arXiv preprint ·
Do Not Trust the Benchmark: Limitations of General LLM Rankings and a Case for Task-Specific Evaluation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Benchmark scores increasingly influence the development, marketing, and selection of large language models (LLMs). Yet an overall score is interpretable only in relation to the system tested, the questions included, and the conditions of evaluation. This perspective examines five connected limitations of general LLM rankings: differences between evaluated and publicly available systems; commercial incentives and dependencies in external evaluation; benchmark saturation, defective tests, and data contamination; models exploiting scoring procedures; and the limited relevance of general scores to users' tasks. Documented cases illustrate why these problems require different responses. I argue for evaluation procedures that disclose the tested configuration, validate questions and successful task completion, report performance alongside cost and execution time, and make the scope of generalization explicit. I then discuss \textbf{Isotanta}, a crowdsourced benchmarking platform, as a practical example of contributed questions and repeated evaluation. A larger question pool may improve task coverage, while repeated sampling can improve the stability of estimates on that pool; neither guarantees validity or personalization. The paper distinguishes the platform's current shared ranking from proposed task-specific and user-provided evaluations. Its central argument is that model selection requires evidence about performance on the intended work, not simply a high position on a general leaderboard.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Toward Auditable and Calibrated AI for Dementia-Related Crash Severity Prediction: A Selective Deferral Framework to Support Human Review
Identity Continuity in Long-Term Embodied AI Relationships: From Agent-Specific Identity Representation to Identity-Continuity Appraisal
When Disability Disclosure Travels: Memory, Privacy, and Contextual Integrity in Conversational AI
Heating in human-HVAC interaction for smart homes: An interdisciplinary overview
The Moral Check: Strategic AI Governance for the Pacing Problem
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.