# Exposing Assumptions in AI Benchmarks through Cognitive Modelling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16849 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.16849/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehend](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.03340/) (2015)
- [Neural Network Acceptability Judgments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.12471/) (2018)
- [XTREME: A Massively Multilingual Multi-task Benchmark for Evaluating Cross-lingual Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.11080/) (2020)
- [AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.15366/) (2021)
- [tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14992/) (2024)
- [Measurement and Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.05511/) (2019)
- [Assessing Cross-Cultural Alignment between ChatGPT and Human Societies: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17466/) (2023)
- [MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16049/) (2023)
- [The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.15590/) (2021)
- [Personality Traits in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.00184/) (2023)
- [Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16786/) (2024)
- [Cultural Bias and Cultural Alignment of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.14096/) (2023)
- [The PRISM Alignment Dataset: What Participatory, Representative and Individualised Human Feedback Reveals About the Subjective and Multicultural Alignment of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16019/) (2024)
- [Bias Out-of-the-Box: An Empirical Analysis of Intersectional Occupational Biases in Popular Generative Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.04130/) (2021)
- [Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07572/) (2022)
- [Evaluating and Inducing Personality in Pre-trained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07550/) (2022)
- [Cultural Alignment in Large Language Models: An Explanatory Analysis Based on Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12342/) (2023)
- [SeaEval for Multilingual Foundation Models: From Cross-Lingual Alignment to Cultural Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.04766/) (2023)
- [Encoder vs Decoder: Comparative Analysis of Encoder and Decoder Language Models on Multilingual NLU Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13469/) (2024)
- [Recite, Reconstruct, Recollect: Memorization in LMs as a Multifaceted Phenomenon](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17746/) (2024)
- [A Hierarchy of Limitations in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.05193/) (2020)
- [ScandEval: A Benchmark for Scandinavian Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.00906/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Cultural AI benchmarks often rely on implicit assumptions about measured constructs, leading to vague formulations with poor validity and unclear interrelations. We propose exposing these assumptions using explicit cognitive models formulated as Structural Equation Models. Using cross-lingual alignment transfer as an example, we show how this approach can answer key research questions and identify missing datasets. This framework grounds benchmark construction theoretically and guides dataset development to improve construct measurement. By embracing transparency, we move towards more rigorous, cumulative AI evaluation science, challenging researchers to critically examine their assessment foundations.