The DOI matches its DataCite record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 14 of the 54 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Leaderboard Illusion
Open accessAbstract
Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we identify 27 private LLM variants tested by Meta in the lead-up to the Llama-4 release. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. Providers like Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena, respectively. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data. We show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on our conservative estimates. Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper audits Chatbot Arena and argues that undisclosed private testing, selective score retraction, unequal sampling, and silent model deprecation distort leaderboard rankings and data access. It finds these practices disproportionately benefit a few proprietary providers and can enable overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality.
Key findings
- Private testing and selective disclosure are widespread among preferred providers: Meta tested 27 private variants on the main Arena (43 including vision) before Llama-4, Google 10, Amazon 7, OpenAI 3, and Cohere 6. Simulating best-of-N selection, testing just 10 variants yields roughly a 100-point increase in maximum Arena score; real experiments with identical Aya-Vision-8B checkpoints produced different scores (1069 vs. 1052), and two Aya-Vision-32B variants scored 1097 vs. 1059.
- Data access is highly asymmetric: Google and OpenAI received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all Arena data, respectively; OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic collectively account for 62.8%, 68 times more than top academic/non-profit labs. A combined 83 open-weight models received an estimated 29.7% of total data, while 41 fully open-source models received 8.8%. Maximum daily sampling rates reached 34% for Google/OpenAI, versus 3.3% for Reka.
- Arena data access drives large in-distribution gains but not broad generalization: increasing Arena data in a fine-tuning mixture from 0% to 70% raised win-rate on ArenaHard from 23.5% to 49.9% against Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, a 112.3% relative gain, while MMLU accuracy slightly declined from 66.5% to 64.4% and 65.9%.
- Deprecation is opaque and uneven: of 243 public models, 205 were silently deprecated, versus 47 officially listed. Among silently deprecated models, 66% are open-weight or fully open-source; 86.6% of open-weight and 87.8% of open-source models were silently deprecated, compared with 30% of officially deprecated models being proprietary.
Methods
- The authors combine multiple data sources covering 2M battles, 243 models, and 42 providers from January 2024 to April 2025, including historical battles, API prompts, leaderboard statistics, a scraped random sample of 5,864 battles from January–March 2025, and about 500 vision-leaderboard samples.
- They run simulations of Bradley-Terry ranking under best-of-N private testing, changing task distributions with deprecation, and sparse/disconnected comparison graphs, plus real-world private variant submissions of Aya-Vision models to Chatbot Arena.
- They fine-tune a 7B Cohere Command-family base model with 0%, 30%, and 70% Arena data in the training mixture for 1.3K steps at batch size 128, evaluating on 500 English ArenaHard prompts with GPT-4o as judge and on MMLU.
Limitations
- The paper states it lacks access to Chatbot Arena’s raw data, that private battles are removed from released datasets, and that it cannot investigate adversarial voting; its scraped snapshot covers only January–March 2025 and may underestimate private variant counts for providers with fewer launches in that period.
- The authors state their training experiments likely underestimate overfitting because proprietary providers may use 5–10 times more data, and that private model attribution relies on model self-identification, which is approximate and may cause misattributions.
- Evident from the text: several analyses rely on proprietary API data, simulations, or scraped samples rather than full Arena data, and the recommendations are based on observed policies and practices during a limited audit window.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
14 of 54 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
In principle, the BT model should still handle deprecation reliably because of the transitivity property.
“However, in principle, the BT model should still handle this reliably because of the transitivity property (Boubdir et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Boubdir et al., 2024 source
Section 3.1 describes transitivity as a desirable property that can allow model comparisons without direct head-to-head evaluations. But the paper discusses Elo rather than the BT model, does not address deprecation, and reports circumstances in which Elo rankings violate transitivity. It therefore does not establish that BT would handle deprecation reliably. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Overfitting is a particularly salient challenge in static evaluation settings, where fixed test sets are vulnerable to overfitting through repeated exposure, data contamination, or intentional tuning.
“Overfitting is a particularly salient challenge in static evaluation settings, where fixed test sets are vulnerable to overfitting through repeated exposure, data contamination, or intentional tuning (Deng et al., 2024;Golchin & Surdeanu, 2024;Roberts et al., 2023;Dong et al., 2024;Singh et al., 2024a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Deng et al., 2024 source
The Introduction says benchmark data in training sets can inflate performance metrics, and §4.3 reports that deliberately fine-tuning on the MMLU test set produced a nearly 100% exact-match rate. This supports the risk from data contamination and intentional tuning, but the paper does not establish repeated exposure as a separate route to overfitting or explicitly compare static with other evaluation settings. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Golchin & Surdeanu, 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Roberts et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Various works have shown that LM-as-a-judge is correlated with human preferences.
“Various works have shown that this is correlated with human preferences (Dubois et al., 2023;Rafailov et al., 2023;Kim et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
Benchmarks are rarely impartial and are shaped by the environments in which they are made.
“Research has found that benchmarks are rarely impartial and instead shaped by the environments in which the benchmarks are made”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites Aniba et al., 2010 source
The Conclusions and Perspectives section says benchmark design reflects a field’s scientific paradigm and that choices about what to include are statements of values. This supports the claim that benchmarks are shaped by their context, but the paper does not establish that benchmarks are rarely impartial. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Bartz-Beielstein et al., 2020 source
Section 4 (‘Algorithms’; page unavailable) calls the choice of algorithms ‘one of the most subjective choices’ in a benchmarking study, and Section 3 (‘Problem Instances’; page unavailable) says the choice of problem instances can heavily influence results. These passages support the point that benchmark design shapes outcomes, but they do not establish that benchmarks are rarely impartial or that they are shaped specifically by the environments in which they are made. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Static task-based leaderboards are often susceptible to data contamination and implicit overfitting.
“Static task-based leaderboards, such as Hugging Face's Open LLM Leaderboard (Fourrier et al., 2024;Gao et al., 2024) and OpenCompass (Contributors, 2023), aim to evaluate models across a broad range of skills but are often susceptible to data contamination and implicit overfitting”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Deng et al., 2024 source
The Introduction says benchmark data can enter training sets and artificially inflate performance metrics, and the Contaminated Data section reports evidence of potential contamination in widely used benchmarks. The Limitations section only suggests possible overfitting in multi-choice tasks; it does not establish that static task-based leaderboards generally suffer from implicit overfitting. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Golchin & Surdeanu, 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Roberts et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Human voting has been shown to mitigate some biases associated with LLM-as-a-judge approaches.
“Human voting has been shown to mitigate some of the biases associated with using LLM-as-a-judge approaches”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Raina et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Koo et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Shimabucoro et al., 2023 source
The Introduction and §§3.2–4.2 discuss biases in few-shot-learning performance estimators, not biases in LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Searches for human voting and human annotators judging language models found no passage addressing whether voting mitigates those biases. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
Four models are positioned between the two identical checkpoints on the leaderboard.
“As a result, 4 models are positioned between our two identical checkpoints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Family A's models have a lower average Arena score across all models compared to Family B's.
“Although the performance of both model families is in a similar range, Family A's models have a lower average Arena score across all models compared to Family B's.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Proprietary model providers collect significantly more test prompts and model battle outcomes than others.
“However, proprietary model providers collect significantly more test prompts and model battle outcomes than others.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
No private models were tested by academic labs during the observed period.
“Notably, we found that no private models were tested by academic labs during the observed period.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Out of 243 public models, 205 have been silently deprecated.
“As shown in Figure 17, out of 243 public models, 205 have been silently deprecated.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Provide transparency into what models are being removed from the leaderboard. · plain
“While 47 out of 243 public models are officially listed as deprecated, we measure that 205 have been silently removed by the organizers without informing the provider.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 5. Provide transparency into what models are being removed from the leaderboard. · plain
- Findingown data
OpenAI received an estimated 20.4% of all data on the arena.
“Providers like Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § -Charles A. E. Goodhart · hedged
“Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all test prompts on the arena, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § -Charles A. E. Goodhart · hedged
- Findingown data
The paper finds large biases towards proprietary models in sampling rates.
“Our work finds large biases towards proprietary models in sampling rates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Deprecation disproportionately impacts open-weight and open-source models, creating large asymmetries in data access over time.
“We find deprecation disproportionately impacts open-weight and open-source models, creating large asymmetries in data access over time (Section 4.1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Private testing is an undisclosed policy.
“Private testing is an undisclosed policy”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Extreme disparities exist in access to data from Chatbot Arena.
“Extreme disparities exist in access to data from Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The paper observes large differences in data access between providers, with 61.4% of all data going to proprietary providers.
“We observe large differences in data access between providers, with 61.4% of all data going to proprietary providers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The authors' open-weight model Aya Expanse appeared notably undersampled compared to proprietary models.
“we observed that our open-weight model appeared to be notably undersampled compared to proprietary models -a discrepancy that is further reflected in Figures 3, 4, and 5.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dang et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingreasoning
Chatbot Arena frequently deprecates models.
“However, Chatbot Arena frequently deprecates models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Smaller startups, such as Reka, were found to have one active private variant live in the arena.
“In contrast, smaller startups, such as Reka, were found to have one active private variant live in the arena.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Launching multiple model variants increased the amount of prompts collected from 5.9% with 1 variant to 19.4% with 3 variants.
“We note that even with our experiment of launching multiple model variants, we increased the amount of prompts collected from 5.9% with 1 variant to 19.4% with 3 variants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Proprietary models consistently received the largest share of data, ranging from 54.3% to 70.1%.
“Proprietary models consistently received the largest share of data-ranging from 54.3% to 70.1%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Cohere submitted 4 private variants as ablations for experiments measuring the lift from private testing.
“We note that during the same period, Cohere submitted 4 private variants-these ablations were part of experiments measuring the lift that could be expected from private testing that we detail in the experiments in Section 3.2 and Section 4.1.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on conservative estimates.
“We show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on our conservative estimates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Chatbot Arena has an undisclosed policy that allows a small group of preferred model providers to test many model variants in private before releasing only the best-performing checkpoint.
“In particular, we identify an undisclosed Chatbot Arena policy that allows a small group of preferred model providers to test many model variants in private before releasing only the best-performing checkpoint.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
In the simulation, testing just 10 variants yields a notable increase of approximately 100 points in the maximum score identified, compared to the baseline scenario with no private testing.
“In our simulation, testing just 10 variants yields a notable increase of approximately 100 points in the maximum score identified, compared to the baseline scenario with no private testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
A combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data.
“In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
A combined 41 fully open-source models have only received an estimated 8.8% of the total data.
“In contrast, a combined 41 fully open-source models have only received an estimated 8.8% of the total data, collectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Open-weight and fully open-source models receive significantly less data, in some cases receiving less than half the amount of data as proprietary developers.
“Open-weight and fully open-source models receive significantly less data, in some cases receiving less than half the amount of data as proprietary developers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Meta tested 27 private LLM variants in the lead-up to the Llama-4 release.
“At an extreme, we identify 27 private LLM variants tested by Meta in the lead-up to the Llama-4 release.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Substantial data asymmetries exist regarding the amount of feedback data given to proprietary vs. open-weight vs. open-source model providers.
“In addition, we find substantial data asymmetries are apparent regarding the amount of feedback data given to proprietary vs. open-weight vs. open-source model providers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Over an extended period, a handful of preferred providers have been granted disproportionate access to data and testing.
“This comprehensive analysis reveals that over an extended period, a handful of preferred providers have been granted disproportionate access to data and testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Restricting private testing to a subset of providers can lead to scenarios where a weaker family of models (Family A) enabled with private testing can outperform a stronger family of models (Family B), which is restricted to a single submission.
“As we show in Figure 8, restricting private testing to a subset of providers can lead to scenarios where a weaker family of models (Family A) enabled with private testing can outperform a stronger family of models (Family B), which is restricted to a single submission.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation
In a controlled experimental setting, increasing the arena training data proportion from 0% to 70% more than doubles the win-rates from 23.5% to 49.9% on ArenaHard.
“In a controlled experimental setting, we observe that increasing the arena training data proportion from (0% → 70%) more than doubles the win-rates from 23.5% to 49.9% on ArenaHard (Li et al., 2024c).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Li et al., 2024c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingown data
Certain model developers (most notably Meta, Google, Open AI and Amazon) have benefited from extensive private testing.
“We show that certain model developers (most notably Meta, Google, Open AI and Amazon) have benefited from extensive private testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
This allows providers to collect 100% of the test prompts submitted on the Arena.
