CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 21Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics and Social Impacts of AIScientific Computing and Data Management

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Questionable practices in machine learning

Open access
Leech, Gavin, Vazquez, Juan J., Kupper, Niclas, Yagudin, Misha, Aitchison, Laurence·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2407.12220arXiv 2407.12220
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Evaluating modern ML models is hard. The strong incentive for researchers and companies to report a state-of-the-art result on some metric often leads to questionable research practices (QRPs): bad practices which fall short of outright research fraud. We describe 44 such practices which can undermine reported results, giving examples where possible. Our list emphasises the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on public benchmarks. We also discuss "irreproducible research practices", i.e. decisions that make it difficult or impossible for other researchers to reproduce, build on or audit previous research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2407.12220

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Failing to assess usefulness against alternative methodologies or misrepresenting comparisons can lead to follow-up work that rests on false assumptions.

    “Failing to do so or misrepresenting these comparisons can lead to follow-up work that rests on false assumptions (Lipton & Steinhardt, 2019;Leech et al., 2024).”

    From Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability (2025) · cites this paper as Leech et al., 2024

    Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.7 describe weak or undertuned comparators and conclusions that exaggerate evaluation results, supporting the concern about misleading comparisons. Our copy does not explicitly say that such comparisons cause follow-up work to rest on false assumptions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 175

  1. Marah Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harkirat Behl, et al. Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219, 2024a. · arXiv
  2. Marah Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harkirat Singh Behl, Alon Benhaim, Misha Bilenko, Johan Bjorck, Sébastien Bubeck, Martin Cai, Caio C'esar Teodoro Mendes, Weizhu Chen, Vishrav Chaudhary, Parul Chopra, Allison Del Giorno, Gustavo de Rosa, Matthew Dixon, Ronen Eldan, Dan Iter, Abhishek Goswami, Suriya Gunasekar, Emman Haider, Junheng Hao, Russell J. Hewett, Jamie Huynh, Mojan Javaheripi, Xin Jin, Piero Kauffmann, Nikos Karampatziakis, Dongwoo Kim, Mahoud Khademi, Lev Kurilenko, James R. Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Chen Liang, Weishung Liu, Eric Lin, Zeqi Lin, Piyush Madan, Arindam Mitra, Hardik Modi, Anh Nguyen, Brandon Norick, Barun Patra, Daniel Perez-Becker, Thomas Portet, Reid Pryzant, Heyang Qin, Marko Radmilac, Corby Rosset, Sambudha Roy, Olli Saarikivi, Amin Saied, Adil Salim, Michael Santacroce, Shital Shah, Ning Shang, Hiteshi Sharma, Xianmin Song, Olatunji Ruwase, Xin Wang, Rachel Ward, Guanhua Wang, Philipp Witte, Michael Wyatt, Can Xu, Jiahang Xu, Sonali Yadav, Fan Yang, Ziyi Yang, Donghan Yu, Cheng-Yuan Zhang, Cyril Zhang, Jianwen Zhang, Li Lyna Zhang, Yi Zhang, Yunan Zhang, and Xiren Zhou. Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone. ArXiv, abs/2404.14219, 2024b. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 269293048. · arXiv
  3. Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  4. Rachith Aiyappa, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, and Yong-Yeol Ahn. Can we trust the evaluation on ChatGPT? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12767, 2023. · arXiv
  5. Chittaranjan Andrade. HARKing, cherry-picking, p-hacking, fishing expeditions, and data dredging and mining as questionable research practices. The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 82(1):25941, 2021.
  6. Simone Balloccu, Patrícia Schmidtová, Mateusz Lango, and Ondřej Dušek. Leak, cheat, repeat: Data contamination and evaluation malpractices in closed-source LLMs. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024.
  7. Benedikt Barz and Joachim Denzler. Do we train on test data? purging CIFAR of near-duplicates. Journal of Imaging, 6(6):41, June 2 2020. doi: 10.3390/jimaging6060041. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Samuel J Bell, Onno Kampman, Jesse Dodge, and Neil Lawrence. Modeling the machine learning multiverse. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18416-18429, 2022.
  9. Alina Beygelzimer, Yann Dauphin, Percy Liang, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment. https://blog.neurips.cc/2021/12/08/ the-neurips-2021-consistency-experiment/, 2021.
