arXiv AI
Do Not Trust the Benchmark: Limitations of General LLM Rankings and a Case for Task-Specific Evaluation
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 10
RankLLM: Weighted Ranking of LLMs by Quantifying Question Difficulty
arXiv:2602. 12424v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Benchmarks establish a standardized evaluation framework to systematically assess the performance of large language models (LLMs), facilitating objective comparisons and driving advancements in the field.
arXiv AI
Sep 18
What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks
The paper "What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks" analyzes 14,767 arXiv submissions from 2022 to 2026 that introduce or update evaluation resources for large language models. It systematically maps changes in target systems, domains, evaluation materials, conditions, and scoring mechanisms, revealing a growing emphasis on action, interaction, and professional applications. The study also notes uneven development in model participation, with LLM-based scoring increasing in both agent and non-agent groups, while model-generated materials do not show a comparable rise.
arXiv AI
Jun 3
CoEval: Ranking Language Models for Custom Tasks Without Labeled Data or Trustworthy Benchmarks
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
arXiv AI
Aug 3
Benchmarks Are Not Monolithic: Sample-Level Auditing and Orchestration for LLM Evaluation
arXiv:2607. 28801v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 31
(Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 5
A Judge-Aware Ranking Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models without Ground Truth
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.