Systematic Evaluation of LLM Benchmarks [66.2731798872668]
  We propose Benchmark2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics.<n>We conduct experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains.<n>Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction can achieve comparable evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T14:59:03Z)
• The Flaw of Averages: Quantifying Uniformity of Performance on Benchmarks [32.00464870277127]
  We study benchmark reliability from a distributional perspective and introduce benchmark harmony.<n>High harmony is a desirable benchmark property, indicating that the aggregate metric reflects uniform competence across models.<n>By recommending that harmony should be reported alongside accuracy, we reframe evaluation from simple performance averages to a more robust, distributionally reliable measurement of performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T02:14:30Z)
• 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)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• 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)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.