  10. Anne-Laure Boulesteix and Matthias Schmid. Machine learning versus statistical modeling. Biomet- rical Journal, 56(4):588-593, 2014.
  11. Xavier Bouthillier, César Laurent, and Pascal Vincent. Unreproducible Research is Reproducible. In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov, editors, Proceedings of the 36th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Re- search, pages 725-734. PMLR, 09-15 Jun 2019. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/ bouthillier19a.html.
  12. Samuel R Bowman. The dangers of underclaiming: Reasons for caution when reporting how NLP systems fail. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08300, 2021. · arXiv
  13. Eleftheria Briakou, Colin Cherry, and George Foster. Searching for Needles in a Haystack: On the Role of Incidental Bilingualism in PaLM's translation capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10266, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  15. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 2633-2650, 2021.
  16. Rich Caruana and Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil. An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, pages 161-168, 2006.
  17. Lawrence Chan. Can You Trust An AI Press Release? https://asteriskmag.com/issues/07/ can-you-trust-an-ai-press-release, 2024.
  18. Nishanth Chandran, Sunayana Sitaram, Divya Gupta, Rahul Sharma, Kashish Mittal, and Manohar Swaminathan. Private Benchmarking to Prevent Contamination and Improve Comparative Evaluation of LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00393, 2024. · arXiv
  19. Alessandro Checco, Lorenzo Bracciale, Pierpaolo Loreti, Stephen Pinfield, and Giuseppe Bianchi. AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1):1-11, 2021.
  20. Andrew Chen, Andrew Chow, Andrew Davidson, Annanya DCunha, Ali Ghodsi, Stephanie Ann Hong, Andy Konwinski, Clemens Mewald, Simeon Murching, Tomas Nykodym, and Paul Ogilvie. Developments in MLflow: A system to accelerate the machine learning lifecycle. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Data Management for End-to-End Machine Learning, pages 1-4, June 14 2020.
  21. Lingjiao Chen, Zhihua Jin, Evan Sabri Eyuboglu, Christopher Ré, Matei Zaharia, and James Y Zou. Hapi: A large-scale longitudinal dataset of commercial ML API predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24571-24585, 2022.
  22. Lingjiao Chen, Matei Zaharia, and James Zou. How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09009, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021. · arXiv
  24. Xiangning Chen, Chen Liang, Da Huang, Esteban Real, Kaiyuan Wang, Hieu Pham, Xuanyi Dong, Thang Luong, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Yifeng Lu, et al. Symbolic discovery of optimization algorithms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36, 2024.
  25. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam M. Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier García, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Díaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 24:240:1-240:113, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 247951931.
  26. Hyung Won Chung, Thibault Févry, Henry Tsai, Melvin Johnson, and Sebastian Ruder. Rethinking embedding coupling in pre-trained language models, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010. 12821.
  27. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems, 2021a. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2110.14168. · arXiv
  28. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021b. · arXiv
  29. Christian Collberg and Todd A Proebsting. Repeatability in computer systems research. Communi- cations of the ACM, 59(3):62-69, 2016.
  30. Andrew Cropper and Sebastijan Dumančić. Inductive logic programming at 30: a new introduction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 74:765-850, 2022.
  31. Maurizio Ferrari Dacrema, Simone Boglio, Paolo Cremonesi, and Dietmar Jannach. A Troubling Anal- ysis of Reproducibility and Progress in Recommender Systems Research. CoRR abs/1911.07698 (2019). arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.07698, 2019. · arXiv
  32. Alexander D'Amour, Katherine Heller, Dan Moldovan, Ben Adlam, Babak Alipanahi, Alex Beutel, Christina Chen, Jonathan Deaton, Jacob Eisenstein, Matthew D Hoffman, et al. Underspecification presents challenges for credibility in modern machine learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(226):1-61, 2022.
  33. Luc De Raedt. Logical and relational learning. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
  34. Mostafa Dehghani, Anurag Arnab, Lucas Beyer, Ashish Vaswani, and Yi Tay. The efficiency misnomer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12894, 2021. · arXiv
  35. Jasper Dekoninck, Mark Niklas Müller, and Martin Vechev. ConStat: Performance-Based Contami- nation Detection in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16281, 2024. · arXiv
  36. Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248-255. Ieee, 2009.
