mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2505.00612 ↗First posted 1 May 2025cs.AIcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 May 2025.

Builds on

16 of 40 references.

References · 16

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  4. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  5. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
  6. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  7. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 2,004
  8. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515
  9. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
  10. 2014OpenML: networked science in machine learningcited by 526
  11. 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 348
  12. 2024FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AIcited by 243
4 more
  1. 2022Data Contamination: From Memorization to Exploitationcited by 236
  2. 2023Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Modelscited by 230
  3. 2024Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMscited by 229
  4. 2025The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Inputcited by 52

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 6.

8 papers.