Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Position: AI Competitions Provide the Gold Standard for Empirical Rigor in GenAI Evaluation

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 2505.00612 v2 pith:EX274QEH submitted 2025-05-01 cs.AI

Position: AI Competitions Provide the Gold Standard for Empirical Rigor in GenAI Evaluation

classification cs.AI
keywords competitionsevaluationgenaiempiricaltypicallyfactfieldgold
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this position paper, we observe that empirical evaluation in Generative AI is at a crisis point since traditional ML evaluation and benchmarking strategies are insufficient to meet the needs of evaluating modern GenAI models and systems. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that these models typically have nearly unbounded input and output spaces, typically do not have a well defined ground truth target, and typically exhibit strong feedback loops and prediction dependence based on context of previous model outputs. On top of these critical issues, we argue that the problems of leakage and contamination are in fact the most important and difficult issues to address for GenAI evaluations. Interestingly, the field of AI Competitions has developed effective measures and practices to combat leakage for the purpose of counteracting cheating by bad actors within a competition setting. This makes AI Competitions an especially valuable (but underutilized) resource. Now is time for the field to view AI Competitions as the gold standard for empirical rigor in GenAI evaluation, and to harness and harvest their results with according value.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Adaptive Adversaries: A Multi-Turn, Multi-LLM Benchmark for LLM Agent Security

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Adaptive multi-turn LLM attacks raise attack success from near 0% to 5.4–14.0% on frontier defenders, with scenario-specific defender weaknesses that aggregate scores hide.