Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.02145 v3 pith:5LZPZHSV submitted 2021-04-05 cs.CL

What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?

classification cs.CL
keywords benchmarkswillarguecriteriacurrentevaluationlanguagenatural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluation for many natural language understanding (NLU) tasks is broken: Unreliable and biased systems score so highly on standard benchmarks that there is little room for researchers who develop better systems to demonstrate their improvements. The recent trend to abandon IID benchmarks in favor of adversarially-constructed, out-of-distribution test sets ensures that current models will perform poorly, but ultimately only obscures the abilities that we want our benchmarks to measure. In this position paper, we lay out four criteria that we argue NLU benchmarks should meet. We argue most current benchmarks fail at these criteria, and that adversarial data collection does not meaningfully address the causes of these failures. Instead, restoring a healthy evaluation ecosystem will require significant progress in the design of benchmark datasets, the reliability with which they are annotated, their size, and the ways they handle social bias.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Do Androids Dream of Breaking the Game? Systematically Auditing AI Agent Benchmarks with BenchJack

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    BenchJack audits 10 AI agent benchmarks, synthesizes exploits achieving near-perfect scores without task completion, surfaces 219 flaws, and reduces hackable-task ratios to under 10% on four benchmarks via iterative patching.

  2. The Case for Model Science: Verify, Explore, Steer, Refine

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Position paper proposing Model Science as a discipline to systematically analyze AI model behavior beyond benchmarks, drawing analogies from cognitive science, neuroscience, medicine, and agriculture.