“This allows providers to collect 100% of the test prompts submitted on the Arena.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Google had 10 private models preceding the release of Gemma 3.
“We observed that Meta and Google had 27 and 10 private models, respectively, which preceded the releases of Llama 4 (Meta, 2025) and Gemma 3 (Google, 2025) models shortly thereafter.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired.
“We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Chatbot Arena has an unstated policy of allowing select providers to test many submissions in parallel.
“Chatbot Arena has an unstated policy of allowing select providers to test many submissions in parallel.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits.
“We show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on our conservative estimates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The number of silently deprecated models (205) is significantly higher than the 47 models officially listed as deprecated in FastChat.
“This is a significantly higher number than the 47 models officially listed as deprecated as part of Chatbot Arena's backend codebase, FastChat 5 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
As the number of privately tested models increases, the expected maximum Arena Score discovered rises accordingly.
“As the number of privately tested models increases, the expected maximum Arena Score discovered rises accordingly.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Among models that are silently deprecated, 66% are open-weight or fully open-source.
“Among the models that are silently deprecated, 66% are open-weight or fully open-source.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Google received an estimated 19.2% of all data on the arena.
“Providers like Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § -Charles A. E. Goodhart · hedged
“Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all test prompts on the arena, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § -Charles A. E. Goodhart · hedged
- Findingown data
Sampling rates vary significantly across providers.
“As shown in Figure 5, sampling rates vary significantly across providers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
If private models tested by Meta on the vision leaderboard are considered, there are an additional 16 variants, bringing the total to 43.
“Indeed, if we also consider the number of private models tested by Meta on the vision leaderboard, we observe an additional 16 variants, bringing the total to 43.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
The paper observes large discrepancies across providers, with substantially higher sampling rates for OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta compared to others.
“We observe large discrepancies across providers, with substantially higher sampling rates for OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta compared to others.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Identical checkpoints of Aya-Vision-8B submitted to Chatbot Arena in March 2025 obtained different final Arena scores (1052 vs. 1069).
“In Figure 9, we observe notable differences in final Arena scores between identical checkpoints (1052 vs. 1069).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The scraped-random-sample was the only way to identify private variants being tested by various providers.
“Our scraped-random-sample was the only way to identify private variants being tested by various providers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Sampling rates disproportionately undersample open-weight and open-source models.
“and also disproportionately undersample open-weight and open-source models”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The scraped-random-sample is representative of battles over time on Chatbot Arena.
- Rests on an assumption: The classification of models into proprietary, open-weight, and open-source categories is valid.
- Findingcitation
A subset of the data sources used in this study have undergone pre-processing by Chatbot Arena.
“A subset of the data sources utilized for this study have undergone pre-processing by Chatbot Arena”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
The number of multilingual prompts on the Arena has grown by 20% over 1.5 years, from 23.9% in April 2023 to 43.5% in January 2025.
“Overall, the number of multilingual prompts on the Arena has grown by 20% over 1.5 years, from 23.9% in April 2023 to 43.5% in January 2025.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
Private battles are removed from the datasets released by Chatbot Arena.
“Through this work, we also establish that private battles are removed from the datasets released by Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
205 models on Chatbot Arena have been silently deprecated by reducing their active sampling rates to near zero.
“In addition, as discussed in Section 4.1, 205 models on Chatbot Arena have been silently deprecated by reducing their active sampling rates to near zero (see Figure 17).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Private testing volume varies widely across providers, creating unfair advantages.
“As illustrated in Figure 6, private testing volume varies widely across providers, creating unfair advantages.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Prompt samples available to each provider may not be mutually exclusive, as each battle involves two models, allowing the same prompt to be sent to two different providers.
“We note that the prompt samples available to each provider may not be mutually exclusive, as each battle on the Arena involves two models (from the same or different model providers), allowing the same prompt to be sent to two different providers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
High levels of prompt duplication exist on Chatbot Arena.
“In parallel, we observe high levels of prompt duplication.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The scraped data snapshot covers January-March 2025.
“However, it covers a limited time period from January-March, 2025.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
A non-trivial portion of prompts in one month are either exact duplicates or near-duplicates of prompts from previous months.
“(2) a non-trivial portion of prompts in one month are either exact duplicates or near-duplicates of prompts from previous months.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Meta is the provider with the highest number of private variants in the analysis.
“we find them to be the provider with the highest number of private variants in our analysis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
- Findingown data
The rankings derived from the dense comparison graph align closely with the models' rankings according to their true skill ratings.
“We observe that the rankings derived from the dense comparison graph align closely with the models' rankings according to their true skill ratings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Currently, providers who have engaged in private testing are allowed to retract submissions and only submit the best variant to the public leaderboard.
“Currently, providers who have engaged in private testing are allowed to retract submissions and only submit the best variant to the public leaderboard.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingcitation
The Chatbot Arena-FastChat backend codebase publicly lists 47 models explicitly marked as deprecated on GitHub.
“the backend codebase of Chatbot Arena-FastChatpublicly lists deprecated models on GitHub 25 , where 47 models are explicitly marked as deprecated.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
As the amount of arena-mix data increases, the models improve in their evaluation on the ArenaHard prompts.
“From Figure 10, we observe that as the amount of arena-mix data increases, the models improve in their evaluation on the ArenaHard prompts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation
On Chatbot Arena, notable shifts have been observed in the distribution of prompts evaluated over longer periods, with a consistent increase in the proportion of prompts from more complex categories, such as mathematics, coding, and multi-turn conversations.
“On Chatbot Arena, notable shifts have been observed in the distribution of prompts evaluated over longer periods, with a consistent increase in the proportion of prompts from more complex categories, such as mathematics, coding, and multi-turn conversations 19 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The characteristics of prompts on Chatbot Arena shift notably over time.
“(1) The characteristics of prompts do shift notably over time”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The training experiments are based on only a fraction of the data believed available to some proprietary model providers.
“as it is based on training with only a fraction of the data believed to be available to some proprietary model providers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Four times the number of explicitly marked deprecated models have been silently deprecated without warning.
“However, four times that number have been silently deprecated without warning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A sparse or disconnected comparison graph results in an inaccurate estimation of the models' skills.
“In contrast, a sparse or disconnected comparison graph results in an inaccurate estimation of the models' skills.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Many models are deprecated over time, and their scores stop getting updated.
“However, as shown in Figure 13, many models are deprecated over time, and their scores stop getting updated.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Rankings produced by the BT model are highly sensitive to model deprecation, particularly when the prompt distribution changes over time.
“As illustrated in Figure 14, our simulation shows that rankings produced by the BT model are highly sensitive to model deprecation, particularly when the prompt distribution changes over time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The proportion of languages outside of English has varied over time.
“For example, in Figure 11, we observe that the proportion of languages outside of English has varied over time.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
7.3% of prompts from December 2024 appear again in the exact form in January 2025.
“For instance, 7.3% of prompts from December 2024 appear again in the exact form in January 2025.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Proprietary API data for the models tested on Arena reveals only a subset of battles.
“Although we also have proprietary API data for the models we test on the Arena, it only reveals a subset of battles.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Sampling rates on Chatbot Arena vary greatly by provider.
“As shown in Figure 5, the sampling rates vary greatly by providers”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The scraped-random-sample is representative of battles over time on Chatbot Arena.
- Findingown data
Silent deprecations have a much greater impact on open-weight and open-source models.
“silent deprecations have a much greater impact on openweight and open-source models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Cross-month duplication rates are substantial.
“the substantial cross-month duplication rates”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Using de-anonymization, the paper identified a total of 64 private models corresponding to 10 providers.
“Using this approach, we identified a total of 64 private models corresponding to 10 providers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
- Findingown data
Of the 243 public models, 205 participated in an average of 10 or fewer battles during March 3rd to April 23rd, 2025, based on leaderboard-stats.
“Of the 243 public models, 205 participated in an average of 10 or fewer battles during this period, based on leaderboard-stats.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Large differences in final scores (1097 vs. 1059) are observed for two different model variants of Aya-Vision-32B.
“We observe large differences in final scores (1097 vs. 1059) for the two different model variants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Arena Scores for Aya-Vision-8B yield different Arena scores (1069 vs. 1052) for identical checkpoints.
“Arena Scores for Aya-Vision-8B yield different Arena scores (1069 vs. 1052).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The actual number of deprecated models far exceeds the official count provided by Chatbot Arena.
“the actual number of deprecated models far exceeds the official count provided by Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There are large discrepancies across providers in maximum observed sampling rates, with substantially higher sampling rates for OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta compared to others.
“We observe large discrepancies across providers, with substantially higher sampling rates for OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta compared to others.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: A model's sampling rate determines the amount of data its provider receives.
- Rests on an assumption: The scraped random sample is representative of all Chatbot Arena battles during the period studied.
- Findingown data
The majority of the historical-battles dataset does not contain prompts.
“Majority of historical-battles dataset does not contain prompts as shown in Table 1.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Use of Chatbot Arena dataset significantly improves win-rates on ArenaHard.
“Use of Chatbot Arena dataset significantly improves win-rates on ArenaHard.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Providers like Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon, Meta, and DeepSeek AI have the most actively sampled public models, ranging from 3 to 10.
“providers like Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon, Meta, and DeepSeek AI have the most actively sampled public models, ranging from 3 to 10.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: A model's sampling rate determines the amount of data its provider receives.
- Rests on an assumption: The scraped random sample is representative of all Chatbot Arena battles during the period studied.
- Findingown data
Open-weight and fully open-source models receive significantly less data, in some cases less than half the amount of data as proprietary developers.
“Open-weight and fully open-source models receive significantly less data, in some cases receiving less than half the amount of data as proprietary developers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Proprietary models consistently received the largest share of data, ranging from 54.3% to 70.1%, from January 2024 to March 2025.
“Proprietary models consistently received the largest share of data-ranging from 54.3% to 70.1%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
From Table 9, all models achieve very similar scores on MMLU.
“From Table 9, we observe that all models achieve very similar scores.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Deprecations disproportionately affect open-weight and open-source models compared to proprietary ones.
“deprecations disproportionately affect open-weight and open-source models compared to proprietary ones.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Meta had an additional 16 private models active on the Vision leaderboard along with its 27 models on the Overall leaderboard, bringing its total count to 43.
“We find that Meta had an additional 16 private models active on the Vision leaderboard along with its 27 models on the Overall leaderboard, bringing its total count to 43.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
- Findingown data
User queries in Chatbot Arena are often highly similar or duplicated.
“user queries in Chatbot Arena are often highly similar or duplicated.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Proprietary providers collectively access a considerably greater volume of data compared to the broader research community, which receives only a fraction.
“proprietary providers collectively access a considerably greater volume of data compared to the broader research community, which receives only a fraction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The number of model API calls is a valid measure of the volume of data available to model providers.
- Findingreasoning
Each of the 3 million votes resulted in twice the number of model API calls, i.e., 6 million, because each battle features two models.
“Each of these 3M votes resulted in twice the number of model API calls i.e. 6M since each battle features two models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Overall, open-weight and fully open-source models are more likely to become deprecated or inactive compared to proprietary models.
“Overall, open-weight and fully open-source models are more likely to become deprecated or inactive compared to proprietary models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
According to exact string match and text embedding similarity, within-month duplication rates are generally high.
“according to two metrics (exact string match and text embedding similarity) within-month duplication rates are generally high”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The scraped-random-sample contains 5,864 battles collected by crawling Chatbot Arena between January 2025 and March 2025.
“we collected 5864 battles by crawling Chatbot Arena between January 2025 -March 2025”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The scraped-random-sample is representative of battles over time on Chatbot Arena.
- Findingnone given
Certain practices such as multiple submissions during the anonymous testing period and best-of-N submissions tend to favor large, proprietary players with disproportionate access to data.
“we report in this paper that certain practices-such as multiple submissions during the anonymous testing period and best-of-N submissions-tend to favor large, proprietary players with disproportionate access to data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The leaderboard-stats dataset contains 14.3K records corresponding to 243 unique models evaluated on Chatbot Arena.
“we obtained 14.3K records corresponding to 243 unique models evaluated on Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
These dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality.
“Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Willful engagement from a handful of providers along with preferential policies from Chatbot Arena towards the same small group have amplified the potential for gamification, in place of innovative progress.
“In this work, we show that willful engagement from a handful of providers along with preferential policies from Chatbot Arena towards the same small group have amplified the potential for gamification, in place of innovative progress.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Win-rates are measured on ArenaHard, which has a high correlation of 98.6% to Chatbot Arena.