  37. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:52967399.
  38. Jesse Dodge, Suchin Gururangan, Dallas Card, Roy Schwartz, and Noah A Smith. Show your work: Improved reporting of experimental results. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03004, 2019. · arXiv
  39. Jesse Dodge, Gabriel Ilharco, Roy Schwartz, Ali Farhadi, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Noah Smith. Fine-tuning pretrained language models: Weight initializations, data orders, and early stopping. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06305, 2020. · arXiv
  40. Ricardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Florian E Dorner, and Moritz Hardt. Training on the test task confounds evaluation and emergence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07890, 2024. · arXiv
  41. Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-experts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5547-5569.
  42. PMLR, 2022.
  43. Nouha Dziri, Sivan Milton, Mo Yu, Osmar Zaiane, and Siva Reddy. On the origin of hallucinations in conversational models: Is it the datasets or the models? In Marine Carpuat, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, and Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, editors, Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5271-5285, Seattle, United States, July 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.387. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022. naacl-main.387. · DOI · Paper page
  44. E Eichten, Ian Hinchliffe, K Lane, and Chris Quigg. Supercollider physics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 56(4):579, 1984.
  45. Richard Evans and Edward Grefenstette. Learning explanatory rules from noisy data. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 61:1-64, 2018.
  46. Maurizio Ferrari Dacrema, Simone Boglio, Paolo Cremonesi, and Dietmar Jannach. A troubling analysis of reproducibility and progress in recommender systems research. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 39(2):1-49, 2021.
  47. Philip J Fleming and John J Wallace. How not to lie with statistics: the correct way to summarize benchmark results. Communications of the ACM, 29(3):218-221, 1986.
  48. Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2023. · arXiv
  49. A Gelman and E Lokem. The statistical crisis in science data-dependent analysis-a 'garden of forking paths'-explains why many statistically significant comparisons don't hold up. Am. Sci, 102(460):460, 2014.
  50. Aryo Pradipta Gema, Joshua Ong Jun Leang, Giwon Hong, Alessio Devoto, Alberto Carlo Maria Mancino, Rohit Saxena, Xuanli He, Yu Zhao, Xiaotang Du, Mohammad Reza Ghasemi Madani, et al. Are We Done with MMLU? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04127, 2024. · arXiv
  51. Team Gemini, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. · arXiv
  52. Oguzhan Gencoglu, Mark van Gils, Esin Guldogan, Chamin Morikawa, Mehmet Süzen, Mathias Gruber, Jussi Leinonen, and Heikki Huttunen. HARK Side of Deep Learning-From Grad Student Descent to Automated Machine Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.07633, 2019. · arXiv
  53. Paolo Glorioso, Quentin Anthony, Yury Tokpanov, James Whittington, Jonathan Pilault, Adam Ibrahim, and Beren Millidge. Zamba: A Compact 7B SSM hybrid model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16712, 2024. · arXiv
  54. Shahriar Golchin and Mihai Surdeanu. Time travel in LLMs: Tracing data contamination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08493, 2023. · arXiv
  55. Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative Adversarial Nets. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2014. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:261560300.
  56. Odd Erik Gundersen and Sigbjørn Kjensmo. State of the art: Reproducibility in artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018.
  57. Odd Erik Gundersen, Kevin Coakley, Christine Kirkpatrick, and Yolanda Gil. Sources of irrepro- ducibility in machine learning: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07610, 2022. · arXiv
  58. V. Gupta, D. Pantoja, C. Ross, A. Williams, and M. Ung. Changing Answer Order Can Decrease MMLU Accuracy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19470, 2024. · arXiv
  59. Daniel G Hamilton, Kyungwan Hong, Hannah Fraser, Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Fiona Fidler, and Matthew J Page. Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data. bmj, 382, 2023.
  60. Peter Henderson, Riashat Islam, Philip Bachman, Joelle Pineau, Doina Precup, and David Meger. Deep reinforcement learning that matters. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018.
  61. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. · arXiv
  62. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021a. · arXiv
  63. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021b. · arXiv
  64. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. · arXiv
  65. Sabine Hoffmann, Felix Schönbrodt, Ralf Elsas, Rory Wilson, Ulrich Strasser, and Anne-Laure Boulesteix. The multiplicity of analysis strategies jeopardizes replicability: lessons learned across disciplines. Royal Society Open Science, 8(4):201925, 2021.
