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
What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Do Androids Dream of Breaking the Game? Systematically Auditing AI Agent Benchmarks with BenchJack
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.
-
The Case for Model Science: Verify, Explore, Steer, Refine
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.