“The win-rates are measured on ArenaHard (Li et al., 2024c), which has a high correlation of 98.6% to Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Li et al., 2024c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
Chatbot Arena has systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field.
“Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Even with identical variants, it is very feasible to obtain a biased positive advantage.
“This suggests that even with identical variants, it is very feasible to obtain a biased positive advantage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The ability to select the best-scoring variant from N models enables systematic gaming of the Arena rating.
“We show with real-world experiments and simulations that the ability to select the best-scoring variant from N models enables systematic gaming of the Arena rating.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The estimate that training on Chatbot Arena data improves model ranking significantly is conservative because a subset of providers have disproportionate access to private API data, which if used can potentially yield even greater performance gains.
“We believe this is a conservative estimate, as a subset of providers have disproportionate access to private API data, which, if used, can potentially yield even greater performance gains.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Disparities in access to Chatbot Arena data stem from differences in the number of private variants tested, sampling rate, and silent deprecation.
“These disparities stem from difference in the number of private variants tested, sampling rate, and silent deprecation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The ability of providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results.
“We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
These results represent a conservative estimate of gains given the limited access to arena-style data.
“These results represent a conservative estimate of gains given the limited access to arena-style data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Developers who deploy a model and enable Chatbot Arena testing via an API have a default advantage.
“Developers who deploy a model and enable Chatbot Arena testing via an API have a default advantage.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
These policies appear to severely disadvantage open-weight and open-source providers.
“All these policies appear to severely disadvantage open-weight and open-source providers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Deprecation can violate key assumptions of the Bradley-Terry model, thereby reducing the reliability of the leaderboard rankings.
“We show that deprecation can violate key assumptions of the Bradley-Terry model (Bradley & Terry, 1952), which underpins Arena scoring, thereby reducing the reliability of the leaderboard rankings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bradley & Terry, 1952 source
- Interpretationown data
Access to Chatbot Arena data has an outsized impact on performance.
“Access to Chatbot Arena data has an outsized impact on performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Chatbot Arena may be forced to deprecate a model when a provider no longer supports it via its API.
“Chatbot Arena may be forced to deprecate a model when a provider no longer supports it via its API.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
The active sampling rule selects model pairs based on the expected reduction in the confidence interval of the win-rate estimate.
“This rule selects model pairs based on the expected reduction in the confidence interval of the win-rate estimate”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chiang et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Proprietary models may be trained on 5 to 10 times more data than the paper uses.
“This disparity suggests that proprietary models may be trained on 5 to 10 times more data than we use”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Having access to a large sample of last month's data will enable a developer to perform significantly better on next month's test set.
“Together, these suggest that having access to a large sample of last month's data will enable a developer to perform significantly better on next month's test set.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This issue is particularly problematic in real-world settings where user prompt distributions shift over time.
“This issue is particularly problematic in real-world settings where user prompt distributions shift over time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
For any possible partition of models, there must be at least one win going in each direction across the partition.
“For any possible partition of models, there must be at least one win going in each direction across the partition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Without access to original and comprehensive raw data, it is hard to investigate patterns related to adversarial voting.
“Without access to original and comprehensive raw data, it is hard to investigate patterns related to adversarial voting”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Transitivity allows the BT model to infer missing outcomes if two models share common opponents, their relative ranking can be deduced even without a direct comparison.
“Transitivity allows the BT model to infer missing outcomes-if two models share common opponents, their relative ranking can be deduced even without a direct comparison (Bradley & Terry, 1952).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bradley & Terry, 1952 source
- Interpretationnone given
This distributional shift contrasts with the static environments typically assumed in Elo and Bradley-Terry systems, such as chess, where rules and game format remain fixed.
“This distributional shift contrasts with the static environments typically assumed in Elo and Bradley-Terry systems, such as chess, where the rules and game format remain fixed, ensuring a consistent set of evaluation conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
For a global technology provider, real-world commercial applications may differ significantly from this distribution.
“For a global technology provider, real-world commercial applications may differ significantly from this distribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The disparity in training data potentially increases the risk of overfitting to patterns not present in the smaller subset.
“potentially increasing the risk of overfitting to patterns not present in our smaller subset.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
This indicates increased language diversity in submitted prompts.
“This indicates increased language diversity in submitted prompts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This ensures that no subset of models is entirely isolated in the win/loss structure.
“This ensures that no subset of models is entirely isolated in the win/loss structure.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The paper's estimate of overfitting is likely conservative.
“Our estimate of overfitting is likely conservative”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Deprecations may result in fragmented graphs.
“In Section 5.2, we show that deprecations may result in these fragmented graphs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The sampling rate disparities result in unstable Arena scores.
“resulting in unstable Arena scores (Section 5)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
When a model's battle history is limited to outdated conditions, its comparisons no longer accurately reflect performance in the new context.
“We show in Section 5.1 that when a model's battle history is limited to outdated conditions, its comparisons no longer accurately reflect performance in the new context.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Some test prompts are very similar to or the same as prompts seen previously.
“This means that some test prompts are very similar to (or even the same as) prompts seen previously.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Model deprecations under a changing task distribution lead to unreliable rankings.
“Model deprecations under a changing task distribution lead to unreliable rankings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Some misattributions may occur due to limited data and inconsistent or ambiguous model responses.
“Due to limited data and the potential for models to respond inconsistently or ambiguously, some misattributions may occur.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
- Interpretationreasoning
There is sufficient signal to suggest that Chatbot Arena distribution differs substantially from other evaluation settings.
“There is sufficient signal to suggest this is the case.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The distribution of Chatbot Arena is unique since long-term shifts occur in categories and use cases.
“As we have shown in Section 4.1, the distribution of Chatbot Arena is unique since long-term shifts occur in categories and use cases.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
At present, free human feedback on Chatbot Arena primarily benefits proprietary models.
“where at present free human feedback is primarily benefiting proprietary models”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Model deprecation may result in disconnected subgraphs, which violates BT reliability.
“Model deprecation may result in disconnected subgraphs, which violates BT reliability.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Reliable rankings under the BT model require a connected comparison graph.
“These results highlight that reliable rankings under the BT model require a connected comparison graph.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The absence of updated comparisons causes a skew in the rankings of remaining models.
“While its matchups from Phase 1 still influence BT scores, the absence of updated comparisons causes a skew in the rankings of remaining models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
It is often not necessary to train explicitly on the data to gain from data access.
“We also note that often it is not necessary to train explicitly on the data to gain from data access.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If all models were continuously sampled across all points in time, the BT model would likely remain robust because every model would be evaluated on the evolving distribution of tasks.
“If all models were continuously sampled across all points in time, the BT model would likely remain robust because every model would be evaluated on the evolving distribution of tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
When models are no longer sampled under current task distributions, historical pairwise comparisons cease to represent present-day performance.
“When models are no longer sampled under current task distributions, historical pairwise comparisons cease to represent present-day performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
A win-rate of 50% indicates that Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and 70_arena are on par on the ArenaHard test set.
“A win-rate of 50% indicates that the compared models (Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and 70_arena) are on par on the ArenaHard test set.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
When models are deprecated, future models that enter the Arena will not have direct comparisons with them.
“When models are deprecated, future models that enter the Arena will not have direct comparisons with them.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Comparing Scenarios I and II reveals a clear divergence, with the scenario involving deprecation yielding unreliable rankings that no longer reflect true relative performance under the evolving task distribution.
“Comparing Scenarios I and II in Figure 14 reveals a clear divergence, with the scenario involving deprecation yielding unreliable rankings that no longer reflect true relative performance under the evolving task distribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
The study attributes private models to providers using model self-identification as a proxy.
“Since the identity of anonymous models is not publicly disclosed, we use model self-identification as a proxy-prompting each model directly and observing how it responds.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
- Interpretationreasoning
When models are deprecated unevenly or sampling strategies fail to ensure robust overlap in comparisons, the resulting history matrix can become fragmented.
“When models are deprecated unevenly or when sampling strategies fail to ensure robust overlap in comparisons, the resulting history matrix can become fragmented.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This lack of precision makes it challenging to apply the rule consistently or verify retirement decisions.
“This lack of precision makes it challenging to apply the rule consistently or verify retirement decisions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
To ensure a unique and finite estimation, the comparison graph must be connected.
“Therefore, to ensure a unique and finite estimation, the comparison graph must be connected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The counts for providers with fewer model launches during January-March 2025 may be underestimated.
“We believe we might be underestimating the counts for providers having fewer model launches during this period.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
The gains are striking in part because the variants were not heavily optimized (3 variants trained, no hyperparameter optimization or tuning of training steps).
“The gains we observe are striking in part because we do not heavily optimize these variants (we trained 3 variants in total and did no hyperparameter optimization or tuning of training steps).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The sampling rate disparities create large asymmetries in data access over time.
“creating large asymmetries in data access over time”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
Model self-identification provides a reasonable but inherently approximate signal for provider attribution.
“While this method provides a reasonable signal, it is inherently approximate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
- Premisecitation
Chatbot Arena's pre-processing often involves de-duplication and removal of battles corresponding to suspicious voting patterns.
“which as stated by Chatbot Arena often involves de-duplication, removal of battles corresponding to suspicious voting patterns, etc (Chiang et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chiang et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
If deprecated, a multilingual model's BT ranking will likely understate its true performance.
“However, if deprecated, its BT ranking will likely understate its true performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
Simulating human preferences using LM-as-a-judge allows measuring a reasonable estimate of gains in a controlled setting.
“To measure improvements, we simulate human preferences using LMas-a-judge, which allows us to measure a reasonable estimate of the gains in a controlled setting.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
A model tuned for multilingual prompts may improve ranking as non-English tasks become more common.
“For instance, a model tuned for multilingual prompts may improve ranking as non-English tasks become more common.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The Chatbot Arena comparison matrix can potentially become disconnected because of the extremely high levels of model removals over time.
“The Chatbot Arena comparison matrix can potentially become disconnected because of the extremely high levels of model removals over time (as discussed in Figure 13).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The Chatbot Arena authors introduced an active sampling rule designed to enhance the efficiency and statistical robustness of the leaderboard's evaluation process.
“the Chatbot Arena authors introduce an active sampling rule designed to enhance the efficiency and statistical robustness of the leaderboard's evaluation process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chiang et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
As the number of private variants being tested on the Arena increases, the sampling of public models can be significantly reduced.
“as the number of private variants (see Figure 6) being tested on the Arena increases, the sampling of public models can be significantly reduced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
As a result, model development may be deliberately optimized for performance on Chatbot Arena.
“As a result, model development may be deliberately optimized for performance on Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The simulation shows how providers can gain leaderboard advantage by evaluating several variants privately and publishing only the top-scoring one.
“This simulation shows how providers can gain leaderboard advantage by evaluating several variants privately and publishing only the top-scoring one.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Training on data from Arena Battles provides little to no effect on a non-arena style benchmark.
“provides little to no effect on a non-arena style benchmark.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Chatbot Arena assigns higher sampling weights to top-10 models.
“Chatbot Arena assigns higher sampling weights to top-10 models”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
This result formalizes the selection bias arising when one reports the best out of N noisy skill estimates: statistical fluctuations ensure that the maximum overestimates the expected performance of a typical sample.
“This result formalizes the selection bias arising when one reports the best out of N noisy skill estimates: statistical fluctuations ensure that the maximum overestimates the expected performance of a typical sample.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
When confidence intervals of two models overlap, it becomes difficult to determine which one is truly better.
“When the confidence intervals of two models overlap, it becomes difficult to determine which one is truly better.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Training on data from Arena Battles helps boost scores specific to the Arena evaluation.
“data from Arena Battles helps boost scores specific to the Arena evaluation”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This selection bias is especially relevant in leaderboard scenarios where multiple submissions are made and only the top-performing one is reported.
“This is especially relevant in leaderboard scenarios where multiple submissions are made and only the top-performing one is reported.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The lack of standardization in benchmarks complicates meaningful comparisons due to inconsistent metrics and task definitions.
“The lack of standardization in benchmarks complicates meaningful comparisons due to inconsistent metrics and task definitions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Allowing retraction of scores allows providers to skew Arena scores upwards.
“Allowing retraction of scores allows providers to skew Arena scores upwards.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
ArenaHard has a high correlation of 98.6% to Chatbot Arena.
“which has a high correlation of 98.6% to Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Li et al., 2024c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
The substantial cross-month duplication rates suggest recurring patterns or frequently asked questions among Chatbot Arena users.