  66. Mahan Hosseini, Michael Powell, John Collins, Chloe Callahan-Flintoft, William Jones, Howard Bowman, and Brad Wyble. I tried a bunch of things: The dangers of unexpected overfitting in classification of brain data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 119:456-467, 2020. ISSN 0149- 7634. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.036. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0149763420305868. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Yue Hu, Yuehong Cassandra Tai, and Frederick Solt. Revisiting the evidence on thermostatic response to democratic change: degrees of democratic support or researcher degrees of freedom? Political Science Research and Methods, page 1-7, 2024. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2024. · DOI
  68. Jessica Hullman, Sayash Kapoor, Priyanka Nanayakkara, Andrew Gelman, and Arvind Narayanan. The worst of both worlds: A comparative analysis of errors in learning from data in psychology and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 335-348, 2022.
  69. Matthew Hutson. Missing data hinder replication of artificial intelligence stud- ies. https://www.science.org/content/article/missing-data-hinder-replication-artificial-intelligence- studies, 2018.
  70. Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, et al. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088, 2024a. · arXiv
  71. Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de Las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, L'elio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. Mistral 7B. ArXiv, abs/2310.06825, 2023b. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:263830494. · arXiv
  72. Minhao Jiang, Ken Ziyu Liu, Ming Zhong, Rylan Schaeffer, Siru Ouyang, Jiawei Han, and Sanmi Koyejo. Investigating data contamination for pre-training language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06059, 2024b. · arXiv
  73. Z. Jiang, M. Yang, M. Tsirlin, R. Tang, Y. Dai, and J. Lin. "Low-resource" text classification: A parameter-free classification method with compressors. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 6810-6828, July 2023c.
  74. Leslie K John, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological science, 23(5):524-532, 2012.
  75. Jean Kaddour, Joshua Harris, Maximilian Mozes, Herbie Bradley, Roberta Raileanu, and Robert McHardy. Challenges and applications of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10169, 2023. · arXiv
  76. Jean Kaddour, Oscar Key, Piotr Nawrot, Pasquale Minervini, and Matt J Kusner. No train no gain: Revisiting efficient training algorithms for transformer-based language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  77. Subbarao Kambhampati. Can LLMs really reason and plan?, 2023. URL https://cacm.acm.org/ blogcacm/can-llms-really-reason-and-plan/.
  78. S. Kapoor, B. Stroebl, Z.S. Siegel, N. Nadgir, and A. Narayanan. AI Agents That Matter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01502, 2024. · arXiv
  79. Ryan Kennedy, Scott Clifford, Tyler Burleigh, Philip D. Waggoner, Ryan Jewell, and Nicholas J. G. Winter. The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4):614-629, 2020. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2020. · DOI
  80. Akshaya Keshavarzi Arshadi, Mohamed Salem, Amir Firouzbakht, and Joshua S. Yuan. MolData, a molecular benchmark for disease and target based machine learning. Journal of Cheminformatics, 14(1):10, 2022. doi: 10.1186/s13321-022-00556-2. · DOI
  81. Douwe Kiela, Max Bartolo, Yixin Nie, Divyansh Kaushik, Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Bertie Vidgen, Grusha Prasad, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, et al. Dynabench: Rethinking benchmarking in NLP. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14337, 2021. · arXiv
  82. Nikolaos Koulouris. Preventing Multiple Comparisons Problems in Data Exploration and Machine Learning. PhD thesis, UC San Diego, 2020.
  83. Nikolaus Kriegeskorte. Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 6:79, 2012.
  84. Alex Krizhevsky. Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images. 2009. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18268744.
  85. Doudou LaLoudouana, Mambobo Bonouliqui Tarare, Lupano Tecallonou Center, and GUANA Selacie. Data set selection. Journal of Machine Learning Gossip, 1:11-19, 2003.
  86. Neil D Lawrence. The NeurIPS Experiment. https://inverseprobability.com/talks/notes/ the-neurips-experiment-snsf.html, 2022.
  87. Gavin Leech, Simson Garfinkel, Misha Yagudin, Alexander Briand, and Aleksandr Zhuravlev. Ten Hard Problems in Artificial Intelligence We Must Get Right. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04464, 2024. · arXiv
  88. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474, 2020.
  89. Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ra- masesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3843-3857, 2022.
  90. Changmao Li and Jeffrey Flanigan. Task contamination: Language models may not be few-shot anymore. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18471-18480, 2024.
  91. Mu Li, Tong Zhang, Yuqiang Chen, and Alexander J. Smola. Efficient mini-batch training for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '14, page 661-670, New York, NY, USA, 2014. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450329569. doi: 10.1145/2623330.2623612. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2623330.2623612. · DOI
  92. Percy Liang, Michael I Jordan, and Dan Klein. Learning semantic correspondences with less supervision. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 91-99, 2009.
  93. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110, 2022. · arXiv
  94. Weixin Liang, Zachary Izzo, Yaohui Zhang, Haley Lepp, Hancheng Cao, Xuandong Zhao, Lingjiao Chen, Haotian Ye, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, et al. Monitoring ai-modified content at scale: A case study on the impact of chatgpt on ai conference peer reviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07183, 2024. · arXiv
  95. Thomas Liao, Rohan Taori, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Ludwig Schmidt. Are We Learning Yet? A Meta Review of Evaluation Failures Across Machine Learning. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2), 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=mPducS1MsEK.
  96. Andreas Liesenfeld and Mark Dingemanse. Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '24, page 1774-1787, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400704505. doi: 10.1145/3630106.3659005. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3659005. · DOI · Paper page
  97. Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's Verify Step by Step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023. · arXiv
  98. Zachary C. Lipton and Jacob Steinhardt. Troubling Trends in Machine Learning Scholarship: Some ML papers suffer from flaws that could mislead the public and stymie future research. Queue, 17(1):45-77, feb 2019. ISSN 1542-7730. doi: 10.1145/3317287.3328534. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/3317287.3328534. · DOI · Paper page
  99. Hong Liu, Zhiyuan Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. Sophia: A scalable stochastic second-order optimizer for language model pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14342, 2023. · arXiv
  100. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692, 2019. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 198953378. · arXiv
  101. Zhijie Liu, Yutian Tang, Xiapu Luo, Yuming Zhou, and Liang Feng Zhang. No need to lift a finger anymore? assessing the quality of code generation by chatgpt. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2024.
  102. Michael A. Lones. How to avoid machine learning pitfalls: a guide for academic researchers, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.02497. · arXiv
  103. Gaëlle Loosli and Stéphane Canu. Comments on the "Core Vector Machines: Fast SVM Training on Very Large Data Sets". Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8(11):291-301, 2007. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v8/loosli07a.html.
  104. Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08786, 2021. · arXiv
  105. Mario Lucic, Karol Kurach, Marcin Michalski, Sylvain Gelly, and Olivier Bousquet. Are gans created equal? a large-scale study. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018.
  106. Inbal Magar and Roy Schwartz. Data contamination: From memorization to exploitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08242, 2022. · arXiv
  107. Maximilian M Mandl, Andrea S Becker-Pennrich, Ludwig C Hinske, Sabine Hoffmann, and Anne- Laure Boulesteix. Addressing researcher degrees of freedom through minP adjustment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11537, 2024. · arXiv
  108. Alexandre Matton, Tom Sherborne, Dennis Aumiller, Elena Tommasone, Milad Alizadeh, Jingyi He, Raymond Ma, Maxime Voisin, Ellen Gilsenan-McMahon, and Matthias Gallé. On Leakage of Code Generation Evaluation Datasets, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07565. · arXiv
  109. Scott E Maxwell, Michael Y Lau, and George S Howard. Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does "failure to replicate" really mean? American Psychologist, 70(6):487, 2015.
  110. Nick McGreivy and Ammar Hakim. Weak baselines and reporting biases lead to overoptimism in machine learning for fluid-related partial differential equations. Nature Machine Intelligence, pages 1-14, 2024.
  111. Gábor Melis, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. On the state of the art of evaluation in neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05589, 2017. · arXiv
  112. Gemma Team Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, L. Sifre, Morgane Riviere, Mihir Kale, J Christopher Love, Pouya Dehghani Tafti, L'eonard Hussenot, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Adam Roberts, Aditya Barua, Alex Botev, Alex Castro-Ros, Ambrose Slone, Am'elie H'eliou, Andrea Tacchetti, Anna Bulanova, Antonia Paterson, Beth Tsai, Bobak Shahriari, Charline Le Lan, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Cl'ement Crepy, Daniel Cer, Daphne Ippolito, David Reid, Elena Buchatskaya, Eric Ni, Eric Noland, Geng Yan, George Tucker, George-Christian Muraru, Grigory Rozhdestvenskiy, Henryk Michalewski, Ian Tenney, Ivan Grishchenko, Jacob Austin, James Keeling, Jane Labanowski, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Jeff Stanway, Jenny Brennan, Jeremy Chen, Johan Ferret, Justin Chiu, Justin Mao-Jones, Katherine Lee, Kathy Yu, Katie Millican, Lars Lowe Sjoesund, Lisa Lee, Lucas Dixon, Machel Reid, Maciej Mikula, Mateo Wirth, Michael Sharman, Nikolai Chinaev, Nithum Thain, Olivier Bachem, Oscar Chang, Oscar Wahltinez, Paige Bailey, Paul Michel, Petko Yotov, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Rahma Chaabouni, Ramona Comanescu, Reena Jana, Rohan Anil, Ross McIlroy, Ruibo Liu, Ryan Mullins, Samuel L Smith, Sebastian Borgeaud, Sertan Girgin, Sholto Douglas, Shree Pandya, Siamak Shakeri, Soham De, Ted Klimenko, Tom Hennigan, Vladimir Feinberg, Wojciech Stokowiec, Yu hui Chen, Zafarali Ahmed, Zhitao Gong, Tris Brian Warkentin, Ludovic Peran, Minh Giang, Cl'ement Farabet, Oriol Vinyals, Jeffrey Dean, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Demis Hassabis, Zoubin Ghahramani, Douglas Eck, Joelle Barral, Fernando Pereira, Eli Collins, Armand Joulin, Noah Fiedel, Evan Senter, Alek Andreev, and Kathleen Kenealy. Gemma: Open Models Based on Gemini Research and Technology. ArXiv, abs/2403.08295, 2024. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:268379206. · arXiv
  113. Moran Mizrahi, Guy Kaplan, Dan Malkin, Rotem Dror, Dafna Shahaf, and Gabriel Stanovsky. State of what art? a call for multi-prompt LLM evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00595, 2023. · arXiv
  114. Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor. Is GPT-4 getting worse over time. AI Snake Oil, 2023b. Chairs NeurIPS. Soliciting Participants for the NeurIPS 2024 Check- list Assistant Study, 2024. https://blog.neurips.cc/2024/05/07/ soliciting-participants-for-the-neurips-2024-checklist-assistant-study/.
  115. Shiwen Ni, Xiangtao Kong, Chengming Li, Xiping Hu, Ruifeng Xu, Jia Zhu, and Min Yang. Training on the Benchmark Is Not All You Need. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01790, 2024. · arXiv
  116. Harsha Nori, Yin Tat Lee, Sheng Zhang, Dean Carignan, Richard Edgar, Nicolo Fusi, Nicholas King, Jonathan Larson, Yuanzhi Li, Weishung Liu, et al. Can generalist foundation models outcompete special-purpose tuning? case study in medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16452, 2023. · arXiv
  117. Curtis G Northcutt, Anish Athalye, and Jonas Mueller. Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14749, 2021. · arXiv
  118. Yonatan Oren, Nicole Meister, Niladri Chatterji, Faisal Ladhak, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Proving test set contamination in black box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17623, 2023. · arXiv
  119. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feed- back. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744.
  120. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/ b1efde53be364a73914f58805a001731-Paper-Conference.pdf.
  121. Jonathan Pei, Kevin Yang, and Dan Klein. PREADD: Prefix-adaptive decoding for controlled text generation. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 10018-10037, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.636. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.636. · DOI
  122. Jason Phang, Thibault Févry, and Samuel R Bowman. Sentence encoders on stilts: Supplementary training on intermediate labeled-data tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01088, 2018. · arXiv
  123. Jose Picado, Arash Termehchy, Alan Fern, Sudhanshu Pathak, Praveen Ilango, and John Davis. Scalable and Usable Relational Learning With Automatic Language Bias. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '21, page 1440-1451, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450383431. doi: 10.1145/3448016.3457275. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3448016.3457275. · DOI
  124. David Picard. Torch. manual seed (3407) is all you need: On the influence of random seeds in deep learning architectures for computer vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08203, 2021. · arXiv
  125. Joelle Pineau, Philippe Vincent-Lamarre, Koustuv Sinha, Vincent Lariviere, Alina Beygelzimer, Florence d'Alche Buc, Emily Fox, and Hugo Larochelle. Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research(A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program). Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(164):1-20, 2021. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v22/20-303.html.
  126. Edward Raff. A step toward quantifying independently reproducible machine learning research. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.
  127. Benjamin Recht, Rebecca Roelofs, Ludwig Schmidt, and Vaishaal Shankar. Do ImageNet classifiers generalize to ImageNet? In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov, editors, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5389-5400. PMLR, 09-15 Jun 2019a. URL https://proceedings.mlr. press/v97/recht19a.html.
  128. Benjamin Recht, Rebecca Roelofs, Ludwig Schmidt, and Vaishaal Shankar. Do imagenet classifiers generalize to imagenet? In International conference on machine learning, pages 5389-5400.
  129. PMLR, 2019b.
  130. Machel Reid, Nikolay Savinov, Denis Teplyashin, Dmitry Lepikhin, Timothy Lillicrap, Jean-baptiste Alayrac, Radu Soricut, Angeliki Lazaridou, Orhan Firat, Julian Schrittwieser, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024. · arXiv
  131. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022, 2023. · arXiv
  132. Ehud Reiter, Roma Robertson, and Liesl M Osman. Lessons from a failure: Generating tailored smoking cessation letters. Artificial Intelligence, 144(1-2):41-58, 2003.
  133. Steffen Rendle, Li Zhang, and Yehuda Koren. On the difficulty of evaluating baselines: A study on recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.01395, 2019. · arXiv
  134. Martin Riddell, Ansong Ni, and Arman Cohan. Quantifying Contamination in Evaluating Code Generation Capabilities of Language Models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04811. · arXiv
  135. Manley Roberts, Himanshu Thakur, Christine Herlihy, Colin White, and Samuel Dooley. To the Cutoff... and Beyond? A Longitudinal Perspective on LLM data contamination. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=m2NVG4Htxs.
  136. Timo B Roettger. Researcher degrees of freedom in phonetic research. Laboratory Phonology, 10(1), 2019.
  137. David Rogers and Mathew Hahn. Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 50(5):742-754, 2010. doi: 10.1021/ci100050t. · DOI
  138. Giuseppe Russo Latona, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Tim R Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, and Robert West. The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2405, 2024.
  139. Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mondal, and Aman Chadha. A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927, 2024. · arXiv
  140. Oscar Sainz, Iker García Ferrero, Eneko Agirre, Jon Ander Campos, Alon Jacovi, Yanai Elazar, and Yoav Goldberg. Data-contamination-database. https://huggingface.co/spaces/CONDA- Workshop/Data-Contamination-Database, 2024.
  141. D Sculley, Jasper Snoek, and Alex Wiltschko. Avoiding a tragedy of the commons in the peer review process. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06246, 2018a. · arXiv
  142. D. Sculley, Jasper Snoek, Alex Wiltschko, and Ali Rahimi. Winner's Curse? On Pace, Progress, and Empirical Rigor, 2018b. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJWF0Fywf.
  143. Weijia Shi, Anirudh Ajith, Mengzhou Xia, Yangsibo Huang, Daogao Liu, Terra Blevins, Danqi Chen, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Detecting pretraining data from large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16789, 2023. · arXiv
  144. N. Shinn, F. Cassano, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, 2024.
  145. Joseph P Simmons, Leif D Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological science, 22(11):1359-1366, 2011.
  146. Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13138, 2022. · arXiv
  147. P. Sodhi, S.R.K. Branavan, and R. McDonald. Heap: Hierarchical policies for web actions using llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03720, 2023. · arXiv
  148. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929-1958, 2014.
  149. Sara Steegen, Francis Tuerlinckx, Andrew Gelman, and Wolf Vanpaemel. Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5):702-712, 2016.
  150. S. Steshin. Lo-Hi: practical ML drug discovery benchmark. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  151. Andie Storozuk, Marilyn Ashley, Véronic Delage, and Erin A Maloney. Got bots? Practical recommendations to protect online survey data from bot attacks. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(5):472-481, 2020.
  152. Kushal Tirumala, Aram Markosyan, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Armen Aghajanyan. Memoriza- tion Without Overfitting: Analyzing the Training Dynamics of Large Language Models. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 38274-38290.
  153. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/ fa0509f4dab6807e2cb465715bf2d249-Paper-Conference.pdf.
  154. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  155. Ivor W. Tsang, James T. Kwok, and Pak-Ming Cheung. Core Vector Machines: Fast SVM Training on Very Large Data Sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6(13):363-392, 2005. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v6/tsang05a.html.
  156. F. Urbina, F. Lentzos, C. Invernizzi, and et al. Dual use of artificial-intelligence-powered drug discovery. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4:189-191, March 2022. doi: 10.1038/s42256-022-00465-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00465-9. · DOI · Paper page
  157. Vladimir Vapnik. Principles of risk minimization for learning theory. Advances in neural information processing systems, 4, 1991.
  158. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  159. Diane Vaughan. The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago press, 1996.
  160. Felix Vogel, Nina Shvetsova, Leonid Karlinsky, and Hilde Kuehne. Vl-taboo: An analysis of attribute-based zero-shot capabilities of vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06103, 2022. · arXiv
  161. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461, 2018. · arXiv
  162. Yuqing Wang and Yun Zhao. Gemini in reasoning: Unveiling commonsense in multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17661, 2023. · arXiv
  163. Xiang Wei, Xingyu Cui, Ning Cheng, Xiaobin Wang, Xin Zhang, Shen Huang, Pengjun Xie, Jinan Xu, Yufeng Chen, Meishan Zhang, et al. Zero-shot information extraction via chatting with ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10205, 2023. · arXiv
  164. Yuxiang Wei, Zhe Wang, Jiawei Liu, Yifeng Ding, and Lingming Zhang. Magicoder: Empowering Code Generation with OSS-Instruct, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02120. · arXiv
  165. Zhenqin Wu, Bharath Ramsundar, Evan N. Feinberg, Joseph Gomes, Caleb Geniesse, Aneesh S. Pappu, Karl Leswing, and Vijay Pande. Moleculenet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning. Chem. Sci., 9:513-530, 2018. doi: 10.1039/C7SC02664A. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/ C7SC02664A. · DOI · Paper page
  166. Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. WizardLM: Empowering Large Language Models to Follow Complex Instructions, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12244. · arXiv
  167. Katherine Xu, Lingzhi Zhang, and Jianbo Shi. Good Seed Makes a Good Crop: Discovering Secret Seeds in Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14828, 2024. · arXiv
  168. Shuo Yang, Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Rethinking benchmark and contamination for language models with rephrased samples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04850, 2023. · arXiv
  169. Wei Yang, Kuang Lu, Peilin Yang, and Jimmy Lin. Critically examining the" neural hype" weak baselines and the additivity of effectiveness gains from neural ranking models. In Proceedings of the 42nd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pages 1129-1132, 2019.
  170. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence? In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019a. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:159041722.
  171. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830, 2019b. · arXiv
  172. Bowen Zhang, Daijun Ding, and Liwen Jing. How would stance detection techniques evolve after the launch of chatgpt? arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14548, 2022. · arXiv
  173. Sarah J Zhang, Samuel Florin, Ariel N Lee, Eamon Niknafs, Andrei Marginean, Annie Wang, Keith Tyser, Zad Chin, Yann Hicke, Nikhil Singh, et al. Exploring the MIT mathematics and EECS curriculum using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08997, 2023. · arXiv
  174. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International conference on machine learning, pages 12697-12706.
  175. PMLR, 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Leech, G., Vazquez, J. J., Kupper, N., Yagudin, M., & Aitchison, L.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2407.12220
arXiv
2407.12220
OpenAlex
W4403749567
Cited by
21
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
UK Research and Innovation (EP/S022937/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
questionable research practices, machine learning model evaluation, large language models, benchmark evaluation, research integrity, scientific fraud, reproducibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review