More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866915052885377024 |
|---|---|
| author | Hardy, Amelia Reuel, Anka Meimandi, Kiana Jafari Soder, Lisa Griffith, Allie Asmar, Dylan M. Koyejo, Sanmi Bernstein, Michael S. Kochenderfer, Mykel J. |
| author_facet | Hardy, Amelia Reuel, Anka Meimandi, Kiana Jafari Soder, Lisa Griffith, Allie Asmar, Dylan M. Koyejo, Sanmi Bernstein, Michael S. Kochenderfer, Mykel J. |
| contents | Public AI benchmark results are widely broadcast by model developers as indicators of model quality within a growing and competitive market. However, these advertised scores do not necessarily reflect the traits of interest to those who will ultimately apply AI models. In this paper, we seek to understand if and how AI benchmarks are used to inform decision-making. Based on the analyses of interviews with 19 individuals who have used, or decided against using, benchmarks in their day-to-day work, we find that across these settings, participants use benchmarks as a signal of relative performance difference between models. However, whether this signal was considered a definitive sign of model superiority, sufficient for downstream decisions, varied. In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress. By contrast, in both product and policy, benchmarks -- even those developed internally for specific tasks -- were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions. Of the benchmarks deemed unsatisfactory, respondents reported that their goals were neither well-defined nor reflective of real-world use. Based on the study results, we conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals. They must capture diverse, task-relevant capabilities, be challenging enough to avoid quick saturation, and account for trade-offs in model performance rather than relying on a single score. Additionally, proprietary data collection and contamination prevention are critical for producing reliable and actionable results. By adhering to these criteria, benchmarks can move beyond mere marketing tricks into robust evaluative frameworks. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2412_05520 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners Hardy, Amelia Reuel, Anka Meimandi, Kiana Jafari Soder, Lisa Griffith, Allie Asmar, Dylan M. Koyejo, Sanmi Bernstein, Michael S. Kochenderfer, Mykel J. Artificial Intelligence Public AI benchmark results are widely broadcast by model developers as indicators of model quality within a growing and competitive market. However, these advertised scores do not necessarily reflect the traits of interest to those who will ultimately apply AI models. In this paper, we seek to understand if and how AI benchmarks are used to inform decision-making. Based on the analyses of interviews with 19 individuals who have used, or decided against using, benchmarks in their day-to-day work, we find that across these settings, participants use benchmarks as a signal of relative performance difference between models. However, whether this signal was considered a definitive sign of model superiority, sufficient for downstream decisions, varied. In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress. By contrast, in both product and policy, benchmarks -- even those developed internally for specific tasks -- were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions. Of the benchmarks deemed unsatisfactory, respondents reported that their goals were neither well-defined nor reflective of real-world use. Based on the study results, we conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals. They must capture diverse, task-relevant capabilities, be challenging enough to avoid quick saturation, and account for trade-offs in model performance rather than relying on a single score. Additionally, proprietary data collection and contamination prevention are critical for producing reliable and actionable results. By adhering to these criteria, benchmarks can move beyond mere marketing tricks into robust evaluative frameworks. |
| title | More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05520 |