“the substantial cross-month duplication rates suggest recurring patterns or frequently asked questions among Chatbot Arena users”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- It may state two separate claims as one. 89
- Probably not a substantial claim. 49
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationcitationProviders may use the composition of the data to make decisions about weighting different data sources, or may use a small subset to create high-quality synthetic data close to the original distribution.
“For example, providers may use the composition of the data to make decisions about weighting different data sources (Üstün et al., 2024), or may use a small subset of the data to create high-quality synthetic data that is close to the original distribution (Odumakinde et al., 2024;Shimabucoro et al., 2024;Dang et al., 2024a;Aakanksha et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked- cites Üstün et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Odumakinde et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Shimabucoro et al., 2024 source
Section 4.1 describes generating synthetic responses from prompts in an existing dataset, and the Introduction describes curating those generations for desirable attributes. The paper does not establish that a small subset of the original data suffices or that the resulting synthetic data stays close to the original distribution; its aim is to steer selected attributes. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationAdversarial voting is a critical concern for the reliability of crowd-sourced evaluation platforms like Chatbot Arena.
“Various previous works have shown that adversarial voting is a critical concern for the reliability of any crowd-sourced evaluation platform like Chatbot Arena (Huang et al., 2025) (Min et al., 2025).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checkedIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationPoor data quality and limited reproducibility can lead to unreliable evaluations and undermine scientific credibility.
“poor data quality and limited reproducibility can lead to unreliable evaluations and undermine scientific credibility.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites Bartz-Beielstein et al., 2020 source
Section 9 (Additional information; page not provided) treats reproducibility as important to obtaining measurements that lead to the same conclusions. The Results/Visualization passage warns of spurious results, supporting the concern about unreliable evaluations. The copy does not specifically link poor data quality to those evaluations or state that these problems undermine scientific credibility. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Longpre et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Reuel et al., 2024 source
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationHuman-voting-based live leaderboards are vulnerable to low-cost manipulation, with adversarial users able to de-anonymize model responses and carry out targeted voting attacks.
“studies have demonstrated that such leaderboards are vulnerable to low-cost manipulation, with adversarial users able to de-anonymize model responses and carry out targeted voting attacks (Huang et al., 2025).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Huang et al., 2025 source
The Introduction says users can de-anonymize responses and target votes to manipulate rankings. The Abstract estimates that roughly a thousand votes could alter a leaderboard, but qualifies this as a potential vulnerability without bot protection and says the result was verified in an offline simulation. The paper does not establish that an existing live leaderboard was manipulated at low cost. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationChatbot Arena rankings can be artificially inflated through various adversarial voting strategies.
“Zhao et al. (2024); Min et al. (2025) suggest that Chatbot Arena rankings can be artificially inflated through various adversarial voting strategies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Zhao et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Min et al., 2025 source
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataThe combined share of OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic alone is 62.8% of the arena data, 68 times more than the share of top academic and non-profit labs including Allen AI, Stanford, Princeton, and UC Berkeley.
“For example, in Figure 4, we show that the combined share of OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic alone is 62.8% of the arena data,”
- Also stated in: § 4.1 Disparity in access to Chatbot Arena Data · plain
“which is 68 times more than the share of top academic and non-profit labs including Allen AI, Stanford, Princeton, and UC Berkeley.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 4.1 Disparity in access to Chatbot Arena Data · plain
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataIn Figure 5, the maximum daily sampling rate of models from OpenAI or Google is up to 34%, which is 10 times more than the maximum sampling from providers like Allen AI.
“For example, in Figure 5, we observe a maximum daily sampling rate of models from OpenAI or Google of up to 34%, which is 10 times more than what is observed as the maximum sampling from providers like Allen AI.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingcitationIncorporating a moderate amount of arena data greatly improves performance on ArenaHard with estimated gains of 112%, while showing limited benefits for other tasks of interest.
“We show that incorporating a moderate amount of arena data greatly improves performance on ArenaHard (Li et al., 2024b) with estimated gains of 112%, while showing limited benefits for other tasks of interest.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Li et al., 2024b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingnone givenArena Scores for Aya-Vision-8B yield different Arena scores (1069 vs. 1052).
“Arena Scores for Aya-Vision-8B yield different Arena scores (1069 vs. 1052).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenSampling rate and silent deprecation do not reflect the publicly stated policy of Chatbot Arena.
“we find that sampling rate and silent deprecation do not reflect the publicly stated policy of Chatbot Arena”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingcitationProviders whose models are hosted by a third party are often limited to publicly accessible data or must request access to only 20% of the data involving their models from Chatbot Arena, as per their policy.
“In contrast, providers whose models are hosted by a third party are often limited to publicly accessible data or must request access to only 20% of the data (including prompts and human preferences) involving their models from Chatbot Arena, as per their policy 6 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data205 models have been silently deprecated, substantially exceeding the 47 models officially marked as deprecated by Chatbot Arena.
“We identify 205 models that have been silently deprecated, a number that substantially exceeds the 47 models officially marked as deprecated by Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataThe number of variants submitted is not uniform across all providers, and some providers may increase variants to further amplify the volume of data collected.
“Based on findings from Figure 6, the number of variants submitted is not uniform across all providers, and some providers may increase variants to further amplify the volume of data collected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningChatbot Arena released a public blog in December 2024 detailing their benchmarking policy, which committed to a consistent sampling rate across models.
“We believe that our initial inquiries partly prompted Chatbot Arena to release a public blog in December 2024 detailing their benchmarking policyfoot_5 , which committed to a consistent sampling rate across models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataThe two Aya-Vision-32B checkpoints are variants of the same model, each showing slightly better performance on different subsets of benchmarks.
“The two checkpoints are variants of the same model, with each showing slightly better performance on different subsets of benchmarks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataIt is possible to increase Arena scores even in the most conservative case of identical checkpoints, and further amplify the difference by strategically testing different checkpoints.
“We show that it is possible to increase Arena scores even in the most conservative case of identical checkpoints, and further amplify the difference by strategically testing different checkpoints.”
- Also stated in: § I Silent Model Deprecation: Additional Details · hedged
“We show that it is possible to increase Arena scores even in the most conservative case of identical checkpoints, and further amplify the difference by strategically testing different checkpoints.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § I Silent Model Deprecation: Additional Details · hedged
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Findingnone givenThis data is often accessible to model providers through API calls originating from Chatbot Arena battles.
“This data is often accessible to model providers through API calls originating from Chatbot Arena battles.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataOther providers with relatively high sampling rates include xAI (22.0%) and Meta (17.9%), highlighting substantial variation across the board.
“Other providers with relatively high sampling rates include xAI (22.0%) and Meta (17.9%), highlighting substantial variation across the board.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataOpen-weight and open-source models are far more likely to be deprecated and, hence, receive unreliable ratings.
“Critically, we find that open-weight and open-source models are far more likely to be deprecated and, hence, receive unreliable ratings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenChatbot Arena does not require all submitted models to be made public, and there is no guarantee that the version appearing on the public leaderboard matches the publicly available API.
“Notably, we find that Chatbot Arena does not require all submitted models to be made public, and there is no guarantee that the version appearing on the public leaderboard matches the publicly available API”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataTwo variants of Aya-Vision-32B obtained Arena scores of 1097 and 1059, with 9 models falling between them on the leaderboard.
“In Figure 9, we illustrate the extreme ends of the scores obtained by the two models (1097 vs. 1059), with 9 models falling in between both variants on the leaderboard.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataArena Scores for two different variants of Aya-Vision-32B, both considered high-performing final round candidates according to internal metrics, show large differences in final scores (1097 vs. 1059).
“We observe large differences in final scores (1097 vs. 1059) for the two different model variants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataMany models are silently deprecated, meaning their sampling rate is reduced to nearly 0% without notification, even though some do not meet the stated criteria of the deprecation policy.
“We observe that many models are also silently deprecated, which means their sampling rate is reduced to nearly 0% without notification, even though some of them do not meet the stated criteria of the deprecation policy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningSome providers were testing multiple variants privately, a practice that appeared to be selectively disclosed and limited to only a few model providers.
“In the course of our discussions, we learned that some providers were testing multiple variants privately, a practice that appeared to be selectively disclosed and limited to only a few model providers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataSome providers deploy far more private variants, which can significantly increase the volume of data collected.
“As shown in Figure 6, some providers deploy far more private variants, which can significantly increase the volume of data collected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingcitationSampling rates are determined by Chatbot Arena but are often entirely inconsistent with the stated policy and prior proposals by the organizers to automatically set sampling based upon which models have not converged in score.
“These rates are determined by Chatbot Arena, but are often entirely inconsistent with the stated policy and prior proposals by the organizers to automatically set sampling based upon which models have not converged in score (Chiang et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chiang et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataIncreasing the amount of arena data in a supervised fine-tuning mixture (0% to 30% to 70%) significantly improves win-rates of the resulting model against both the model variant where no Chatbot Arena data is used and also Llama-3.1-8B.
“Increasing the amount of arena data in a supervised fine-tuning mixture (0% → 30% → 70%) significantly improves win-rates of the resulting model against both the model variant where no Chatbot Arena data is used and also Llama-3.1-8B.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataProprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives.
“We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataGoogle and OpenAI reach a maximum daily sampling rate of 34%, while Reka registers the lowest at 3.3%.
“At the extreme, Google and OpenAI reach a maximum daily sampling rate of 34%, while Reka registers the lowest at 3.3%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataProprietary model providers tend to achieve higher leaderboard scores, which appear to correlate with both the number of models they release and the number of Arena battles played.
“Proprietary model providers tend to achieve higher leaderboard scores, which appear to correlate with both the number of models they release and the number of Arena battles played.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataOpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic collectively account for 62.8% of the Arena data, which is 68 times more than the combined share of top academic and non-profit labs like Allen AI, Stanford, Princeton, and UC Berkeley.
“OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic collectively account for 62.8% of the Arena data, which is 68 times more than the combined share of top academic and non-profit labs like Allen AI, Stanford, Princeton, and UC Berkeley.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataChinese prompts more than doubled from 5-7% in 2023 to 16.4% in March 2024, coinciding with the introduction of the Chinese leaderboard, before dropping back to 6.2% in January 2025.
“Chinese prompts more than doubled from 5-7% in 2023 to 16.4% in March 2024, coinciding with the introduction of the Chinese leaderboard on Chatbot Arena, before dropping back to 6.2% in January 2025.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataThrough simulated experiments, deprecation can produce fragmented clusters, and as a result, global rankings become unreliable.
“Through simulated experiments, we show that this can produce fragmented clusters, and as a result, the global rankings become unreliable.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataThe share of Russian prompts increased from 1% in April 2023 to 8.8% in April 2024, and further to 15.7% by December 2024.
“For instance, the share of Russian prompts increased from 1% in April 2023 to 8.8% in April 2024, and further to 15.7% by December 2024.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenIn practice, Chatbot Arena's prompt categories and task types evolve over time, and some models become deprecated, meaning they are no longer re-evaluated under current conditions.
“In practice, Chatbot Arena's prompt categories and task types evolve over time, and some models become deprecated, meaning they are no longer re-evaluated under the current conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
Findingnone givenMost of the paper's findings were only possible through access to private model testing or crawling Chatbot Arena over a period of time.
“Most of these findings were only possible through access to private model testing, or crawling Chatbot Arena over a period of time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningThe relative gains in win-rates are 81.7% for the 30_arena and 112.3% for the 70_arena variant.
“The relative gains in win-rates are 81.7% for the 30_arena and 112.3% for the 70_arena variant.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingnone givenThis dataset is widely used to gauge expected performance on the Arena.
“This dataset is widely used to gauge expected performance on the Arena.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
Findingnone givenThis dataset consists of challenging user-submitted prompts from Arena that have been carefully curated and evaluated against several criteria, including domain knowledge, complexity, and problem-solving.
“This dataset consists of challenging user-submitted prompts from Arena that have been carefully curated and evaluated against several criteria, including, but not limited to, domain knowledge, complexity, and problem-solving.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningModels A and D are ranked lower, and Models B and C are ranked higher than their true performance merits.
“Models A and D are ranked lower, and Models B and C are ranked higher than their true performance merits.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Findingnone givenThe January-March 2025 time frame coincided with Meta's launch of Llama 4.
“This time frame coincided with Meta's launch of Llama 4”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingcitationThere is a context length limit of 12000 characters on Chatbot Arena prompts, which excludes certain types of longer or more complex inputs from being evaluated and can result in a selection bias of what is asked.
“There is a context length limit of 12000 characters on Chatbot Arena prompts, which excludes certain types of longer or more complex inputs from being evaluated 21 , and can result in a selection bias of what is asked.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataWhile increasing Chatbot Arena data within a fixed training budget yielded consistent improvements on the Arena test set, MMLU performance slightly declined from 66.5% (0_arena) to 64.4% (30_arena) and 65.9% (70_arena).
“The results reveal a clear divergence in performance trends (Table 9): while increasing the proportion of Chatbot Arena data within a fixed training budget yielded consistent improvements on the Arena test set, MMLU performance slightly declined from 66.5% (0_arena) to 64.4% (30_arena) and 65.9% (70_arena).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningMany of these models are hosted for free on the Arena, and there should be clarity about what source of pricing is being used.
“We note that many of these models are hosted for free on the Arena, and so there should be clarity about what source of pricing is being used.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataVariant 0_arena scores a win-rate of 23.5%, 30_arena scores 42.7%, and 70_arena scores 49.9% against Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct.
“Variant 0_arena scores a win-rate of 23.5%, 30_arena scores a win-rate of 42.7%, and variant 70_arena, which is trained on the most arena-mix, data scores a win-rate of 49.9% against Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingcitationIn a released dataset from Arena with 33k samples, no questions reference Chaucer while dozens are about Star Trek, highlighting uneven distribution of topics.
“For example, in a released dataset from Arena (Zheng et al., 2024) with 33k samples, no questions are referencing Chaucer while dozens of questions are about Star Trek, highlighting the uneven distribution of topics in this test set 23 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Zheng et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Findingnone givenThe authors have not seen evidence of the active sampling rule's deployment in the current leaderboard.
“we have not seen evidence of its deployment in the current leaderboard.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataEnglish prompt share dropped from over 80% to nearly 50%, while usage of Chinese, Russian, and Korean prompts increased significantly.
“English prompt share dropped from over 80% to nearly 50%, while usage of Chinese, Russian, and Korean prompts increased significantly.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The historical-battles dataset is representative of the overall task distribution on Chatbot Arena.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataIn total, the paper's real-world data sources encompass 2 million battles and cover 243 models across 42 providers.
“In total, our real-world data sources encompass 2M battles and cover 243 models across 42 providers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataRankings for models D, E, F, and G diverge from the gold rankings when the comparison graph is sparse, whereas model rankings fully align with the gold rankings when the comparison graph is dense.
“Rankings for models D, E, F, and G diverge from the gold rankings when the comparison graph is sparse, whereas model rankings fully align with the gold rankings when the comparison graph is dense.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Findingnone givenThere is widespread and apparent willful participation in the gamification of arena scores from a handful of top-tier industry labs.
“The widespread and apparent willful participation in the gamification of arena scores from a handful of top-tier industry labs is undoubtedly a new low for the AI research field.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingnone givenHistorical Battles (historical-battles) is a collection of 1.8 million battles from Chatbot Arena from April 2023 to January 2025.
“Historical Battles (historical-battles): is a collection of 1.8 million battles from Chatbot”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataMeta, Google, and Amazon account for the highest number of private submissions, with Meta alone testing 27 anonymous models in March alone.
“Meta, Google, and Amazon account for the highest number of private submissions, with Meta alone testing 27 anonymous models in March alone.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenAll datasets published by LMArena are already de-duplicated, so they are not useful for capturing the extent of similar or overlapping queries.
“all datasets published by LMArena are already de-duplicated so they won't be useful for capturing the extent of similar or overlapping queries.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataThe paper captured 14 other private models but was unable to de-anonymize them.
“We also captured 14 other private models as part of our scraping but weren't able to de-anonymize them”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataIn a simulation, Model family A has a lower average Arena Score than Model family B, yet by submitting multiple private variants and selecting the best-performing one, it can surpass the sole public submission from Model family B.
“Model family A has a lower average Arena Score than Model family B, yet by submitting multiple private variants and selecting the best-performing one, it can surpass the sole public submission from Model family B.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataAmong officially deprecated models, 30% are proprietary, while only 2.4% are open-weight.
“Among officially deprecated models, 30% are proprietary, while only 2.4% are open-weight.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Findingnone givenLMArena has collected around 3 million user votes via Chatbot Arena in total.
“LMArena has collected around 3M user votes via Chatbot Arena in total.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningFor every N ≥ 2, the expected maximum of N i.i.d. non-degenerate random variables is greater than the expected value of a single variable; equality holds if and only if the variance is zero.
“Theorem 1 For every N ≥ 2, E[ βBest ] > E[ βk ] ⇐⇒ Var( βk ) = 0.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingnone givenCoordination among a handful of providers and preferential policies from Chatbot Arena towards the same small group have jeopardized scientific integrity and reliable Arena rankings.
“We show that coordination among a handful of providers and preferential policies from Chatbot Arena towards the same small group have jeopardized scientific integrity and reliable Arena rankings.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataIncreasing the amount of arena data in a supervised fine-tuning mixture (0% → 30% → 70%) significantly improves win-rates of the resulting model against both the model variant where no Chatbot Arena data is used and also Llama-3.1-8B.
“Increasing the amount of arena data in a supervised fine-tuning mixture (0% → 30% → 70%) significantly improves win-rates of the resulting model against both the model variant where no Chatbot Arena data is used and also Llama-3.1-8B.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
FindingreasoningThe total number of API calls used to represent the data available to the model providers in Figure 4 is 5 million, which is less than the total estimated API calls of 6 million.
“the total no. of API calls used to represent the data available to the model providers is 5M, which is less than the total number of estimated API calls, which is 6 million.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The number of model API calls is a valid measure of the volume of data available to model providers.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataGoogle and OpenAI had the most public models active during the scraping period (January-March 2025), with 15 and 9 models, respectively.
“Google and OpenAI had the most public models active during this period, with 15 and 9 models, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown dataAt the extreme, Google and OpenAI reach a maximum daily sampling rate of 34%, while Reka registers the lowest at 3.3%.
“At the extreme, Google and OpenAI reach a maximum daily sampling rate of 34%, while Reka registers the lowest at 3.3%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: A model's sampling rate determines the amount of data its provider receives.
- Rests on an assumption: The scraped random sample is representative of all Chatbot Arena battles during the period studied.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data86.6% of open-weight models and 87.8% of open-source models on the Arena are silently deprecated.
“86.6% of open-weight models and 87.8% of open-source models on the Arena are silently deprecated.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningThe main beneficiaries of this free human feedback appear to be commercial entities who are frequently preferred for private testing.
“This is of particular concern given Chatbot Arena is a community-driven leaderboard, however, the main beneficiaries of this free human feedback appear to be commercial entities who are frequently preferred for private testing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe BT model assumes that the comparison network is fully interconnected, that is, every model must be linked directly or indirectly through pairwise matchups.
“Finally, it assumes that the comparison network is fully interconnected-that is, every model must be linked directly or indirectly through pairwise matchups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bradley & Terry, 1952
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataThe collective impact of these factors appears advantageous to a small handful of providers and is often inconsistent with the stated policy.
“We observe that the collective impact of these factors appears to be advantageous to a small handful of providers and is often inconsistent with the stated policy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataMultiple factors impact the amount of the data obtained by a given provider, some determined by Chatbot Arena and others within the control of providers.
“Multiple factors impact the amount of the data obtained by a given provider, some of which are determined by Chatbot Arena versus others which are within the control of the providers:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningLarger labs and companies likely have access to significantly more such data, which, if used, could yield even greater gains.
“Larger labs and companies likely have access to significantly more such data, which, if used, could yield even greater gains.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe BT model assumes that pairwise comparisons are drawn from an unbiased sampling process, so that each model's skill parameter is estimated independently and based on representative outcomes.
“The BT model assumes that pairwise comparisons are drawn from an unbiased sampling process, so that each model's skill parameter is estimated independently and based on representative outcomes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bradley & Terry, 1952
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningThese data asymmetries are due to a combination of unequal sampling rates and deprecation policies.
“This is due to a combination of unequal sampling rates (how often a model appears in a Chatbot Arena battle) and deprecation policies (which models are retired from the arena).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
PremisereasoningDeviations from BT assumptions, such as biased comparisons or a fragmented graph, can compromise the reliability and consistency of the strength estimates.
“Deviations from these assumptions, such as biased comparisons or a fragmented graph, can compromise the reliability and consistency of the strength estimates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
InterpretationreasoningWith an informed selection strategy for model variants, a model provider can improve its ranking and reach the top of the leaderboard compared to when it makes an unguided selection.
“Hence, with an”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: During LLM development, providers typically end up with multiple final candidate model variants that perform similarly overall but excel on different tasks.
- Rests on an assumption: A strong signal such as a clear lead on an arena-style leaderboard can significantly influence which variant a provider selects as final.
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningThese differences lead to distorted and unreliable Arena rankings and create conditions in which providers may be overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality.
“We show that these differences lead to distorted and unreliable Arena rankings and create conditions in which providers may be overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningBoth sampling and removal policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time.
“Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataThe paper's analysis shows that this skews Arena scores upwards and allows a handful of preferred providers to gamify the leaderboard.
“Indeed, we show that this skews Arena scores upwards and allows a handful of preferred providers to gamify the leaderboard.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningOnly certain providers were made aware they could submit multiple private variants, as there are clear differences in the number and frequency of private testing among providers.
“This leads us to believe only certain providers were made aware they could submit multiple private variants, as we observe clear differences in the number and frequency of private testing among providers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataThis imbalance in data access exacerbates the performance gap, reinforcing unequal access to high-quality in-distribution data.
“This imbalance in data access exacerbates the performance gap, reinforcing unequal access to high-quality in-distribution data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
InterpretationcitationThese findings add to prior works that consistently show better corporate access to AI training data across the ecosystem.
“These findings add to prior works that consistently show better corporate access to AI training data across the ecosystem (Longpre et al., 2024c;b).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Longpre et al., 2024c;b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningIn evolving task distributions, premature model removal introduces inconsistencies, breaking the BT model's transitivity assumption and distorting rankings.
“In evolving task distributions, premature model removal introduces inconsistencies, breaking the BT model's transitivity assumption and distorting rankings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationcitationRetraction after submission can lead to overfitting and obscures meaningful progress, making it difficult to distinguish between models that have legitimately improved versus those that have exploited statistical shortcuts.
“As we have shown in Section 4.1, this can lead to overfitting and obscures meaningful progress as it makes it difficult to distinguish between models that have legitimately improved versus those that have exploited statistical shortcuts (Ying, 2019).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ying, 2019 source
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningShifts in task distribution highlight the non-stationary nature of the evaluation environment and have important implications for the stability and fairness of model rankings over time.
“We show that shifts in the task distribution highlight the non-stationary nature of the evaluation environment and have important implications for the stability and fairness of model rankings over time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
InterpretationreasoningGiven the stakes behind ranking highly on Chatbot Arena, it is likely that the data at a provider's disposal from Chatbot Arena is being actively leveraged by different providers to gain an advantage.
“Given the stakes behind ranking highly on Chatbot Arena, it is likely that the data at a provider's disposal from Chatbot Arena is being actively leveraged by different providers to gain an advantage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningPreserving connectivity means ensuring that comparisons remain sufficiently distributed across active models and that transitions in and out of the pool do not isolate subsets of models from the broader comparison structure.
“While some level of model removal is inevitable (for example, models are no longer hosted on an API), preserving connectivity means ensuring that comparisons remain sufficiently distributed across active models and that transitions in and out of the pool do not isolate subsets of models from the broader comparison structure.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationChatbot Arena has been widely adopted in part because it allows human users to ask any questions they want, which creates a non-static test set.
“In contrast, Chatbot Arena has been widely adopted in part because it allows human users to ask any questions they want, which creates a non-static test set (Don-Yehiya et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Don-Yehiya et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
InterpretationreasoningIf Ronald has had no matches with anyone who has played Tom, we can no longer infer reliably what their rankings are relative to each other.
“If Ronald has had no matches with anyone who has played Tom, we can no longer infer reliably what their rankings are relative to each other.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationcitationThe user base of the Arena leans towards developers, which could result in the over-indexing of puzzles, math problems, and questions such as How many r's are there in strawberry?.
“The user base of the Arena leans towards developers, which could result in the over-indexing of puzzles, math problems, and questions such as How many r's are there in strawberry?. 22”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
InterpretationreasoningTransparency would enable the community to help improve the benchmark.
“It would enable the community to help in the process of continuing to improve this community benchmark.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
InterpretationreasoningAdopting the sampling strategy would support more balanced and transparent evaluations.
“support more balanced and transparent evaluations”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationThe 500 English LMArena ArenaHard prompts are an in-distribution test set published by Chatbot Arena that demonstrates exceptionally high correlation (98.6%) with human preference rankings from Chatbot Arena battles.
“To do so, we measure relative improvements on the 500 English LMArena ArenaHard prompts, an in-distribution test set published by Chatbot Arena that demonstrates exceptionally high correlation (98.6%) with human preference rankings from Chatbot Arena battles (Li et al., 2024c).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Li et al., 2024c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationcitationAdopting the recommended sampling strategy would avoid disparities over time and a status quo where proprietary models benefit more from freely given human data.
“This avoids disparities over time and a status quo where proprietary models are benefiting more from valuable and freely given human data”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sambasivan et al., 2021 source
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
InterpretationreasoningAdopting the sampling strategy would improve confidence in leaderboard dynamics over time.
“improve confidence in leaderboard dynamics over time.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningDeviations from transitivity or a fragmented comparison graph can compromise the reliability and consistency of the strength estimates.
“Deviations from transitivity or a fragmented comparison graph can compromise the reliability and consistency of the strength estimates.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
InterpretationreasoningAdopting the sampling strategy would align the platform's operations with its methodological innovations.
“Doing so would align the platform's operations with its methodological innovations”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationBenchmarking has played a central role in shaping research priorities and incentives within the deep learning community.
“Benchmarking has played a central role in shaping research priorities and incentives within the deep learning community (Koch & Peterson, 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Koch & Peterson, 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataGains from Chatbot Arena data are highly specific and do not translate to broader generalization.
“This suggests that gains from Chatbot Arena data are highly specific and do not translate to broader generalization, raising important questions about whether leaderboard improvements reflect meaningful progress or simply overfitting to a narrow evaluation distribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningThis violates core assumptions of the BT model, namely, that rankings reflect transitive and consistently sampled matchups, ultimately compromising the validity of inferred rankings.
“This violates core assumptions of the BT model, namely, that rankings reflect transitive and consistently sampled matchups, ultimately compromising the validity of inferred rankings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationAs demonstrated by Ford Jr (1957), the maximum likelihood estimate does not exist if models can be partitioned into two nonempty subsets without comparisons between them or if all comparisons between the two groups are one-sided.
“As demonstrated by Ford Jr (1957), the maximum likelihood estimate does not exist if models can be partitioned into two nonempty subsets without comparisons between them or if all comparisons between the two groups are one-sided (i.e., one group always wins).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ford Jr (1957)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningThe active sampling rule effectively prioritizes under-evaluated and high-variance pairs, aligning sampling with rapidly reducing uncertainty in rankings.
“This formulation effectively prioritizes under-evaluated and high-variance pairs, aligning sampling with the goal of rapidly reducing uncertainty in rankings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenThe BT model assumes a sufficiently connected comparison graph to produce globally consistent rankings.
“The BT model assumes a sufficiently connected comparison graph to produce globally consistent rankings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Interpretationnone givenSince model win-rates are task-dependent, battle outcomes change accordingly.
“Since model win-rates are task-dependent, battle outcomes change accordingly.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningSustained access to up-to-date prompt data and the volume of sampled prompts in a given month offer a significant competitive advantage in predicting performance in subsequent months.
“Both trends above suggest that 1) sustained access to up-to-date prompt data and 2) the volume of sampled prompts in a given month offer a significant competitive advantage in predicting performance in subsequent months.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningUsing price as a filtering criterion is problematic since it's subject to change, varies across hosting platforms, and is not inherently tied to a model's performance or utility.
“Lastly, using price as a filtering criterion is problematic since it's subject to change, varies across hosting platforms, and is not inherently tied to a model's performance or utility.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationcitationThe deprecation policy can lead to a sparse matrix and disconnected comparison graphs, which in turn distort the resulting rankings.
“In this section, we show that the deprecation policy can lead to a sparse matrix and disconnected comparison graphs, which in turn distort the resulting rankings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningCode-specialized models may benefit from the increasing volume of coding tasks, but only if they continue to participate in evaluation.
“Similarly, code-specialized models may benefit from the increasing volume of coding tasks, but only if they continue to participate in evaluation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Interpretationnone givenThe task-specific win probabilities reflect the models' varying strengths across tasks, mirroring the real-world observation that models excel at different types of prompts.
“These probabilities reflect the models' varying strengths across tasks, mirroring the real-world observation that models excel at different types of prompts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Interpretationnone givenTransitivity is a critical property that allows for inferring rankings using fewer data points.
“Transitivity is a critical property that allows for inferring rankings using fewer data points.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
InterpretationreasoningProviding transparency into tested models, deprecations, and sampling rates would enable oversight and trust in the benchmark.
“Providing transparency into the full suite of models that were tested, deprecated, and how often they were sampled against which other models, would enable the oversight and trust in the benchmark that Chatbot Arena affirms in their policies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningIn the scenario without deprecation, the BT model remains reliable because it reflects performance across the full history of interactions.
“In the scenario without deprecation, we observe the true rankings given that the BT model remains reliable because it reflects performance across the full history of interactions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Premisenone givenLive leaderboards offer advantages over static task benchmarks, including a lower risk of data contamination and greater adaptability to evolving evaluation needs.
“live leaderboards offer several advantages over static task benchmarks, including a lower risk of data contamination and greater adaptability to evolving evaluation needs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Premisenone givenDynamic live benchmarks like Chatbot Arena significantly reduce the risk of overfitting.
“Although dynamic, live benchmarks like Chatbot Arena significantly reduce the risk of overfitting”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationCommonly used benchmarks often fail to capture real-world performance, creating a gap between test scores and practical utility.
“Commonly used benchmarks often fail to capture real-world performance, creating a gap between test scores and practical utility”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Ott et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Parli, 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningPrivate variants are also new models and receive high sampling weights as well.
“As private variants are also new models, they receive high sampling weights as well.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationChatbot Arena does not rely solely on a model's Arena Score for ranking; it also considers confidence intervals.
“In practice, Chatbot Arena does not rely solely on a model's Arena Score for ranking.Instead, it also considers the confidence intervals associated with these scores.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chiang et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
InterpretationcitationThese vulnerabilities raise concerns about the overall trustworthiness of Chatbot Arena.
“These vulnerabilities raise concerns about the overall trustworthiness of Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Premisenone givenHuman judgment has long been regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the quality of model-generated outputs.
“Human judgment has long been regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the quality of model-generated outputs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
PremisecitationThe phenomenon of selection bias from reporting the maximum is well-studied in the theory of order statistics.
“This phenomenon is well-studied in the theory of order statistics (see Arnold et al. (1992); David & Nagaraja (2003)).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Arnold et al. (1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites David & Nagaraja (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationnone givenChatbot Arena's efforts have democratized access to many models and enabled a large and varied user base to weigh in on model selection.
“Their efforts have democratized access to many models and enabled a large and varied user base to weigh in on what matters in the real world for model selection.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
InterpretationreasoningChatbot Arena's policy of informing model providers when testing begins and disclosing model aliases may create conditions conducive to leaderboard manipulation.
“we note that Chatbot Arena 's policy of informing model providers when testing begins and disclosing model aliases may create conditions conducive to leaderboard manipulation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
InterpretationreasoningMaintaining fair evaluations is difficult, despite best intentions.
“This work demonstrates the difficulty in maintaining fair evaluations, despite best intentions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenTo ensure a fair assessment, the authors only considered models that appeared in battles on days when they collected a minimum of 100 samples from Chatbot Arena.
“To ensure a fair assessment, we only considered models that appeared in battles on days when we collected a minimum of 100 samples from Chatbot Arena.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The scraped random sample is representative of all Chatbot Arena battles during the period studied.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataThe disparity in data access gives large-industry labs a significant competitive advantage, making it increasingly challenging for open-source efforts and smaller institutions to match the scale and diversity of data available to proprietary model developers.
“This disparity underscores a significant competitive advantage for large-industry labs, making it increasingly challenging for open-source efforts and smaller institutions to match the scale and diversity of data available to proprietary model developers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The number of model API calls is a valid measure of the volume of data available to model providers.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Interpretationnone givenMany of the systematic issues with Chatbot Arena may have gradually emerged as the leaderboard took on outsized importance in visibility to providers.
“many of these issues may have gradually emerged as the leaderboard took on outsized importance in visibility to providers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationChatbot Arena has made substantial efforts to ensure reliability and security, including malicious user detection, bot protection, vote limits, and prompt de-duplication.
“Chatbot Arena (Chiang et al., 2024) has made substantial efforts to ensure reliability and security, including malicious user detection, bot protection via Google reCAPTCHA v3, vote limits per IP address, prompt de-duplication, and other safeguards 6 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chiang et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataPatterns of similar or duplicated user queries can be readily learned by today's large language models, potentially leading to overfitting on the Chatbot Arena leaderboard.
“Such patterns can be readily learned by today's large language models, potentially leading to overfitting on the Chatbot Arena leaderboard.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown dataThe imbalance in data access exacerbates the performance gap, reinforcing unequal access to high-quality in-distribution data.
“This imbalance in data access exacerbates the performance gap, reinforcing unequal access to high-quality in-distribution data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
During LLM development, providers typically end up with multiple final candidate model variants that perform similarly overall but excel on different tasks.
“Having to pick from multiple final”
The paper relies on this without support.
A strong signal such as a clear lead on an arena-style leaderboard can significantly influence which variant a provider selects as final.
“A strong signal-such as a clear lead on an arena-style leaderboard-can significantly influence this decision, tipping the preference toward specific variants that perform best under the given evaluation framework.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prompts from a large and diverse user base, such as Chatbot Arena users, serve as a valuable signal for modeling user interests and preferences.
“Prompts from a large and diverse user base, such as those from Chatbot Arena users, serve as a valuable signal for modeling user interests and preferences.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In practice, a provider would likely optimize the differences in the variants they are testing to maximize the signal from the Arena users.
“In practice, a provider would likely optimize the differences in the variants they are testing to maximize the signal from the Arena users.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The distribution of Chatbot Arena prompts is constantly changing.
“However, this assumes that the distribution is constantly changing.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Evaluation conditions remain constant for transitivity to hold.
“Assumption 1: Evaluation conditions remain constant.Transitivity relies on the assumption that evaluation conditions remain constant-that is, paired comparisons must come from a consistent set of tasks or contexts.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The network of comparisons must be fully interconnected for BT reliability.
“Assumption 2: Network of comparisons must be fully interconnected.Every model must be linked directly or indirectly through pairwise matchups.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The scraped-random-sample is representative of battles over time on Chatbot Arena.
“We use this scraped-random-sample, which is a representative random sample over time, to answer a few critical questions:”
The paper relies on this without support.
Model self-identification reliably attributes private models to their respective providers.
“Since the identity of anonymous models is not publicly disclosed, we use model self-identification as a proxy-prompting each model directly and observing how it responds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The classification of models into proprietary, open-weight, and open-source categories is valid.
“We group the licenses found for models available on the public leaderboard into 3 categories i.e.Proprietary, Open-Weights and Open-Source.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of model API calls is a valid measure of the volume of data available to model providers.
“the total no. of API calls used to represent the data available to the model providers is 5M”
The paper relies on this without support.
A model's sampling rate determines the amount of data its provider receives.
“The sampling rate determines the amount of times a model is shown to everyday users, and the amount of data a provider receives.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The scraped random sample is representative of all Chatbot Arena battles during the period studied.
“We determine the maximum sampling rate of providers based on scraped-random-sample, which is limited to the specific period during which we collected this data (January 2025 to March 2025).”
“To ensure a fair assessment, we only considered models that appeared in battles on days when we collected a minimum of 100 samples from Chatbot Arena.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The de-anonymizing prompt reliably reveals the true provider of private models.
“The table lists the private models captured in our scraped-random-sample or scraped-vision-sample, along with the number of responses revealing their identities and corresponding examples.”
“It's possible that some private models appeared in more battles, but we couldn't capture their responses to our de-anonymizing prompt due to scraping errors.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The historical-battles dataset is representative of the overall task distribution on Chatbot Arena.
“We leverage historical-battles dataset as a key resource for quantifying task distribution drift (see Figure 11):”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Phase-one participation conflicts with the total battle count
MinorIf each of four models participates in 1,000 pairwise battles in phase one, that phase alone requires 2,000 battles. The stated 2,000 battles across both phases would leave none for phase two.
“Each of the four models participates in 1000 battles, and the resulting outcomes are used to compute initial rankings.”
“• Scenario I: without deprecation.We simulate all 2000 battles across both phases, with all four models participating throughout.”
Theorem reverses its own variance condition
MinorThe theorem says a strict increase in expected maximum occurs if and only if variance is zero. Its proof says zero variance yields equality, not a strict increase.
“Theorem 1 For every N ≥ 2, E[ βBest ] > E[ βk ] ⇐⇒ Var( βk ) = 0.”
“If Var( β1 ) = 0, then F is a step function with a single jump (a constant distribution), and F (x) -F (x) N = 0 for all x, yielding equality.”
Citations
Cites
ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333
Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550
SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching With Graph Neural Networks
Sarlin, P.-E., DeTone, D., Malisiewicz, T., & Rabinovich, A. (2020) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00499 · Cited by 3,234
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117
David, H. A., & Nagaraja, H. N. (2003) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/0471722162 · Cited by 2,418
An Overview of Overfitting and its Solutions
Ying, X. (2019) · Journal of Physics: Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1168/2/022022 · Cited by 2,352
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 · Cited by 1,888
RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS: THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS
BRADLEY, R. A., & TERRY, M. E. (1952) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/39.3-4.324 · Cited by 1,434
Gemma Team, Kamath, A., Ferret, J., Pathak, S., Vieillard, N., Merhej, R., Perrin, S., Matejovicova, T., Ramé, A., Rivière, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.19786 · Cited by 1,156
Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences
Christiano, P., Leike, J., Brown, T. B., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03741 · Cited by 1,058
Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models
Hoffmann, J., Borgeaud, S., Mensch, A., Buchatskaya, E., Cai, T., Rutherford, E., Casas, D. D. L., Hendricks, L. A., Welbl, J., Clark, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2176 · Cited by 932
Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models
Hoffmann, J., Borgeaud, S., Mensch, A., Buchatskaya, E., Cai, T., Rutherford, E., Casas, D. D. L., Hendricks, L. A., Welbl, J., Clark, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.15556 · Cited by 929
“Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI
Sambasivan, N., Kapania, S., Highfill, H., Akrong, D., Paritosh, P., & Aroyo, L. M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445518 · Cited by 781
Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model
Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Manning, C. D., Ermon, S., & Finn, C. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2338 · Cited by 686
Back to Basics: Revisiting REINFORCE-Style Optimization for Learning from Human Feedback in LLMs
Ahmadian, A., Cremer, C., Gallé, M., Fadaee, M., Kreutzer, J., Pietquin, O., Üstün, A., & Hooker, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.662 · Cited by 654
Self-citationFrom Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder PipelinePreprint
Li, T.-L., Chiang, W.-L., Frick, E., Dunlap, L., Wu, T.-H., Zhu, B.-H., Gonzalez, J. E., & Stoica, I. (2024) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.11939 · Cited by 595
GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding
Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804.07461 · Cited by 562
Self-citationGrattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783 · Cited by 505
Aya Model: An Instruction Finetuned Open-Access Multilingual Language Model
Üstün, A., Aryabumi, V., Yong, Z., Ko, W.-Y., D’souza, D., Onilude, G., Bhandari, N., Singh, S., Ooi, H.-L., Kayid, A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.845 · Cited by 312
Self-citationAya Expanse: Combining Research Breakthroughs for a New Multilingual FrontierPreprint
Dang, J., Singh, S., D’souza, D., Ahmadian, A., Salamanca, A., Smith, M., Peppin, A., Hong, S., Govindassamy, M., Zhao, T., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 286
Self-citationManual and automatic evaluation of machine translation between European languages
Koehn, P., & Monz, C. (2006) · Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation · doi:10.3115/1654650.1654666 · Cited by 272
A large-scale audit of dataset licensing and attribution in AI
Longpre, S., Mahari, R., Chen, A., Obeng-Marnu, N., Sileo, D., Brannon, W., Muennighoff, N., Khazam, N., Kabbara, J., Perisetla, K., et al. (2024) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00878-8 · Cited by 243
Self-citationFrom Words to Watts: Benchmarking the Energy Costs of Large Language Model Inference
Samsi, S., Zhao, D., McDonald, J., Li, B., Michaleas, A., Jones, M., Bergeron, W., Kepner, J., Tiwari, D., & Gadepally, V. (2023) · 2023 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) · doi:10.1109/hpec58863.2023.10363447 · Cited by 225
Global MMLU: Understanding and Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Biases in Multilingual Evaluation
Singh, S., Romanou, A., Fourrier, C., Adelani, D. I., Ngui, J. G., Vila-Suero, D., Limkonchotiwat, P., Marchisio, K., Leong, W. Q., Susanto, Y., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.919 · Cited by 221
Self-citationBenchmarking in Optimization: Best Practice and Open Issues
Bartz-Beielstein, T., Doerr, C., Berg, D. V. D., Bossek, J., Chandrasekaran, S., Eftimov, T., Fischbach, A., Kerschke, P., La Cava, W., Lopez-Ibanez, M., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.03488 · Cited by 214
What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?
Bowman, S. R., & Dahl, G. E. (2021) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.385 · Cited by 206
Best practices for the human evaluation of automatically generated text
van der Lee, C., Gatt, A., van Miltenburg, E., Wubben, S., & Krahmer, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-8643 · Cited by 205
Is chess the drosophila of artificial intelligence? A social history of an algorithm
Ensmenger, N. L. (2011) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312711424596 · Cited by 176
BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices
Reuel, A., Hardy, A. F., Smith, C., et al. (2024) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.12990 · Cited by 175
Longpre, S., Yauney, G., Reif, E., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Zoph, B., Zhou, D., Wei, J., Robinson, K., Mimno, D., et al. (2024) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.179 · Cited by 161
Self-citationUtility is in the Eye of the User: A Critique of NLP Leaderboards
Ethayarajh, K., & Jurafsky, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.393 · Cited by 147
Aya Expanse: Combining Research Breakthroughs for a New Multilingual Frontier
Dang, J., Singh, S., D'Souza, D., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.04261 · Cited by 147
Self-citationMMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark
Wang, Y., Ma, X., Zhang, G., Ni, Y., Chandra, A., Guo, S., Ren, W., Arulraj, A., He, X., Jiang, Z., et al. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-3018 · Cited by 131
Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment
Raina, V., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.427 · Cited by 130
AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark
Raji, I. D., Bender, E. M., Paullada, A., Denton, E., & Hanna, A. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.15366 · Cited by 127
BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices
Reuel, A., Hardy, A., Smith, C., Lamparth, M., Hardy, M., & Kochenderfer, M. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-0685 · Cited by 121
Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference
Chiang, W.-L., Zheng, L., Sheng, Y., Angelopoulos, A. N., Li, T., Li, D., Zhang, H., Zhu, B., Jordan, M., Gonzalez, J. E., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.04132 · Cited by 118
Command A: An Enterprise-Ready Large Language ModelPreprint
Team Cohere, :, Aakanksha, Ahmadian, A., Ahmed, M., Alammar, J., Alizadeh, M., Alnumay, Y., Althammer, S., Arkhangorodsky, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.00698 · Cited by 117
Self-citationState of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation
Mizrahi, M., Kaplan, G., Malkin, D., Dror, R., Shahaf, D., & Stanovsky, G. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00681 · Cited by 113
Consent in Crisis: The Rapid Decline of the AI Data Commons
Longpre, S., Mahari, R., Lee, A., Lund, C., Oderinwale, H., Brannon, W., Saxena, N., Obeng-Marnu, N., South, T., Hunter, C., et al. (2024) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/079017-3431 · Cited by 112
Self-citationForecasting sports tournaments by ratings of (prob)abilities: A comparison for the EURO 2008
Leitner, C., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2009) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.10.001 · Cited by 100
Reliance on metrics is a fundamental challenge for AI
Thomas, R. L., & Uminsky, D. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100476 · Cited by 86
INCLUDE: Evaluating Multilingual Language Understanding with Regional KnowledgePreprint
Romanou, A., Foroutan, N., Sotnikova, A., Chen, Z., Nelaturu, S. H., Singh, S., Maheshwary, R., Altomare, M., Haggag, M. A., Snegha, A., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.19799 · Cited by 86
Self-citationHumans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Bias
Chen, G. H., Chen, S., Liu, Z., Jiang, F., & Wang, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.474 · Cited by 76
IrokoBench: A New Benchmark for African Languages in the Age of Large Language Models
Adelani, D. I., Ojo, J., Azime, I. A., Zhuang, J. Y., Alabi, J. O., He, X., Ochieng, M., Hooker, S., Bukula, A., Lee, E.-S. A., et al. (2025) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.139 · Cited by 76
Self-citationAlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback
Dubois, Y., Li, C. X., Taori, R., Zhang, T., Gulrajani, I., Ba, J., Guestrin, C., Liang, P., & Hashimoto, T. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-1308 · Cited by 76
Mapping global dynamics of benchmark creation and saturation in artificial intelligence
Ott, S., Barbosa-Silva, A., Blagec, K., Brauner, J., & Samwald, M. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34591-0 · Cited by 73
Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators
Koo, R., Lee, M., Raheja, V., Park, J. I., Kim, Z. M., & Kang, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.17012 · Cited by 72
Issues in bioinformatics benchmarking: the case study of multiple sequence alignment
Aniba, M. R., Poch, O., & Thompson, J. D. (2010) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkq625 · Cited by 72
Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators
Koo, R., Lee, M., Raheja, V., Park, J. I., Kim, Z. M., & Kang, D. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.29 · Cited by 70
The Multilingual Alignment Prism: Aligning Global and Local Preferences to Reduce Harm
Aakanksha, Ahmadian, A., Ermiş, B., Goldfarb-Tarrant, S., Kreutzer, J., Fadaee, M., & Hooker, S. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.671 · Cited by 68
Self-citationAya Dataset: An Open-Access Collection for Multilingual Instruction Tuning
Singh, S., Vargus, F., D’souza, D., Karlsson, B. F., Mahendiran, A., Ko, W.-Y., Shandilya, H., Patel, J., Mataciunas, D., O'Mahony, L., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.620 · Cited by 65
Self-citationYang, A., Yang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Zhou, C., Li, C., Li, C., Liu, D., Huang, F., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.10671 · Cited by 63
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Liu, H., Jin, Z., Gu, B., Yang, M., & Li, G. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.716 · Cited by 52
Evaluation Examples are not Equally Informative: How should that change NLP Leaderboards?
