mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Benchmark Trap: Structures of Power and Injustice in AI Evaluations

arXiv 2608.15326 ↗First posted 15 Aug 2026cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial intelligence (AI) benchmarks are not neutral tools of evaluation but socio-technical artefacts that shape competition, power, and research priorities within AI. Benchmarks standardise the assessment of systems and facilitate the creation of leaderboards that reward state-of-the-art performance with prestige, citations, trust, and institutional influence. As the costs of developing competitive AI systems rise, these rewards increasingly concentrate among powerful, industry-funded labs. This paper situates these concerns within Iris Marion Young's theories of oppression and structural injustice. It argues that current benchmarking practices may perpetuate systematic harms affecting various actors in AI research, aligning with four of Young's "faces of oppression". Benchmarking culture is further framed as a source of structural injustice, as these harms emerge from normalised, individually defensible practices and network effects, even without explicit wrongdoing. By reinforcing existing power structures and narrowing possible research trajectories, benchmarking may in fact prevent the field from advancing in epistemically robust and socially beneficial ways.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2026.

Builds on

22 of 60 references.

References · 22

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  2. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
  3. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,151
  4. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  5. 2025Humanity's Last Examcited by 467
  6. 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 340
  7. 2023NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmarkcited by 339
  8. 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
  9. 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
  10. 2022Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AIcited by 137
  11. 2020Participation is not a Design Fix for Machine Learningcited by 110
  12. 2020Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligencecited by 100
10 more
  1. 2021Reduced, Reused and Recycled: The Life of a Dataset in Machine Learning Researchcited by 100
  2. 2022Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?cited by 89
  3. 2022Mapping global dynamics of benchmark creation and saturation in artificial intelligencecited by 71
  4. 2025Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems Is a Social Science Measurement Challengecited by 61
  5. 2024ECBD: Evidence-Centered Benchmark Design for NLPcited by 27
  6. 2023Algorithmic Pluralism: A Structural Approach To Equal Opportunitycited by 13
  7. 2025Evaluating the Quality of Benchmark Datasets for Low-Resource Languages: A Case Study on Turkishcited by 12
  8. 2025Eval Factsheets: A Structured Framework for Documenting AI Evaluationscited by 8
  9. 2025Social Bias in Popular Question-Answering Benchmarkscited by 5
  10. 2024Assessing Bias in Metric Models for LLM Open-Ended Generation Bias Benchmarkscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.