mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Theory of Dynamic Benchmarks

arXiv 2210.03165 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2022cs.LG stat.MLcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Dynamic benchmarks interweave model fitting and data collection in an attempt to mitigate the limitations of static benchmarks. In contrast to an extensive theoretical and empirical study of the static setting, the dynamic counterpart lags behind due to limited empirical studies and no apparent theoretical foundation to date. Responding to this deficit, we initiate a theoretical study of dynamic benchmarking. We examine two realizations, one capturing current practice and the other modeling more complex settings. In the first model, where data collection and model fitting alternate sequentially, we prove that model performance improves initially but can stall after only three rounds. Label noise arising from, for instance, annotator disagreement leads to even stronger negative results. Our second model generalizes the first to the case where data collection and model fitting have a hierarchical dependency structure. We show that this design guarantees strictly more progress than the first, albeit at a significant increase in complexity. We support our theoretical analysis by simulating dynamic benchmarks on two popular datasets. These results illuminate the benefits and practical limitations of dynamic benchmarking, providing both a theoretical foundation and a causal explanation for observed bottlenecks in empirical work.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2022.

Builds on

23 of 33 references.

References · 23

  1. 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
  2. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,507
  3. 2016The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse contextcited by 960
  4. 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
  5. 2020Measuring Robustness to Natural Distribution Shifts in Image Classificationcited by 452
  6. 2021Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLPcited by 447
  7. 2018SWAG: A Large-Scale Adversarial Dataset for Grounded Commonsense Inferencecited by 333
  8. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 306
  9. 2021The GEM Benchmark: Natural Language Generation, its Evaluation and Metricscited by 239
  10. 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
  11. 2019Build it Break it Fix it for Dialogue Safety: Robustness from Adversarial Human Attackcited by 176
  12. 2020Adversarial Filters of Dataset Biasescited by 159
11 more
  1. 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 123
  2. 2014Preserving Statistical Validity in Adaptive Data Analysiscited by 102
  3. 2015The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitionscited by 67
  4. 2020DynaSent: A Dynamic Benchmark for Sentiment Analysiscited by 63
  5. 2021Dynaboard: An Evaluation-As-A-Service Platform for Holistic Next-Generation Benchmarkingcited by 53
  6. 2021Models in the Loop: Aiding Crowdworkers with Generative Annotation Assistantscited by 31
  7. 2021On the Efficacy of Adversarial Data Collection for Question Answering: Results from a Large-Scale Randomized Studycited by 30
  8. 2021Analyzing Dynamic Adversarial Training Data in the Limitcited by 24
  9. 2021Adversarially Constructed Evaluation Sets Are More Challenging, but May Not Be Faircited by 12
  10. 2021Personalized Benchmarking with the Ludwig Benchmarking Toolkitcited by 6
  11. 2022Sequential Nature of Recommender Systems Disrupts the Evaluation Processcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 6; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area: