WiCkeD: A Simple Method to Make Multiple Choice Benchmarks More Challenging
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce WiCkeD, a simple method to increase the complexity of existing multiple-choice benchmarks by randomly replacing a choice with "None of the above", a method often used in educational tests. We show that WiCkeD can be automatically applied to any existing benchmark, making it more challenging. We apply WiCkeD to 6 popular benchmarks and use it to evaluate 18 open-weight LLMs. The performance of the models drops 12.1 points on average with respect to the original versions of the datasets. When using chain-of-thought on 3 MMLU datasets, the performance drop for the WiCkeD variant is similar to the one observed when using the LLMs directly, showing that WiCkeD is also challenging for models with enhanced reasoning abilities. WiCkeD also uncovers that some models are more sensitive to the extra reasoning required, providing additional information with respect to the original benchmarks. We relase our code and data at https://github.com/ahmedselhady/wicked-benchmarks.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2025.
Builds on
15 of 28 references.
References · 15
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,822
- 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
- 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 348
- 2022Leveraging Large Language Models for Multiple Choice Question Answeringcited by 203
- 2024Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arenacited by 76
- 2024Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?cited by 71
3 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 9.
11 papers.
- 2025Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluationcited by 41
- 2026BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarkscited by 5
- 2025When an LLM is apprehensive about its answers -- and when its uncertainty is justifiedcited by 4
- 2026ABCD: All Biases Come Disguisedcited by 3
- 2026Beyond "I Don't Know": Evaluating LLM Self-Awareness in Discriminating Data and Model Uncertaintycited by 2
- 2026Overwhelmed by Choice: Studying LLM Decision Making at Scalecited by 1
- 2026Second Guess: Detecting Uncertainty Through Abstention and Answer Stability in Small Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillationcited by 0
- 2026Check The Scoreboard: An Analysis of Scoring Schemes on Multiple-Choice Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Recognition, Simulation, and Refusal: A Contamination-Aware Study of Classic Psychological Effects in LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026XYEval: Agents say yes to bad advicecited by 0
- 2026Overwhelmed by Choice: Studying LLM Decision Making at Scale26 Sep 2026
- 2026XYEval: Agents say yes to bad advice20 Sep 2026
- 2026Check The Scoreboard: An Analysis of Scoring Schemes on Multiple-Choice Evaluation30 Aug 2026
- 2026Knowing but Not Saying: Preventing Factual Access Failures in LLM SFT via Recall-Anchored Distillation21 Aug 2026
- 2026Recognition, Simulation, and Refusal: A Contamination-Aware Study of Classic Psychological Effects in LLM Agents23 Jul 2026
- 2026Second Guess: Detecting Uncertainty Through Abstention and Answer Stability in Small Language Models25 May 2026
- 2026Beyond "I Don't Know": Evaluating LLM Self-Awareness in Discriminating Data and Model Uncertainty19 Apr 2026
- 2026ABCD: All Biases Come Disguised19 Feb 2026
- 2026BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks5 Feb 2026
- 2025Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluation3 Jul 2025
- 2025When an LLM is apprehensive about its answers -- and when its uncertainty is justified3 Mar 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023NPHardEval: Dynamic Benchmark on Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models via Complexity Classes
- 2025ReasonBENCH: Benchmarking the (In)Stability of LLM Reasoning
- 2025Mitigating Strategy-Selection Bias in Reasoning for More Effective Test-Time Scaling
- 2025Prompting Test-Time Scaling Is A Strong LLM Reasoning Data Augmentation
- 2025OptimalThinkingBench: Evaluating Over and Underthinking in LLMs
- 2025None of the Others: a General Technique to Distinguish Reasoning from Memorization in Multiple-Choice LLM Evaluation Benchmarks
- 2026Ranking Reasoning LLMs under Test-Time Scaling
- 2025Evaluating Judges as Evaluators: The JETTS Benchmark of LLM-as-Judges as Test-Time Scaling Evaluators