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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00612 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00612/

## 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 (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10811/) (2019)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [OpenML: networked science in machine learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1407.7722/) (2014)
- [NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18018/) (2023)
- [FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04872/) (2024)
- [Data Contamination: From Memorization to Exploitation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.08242/) (2022)
- [Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17623/) (2023)
- [Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03927/) (2024)
- [The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Input](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03200/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [CapBencher: Give Your LLM Benchmark a Built-in Alarm for Test-Set Overfitting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18102/) (2025)
- [Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14652/) (2025)
- [AI Evaluation Should Require Standardized Item-Level Data Releases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03244/) (2026)
- [Adaptive Adversaries: A Multi-Turn, Multi-LLM Benchmark for LLM Agent Security](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.18063/) (2026)
- [Selecting Language Models for Social Science: Start Small, Start Open, and Validate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.10926/) (2026)
- [The ecosystem of machine learning competitions: Platforms, participants, and their impact on AI development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08001/) (2026)
- [An Investigation of the NeurIPS and ICML 2025 Position Tracks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.16894/) (2026)
- [Training Witnesses: Trusting the Training without Trusting the Trainer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33915/) (2026)

## 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.