BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices
read the original abstract
AI models are increasingly prevalent in high-stakes environments, necessitating thorough assessment of their capabilities and risks. Benchmarks are popular for measuring these attributes and for comparing model performance, tracking progress, and identifying weaknesses in foundation and non-foundation models. They can inform model selection for downstream tasks and influence policy initiatives. However, not all benchmarks are the same: their quality depends on their design and usability. In this paper, we develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues. We further find that most benchmarks do not report statistical significance of their results nor allow for their results to be easily replicated. To support benchmark developers in aligning with best practices, we provide a checklist for minimum quality assurance based on our assessment. We also develop a living repository of benchmark assessments to support benchmark comparability, accessible at betterbench.stanford.edu.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Taxonomy and Consistency Analysis of Safety Benchmarks for AI Agents
This paper delivers the first systematic taxonomy and cross-benchmark consistency analysis of 40 agent safety benchmarks, finding broad but shallow risk coverage, no ranking concordance across evaluations, and that be...
-
Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results
Introduces the first community-governed unified JSON schema and crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results, with converters and a database spanning 22,235 models and 2,273 benchmarks.
-
SPEC CPU: The Next Generation
SPEC CPU 2026 presents a new benchmark suite using open-source apps, expanded multithreading, and Rolling-Round-Robin Rate to address gaps in evaluating heterogeneous multiprogrammed CPU performance.
-
Welfare, Improvability, and Variance: A Principal-Agent Approach to Optimal Benchmark Item Aggregation
Models benchmarking as principal-agent game, derives welfare loss from welfare alignment, improvability and variance, and applies an audit framework to OLMES items.
-
Towards Real-World Validity in Generative AI Benchmarks: Understanding and Designing Domain-Centered Evaluations for Journalism Practitioners
A human-centered design workshop with journalism practitioners yields an evaluation cookbook and design requirements for contextualized, value-aligned generative AI benchmarks.
-
AI Sandboxes: A Threat Model, Taxonomy, and Measurement Framework
The paper presents a threat model, taxonomy, and six-dimension measurement framework for AI sandboxes to clarify valid testing claims for safety, security, and regulatory assurance.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.