Rodriguez, P., Barrow, J., Hoyle, A. M., Lalor, J. P., Jia, R., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.346 · Cited by 47
Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Models
Deng, C., Zhao, Y., Tang, X., Gerstein, M., & Cohan, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.482 · Cited by 45
Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment
Raina, V., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.14016 · Cited by 40
Digan, W. E., Névéol, A., Neuraz, A., Wack, M., Baudoin, D., Burgun, A., & Rance, B. (2020) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa261 · Cited by 39
The Problem with Metrics is a Fundamental Problem for AIPreprint
Thomas, R., & Uminsky, D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.08512 · Cited by 37
AI as a Sport: On the Competitive Epistemologies of Benchmarking
Orr, W., & Kang, E. B. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659012 · Cited by 35
On the Limitations of Compute Thresholds as a Governance StrategyPreprint
Hooker, S. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.05694 · Cited by 32
Self-citationBridging the Data Provenance Gap Across Text, Speech and VideoPreprint
Longpre, S., Singh, N., Cherep, M., Tiwary, K., Materzyńska, J., Brannon, W., Mahari, R., Obeng-Marnu, N., Dey, M., Hamdy, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.17847 · Cited by 32
Self-citationRLHF Can Speak Many Languages: Unlocking Multilingual Preference Optimization for LLMs
Dang, J., Ahmadian, A., Marchisio, K., Kreutzer, J., Üstün, A., & Hooker, S. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.729 · Cited by 31
Self-citationGameArena: Evaluating LLM Reasoning through Live Computer GamesPreprint
Hu, L., Li, Q., Xie, A., Jiang, N., Stoica, I. G., Jin, H., & Zhang, H. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06394 · Cited by 30
Time Waits for No One! Analysis and Challenges of Temporal MisalignmentPreprint
Luu, K., Khashabi, D., Gururangan, S., Mandyam, K., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.07408 · Cited by 28
Self-citationLLM See, LLM Do: Leveraging Active Inheritance to Target Non-Differentiable Objectives
Shimabucoro, L., Ruder, S., Kreutzer, J., Fadaee, M., & Hooker, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.521 · Cited by 24
Self-citationChallenges in Trustworthy Human Evaluation of Chatbots
Zhao, W.-T., Rush, A. M., & Goyal, T. (2024) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.04363 · Cited by 18
Which Prompts Make The Difference? Data Prioritization For Efficient Human LLM EvaluationPreprint
Boubdir, M., Kim, E., Ermiş, B., Fadaee, M., & Hooker, S. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.14424 · Cited by 17
Self-citationThe Social Structure of Scientific Evaluation: AI, Benchmarking, and the Deep Learning MonoculturePreprint
Koch, B., & Peterson, D. (2026) · SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/s4qdy_v2 · Cited by 17
Exploring and Mitigating Adversarial Manipulation of Voting-Based Leaderboards
Huang, Y., Nasr, M., Angelopoulos, A., Carlini, N., Chiang, W.-L., Choquette-Choo, C. A., Ippolito, D., Jagielski, M., Lee, K., Liu, K. Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.07493 · Cited by 17
Evaluation data contamination in LLMs: how do we measure it and (when) does it matter?
Singh, A. K., Kocyigit, M. Y., Poulton, A., Esiobu, D., Lomeli, M., Szilvasy, G., & Hupkes, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03923 · Cited by 16
The future of open human feedback
Don-Yehiya, S., Burtenshaw, B., Astudillo, R. F., Osborne, C., Jaiswal, M., Kuo, T.-S., Zhao, W., Shenfeld, I., Peng, A., Yurochkin, M., et al. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01038-2 · Cited by 16
Self-citationKaleidoscope: In-language Exams for Massively Multilingual Vision EvaluationPreprint
Salazar, I., Burda, M. F., Islam, S. B., Moakhar, A. S., Singh, S., Farestam, F., Romanou, A., Boiko, D., Khullar, D., Zhang, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.07072 · Cited by 13
Self-citationEmerging trends: A tribute to Charles Wayne
Church, K. (2017) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324917000389 · Cited by 12
A Survey on Data Selection for Language Models
Albalak, A., Elazar, Y., Xie, S. M., Longpre, S., Lambert, N., Wang, X., Muennighoff, N., Hou, B., Pan, L., Jeong, H., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.16827 · Cited by 12
Self-citationImproving Your Model Ranking on Chatbot Arena by Vote Rigging
Min, R., Pang, T., Du, C., Liu, Q., Cheng, M., & Lin, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.17858 · Cited by 12
Elo Uncovered: Robustness and Best Practices in Language Model Evaluation
Boubdir, M., Kim, E., Ermis, B., Hooker, S., & Fadaee, M. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-3367 · Cited by 11
Self-citationThe Data Provenance Initiative: A Large Scale Audit of Dataset Licensing & Attribution in AIPreprint
Longpre, S., Mahari, R., Chen, A., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.16787 · Cited by 10
Self-citationHumans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases
Chen, G. H., Chen, S., Liu, Z., Jiang, F., & Wang, B. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.10669 · Cited by 9
Global MMLU: Understanding and Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Biases in Multilingual EvaluationPreprint
Singh, S., Romanou, A., Fourrier, C., Adelani, D. I., Ngui, J. G., Vila-Suero, D., Limkonchotiwat, P., Marchisio, K., Leong, W. Q., Susanto, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.03304 · Cited by 7
Self-citationEvaluating the Evaluators: Are Current Few-Shot Learning Benchmarks Fit for Purpose?
Shimabucoro, L., Hospedales, T., & Gouk, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.02732 · Cited by 4
Multilingual Arbitration: Optimizing Data Pools to Accelerate Multilingual Progress
Odumakinde, A., D’souza, D., Verga, P., Ermiş, B., & Hooker, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.939 · Cited by 4
Self-citationElo Ratings for Large Tournaments of Software Agents in Asymmetric GamesPreprint
Wise, B. P. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.00839 · Cited by 2
Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability?
Vendrow, J., Vendrow, E., Beery, S., & Madry, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03461 · Cited by 1
Frick, E., Chen, C., Tennyson, J., Li, T., Chiang, W.-L., Angelopoulos, A. N., & Stoica, I. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14855
Rethinking Benchmark and Contamination for Language Models with Rephrased Samples
Yang, S., Chiang, W.-L., Zheng, L., Gonzalez, J. E., & Stoica, I. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.04850
Koch, B. J., & Peterson, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06647
IrokoBench: A New Benchmark for African Languages in the Age of Large Language Models
Adelani, D. I., Ojo, J., Azime, I. A., Zhuang, J. Y., Alabi, J. O., He, X., Ochieng, M., Hooker, S., Bukula, A., Lee, E.-S. A., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.03368
Self-citationThe Future of Open Human Feedback
Don-Yehiya, S., Burtenshaw, B., Astudillo, R. F., Osborne, C., Jaiswal, M., Kuo, T.-S., Zhao, W., Shenfeld, I., Peng, A., Yurochkin, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.16961
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Barry C. Arnold, N. Balakrishnan, and H. N. Nagaraja. A First Course in Order Statistics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1992.
- Mark E Glickman. Parameter estimation in large dynamic paired comparison experiments. Applied Statistics, pp. 377-394, 1999.
- Shahriar Golchin and Mihai Surdeanu. Time travel in LLMs: Tracing data contamination in large language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=2Rwq6c3tvr. Google. Introducing gemma 3: The most capable model you can run on a single gpu or tpu, 2025. URL https://blog.google/technology/developers/gemma-3/. Accessed: 2025-04-09.
- Donna Harman. Overview of the first trec conference. In Proceedings of the 16th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pp. 36-47, 1993.
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021.
- David R Hunter. Mm algorithms for generalized bradley-terry models. The annals of statistics, 32 (1):384-406, 2004.
- Seungone Kim, Jamin Shin, Yejin Cho, Joel Jang, Shayne Longpre, Hwaran Lee, Sangdoo Yun, Seongjin Shin, Sungdong Kim, James Thorne, et al. Prometheus: Inducing fine-grained eval- uation capability in language models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
- Tianle Li, Wei-Lin Chiang, Evan Frick, Lisa Dunlap, Tianhao Wu, Banghua Zhu, Joseph E Gon- zalez, and Ion Stoica. From crowdsourced data to high-quality benchmarks: Arena-hard and benchbuilder pipeline. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11939, 2024c. · arXiv
- Shayne Longpre, Stella Biderman, Alon Albalak, Hailey Schoelkopf, Daniel McDuff, Sayash Kapoor, Kevin Klyman, Kyle Lo, Gabriel Ilharco, Nay San, Maribeth Rauh, Aviya Skowron, Bertie Vid- gen, Laura Weidinger, Arvind Narayanan, Victor Sanh, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Peter Henderson, Sasha Luccioni, Yacine Jernite, and Luca Soldaini. The re- sponsible foundation model development cheatsheet: A review of tools & resources. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024a. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum ?id=tH1dQH20eZ. Survey Certification.
- 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, 2023.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
International AI Safety Report 2026Preprint
Bengio, Y., Clare, S., Prunkl, C., Andriushchenko, M., Bucknall, B., Murray, M., Bommasani, R., Casper, S., Davidson, T., Douglas, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21012 · Cited by 74
Self-citationSynthesizing scientific literature with retrieval-augmented language models
Asai, A., He, J., Shao, R., Shi, W., Singh, A., Chang, J. C., Lo, K., Soldaini, L., Feldman, S., D’Arcy, M., et al. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-10072-4 · Cited by 38
Scaling Laws For Scalable Oversight
Engels, J., Baek, D. D., Kantamneni, S., & Tegmark, M. (2025) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/085713-3254 · Cited by 38
The 2025 Foundation Model Transparency Index
Wan, A., Klyman, K., Kapoor, S., Maslej, N., Longpre, S., Xiong, B., Liang, P., & Bommasani, R. (2026) · SuperIntelligence - Robotics - Safety & Alignment · doi:10.70777/si.v2i4.17165 · Cited by 38
Self-citationEvaluating LLM Metrics Through Real-World CapabilitiesPreprint
Miller, J. K., & Tang, W. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.08253 · Cited by 27
HeuriGym: An Agentic Benchmark for LLM-Crafted Heuristics in Combinatorial OptimizationPreprint
Chen, H., Wang, Y., Cai, Y., Hu, H., Li, J., Huang, S., Deng, C., Liang, R., Kong, S., Ren, H. M., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.07972 · Cited by 23
STREAM (ChemBio): A Standard for Transparently Reporting Evaluations in AI Model ReportsPreprint
McCaslin, T., Alaga, J., Nedungadi, S., Donoughe, S., Reed, T., Bommasani, R., Painter, C., & Righetti, L. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.09853 · Cited by 21
Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2026Preprint
Sajadieh, S., Fattorini, L., Perrault, R., Gil, Y., Parli, V., Santarlasci, L., Pava, J., Maslej, N., Altman, R. B., Brynjolfsson, E., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.15708 · Cited by 20
Moëll, B., Farestam, F., & Beskow, J. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1557920 · Cited by 15
Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification GapPreprint
Ding, T., Nannapaneni, A., Liu, B., & Zhang, L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.05179 · Cited by 15
One Tokenizer To Rule Them All: Emergent Language Plasticity via Multilingual Tokenizers
Abagyan, D., Salamanca, A., Cruz-Salinas, A. F., Cao, K., Lin, H., Locatelli, A., Fadaee, M., Üstün, A., & Hooker, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.141 · Cited by 13
Self-citationRating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks
Haldar, R., & Hockenmaier, J. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1361 · Cited by 11
Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judges
Chehbouni, K., Haddou, M., Cheung, J. C., & Farnadi, G. (2025) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38 · doi:10.52202/085713-3029 · Cited by 10
A Single Character can Make or Break Your LLM EvalsPreprint
Su, J., Zhang, J., Ullrich, K., Bottou, L., & Ibrahim, M. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05152 · Cited by 9
Completion $\neq$ Collaboration: Scaling Collaborative Effort with AgentsPreprint
Shen, S. Z., Chen, V., Gu, K., Ross, A., Ma, Z., Ross, J., Gu, A., Si, C., Chi, W., Peng, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25744 · Cited by 9
Visually Prompted Benchmarks Are Surprisingly FragilePreprint
Feng, H., Lian, L., Dunlap, L., Shu, J., Wang, X., Wang, R., Darrell, T., Suhr, A., & Kanazawa, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.17875 · Cited by 8
Evaluating the Unseen Capabilities: How Many Theorems Do LLMs Know?Preprint
Li, X., Xin, J., Long, Q., & Su, W. J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.02058 · Cited by 7
EvalCards: A Framework for Standardized Evaluation ReportingPreprint
Dhar, R., Villegas, D. S., Karamolegkou, A., Schiavone, A., Yuan, Y., Chen, X., Li, J., Frank, S., Grazia, L. D., Swain, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21695 · Cited by 7
UQ: Assessing Language Models on Unsolved QuestionsPreprint
Nie, F., Liu, K. Z., Wang, Z., Sun, R., Liu, W., Shi, W., Yao, H., Zhang, L., Ng, A. Y., Zou, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.17580 · Cited by 7
Self-citationExpanding External Access to Frontier AI Models for Dangerous Capability Evaluations
Charnock, J., Tlaie, A., O'Brien, K., Casper, S., & Homewood, A. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812365 · Cited by 6
Position: LLM Watermarking Should Align Stakeholders’ Incentives for Practical Adoption
Liu, Y., Zhao, X., Song, D. X., Wornell, G. W., & Bu, Y. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1290 · Cited by 6
MELAC: Massive Evaluation of Large Language Models with Alignment of Culture in Persian LanguagePreprint
Farsi, F., Aghababaloo, F., Motlagh, S. S., Ghofrani, P., SadraeiJavaheri, M., Bali, S., Shabani, A., Bijary, F., Zamaninejad, G., Salehoof, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.00673 · Cited by 5
Emergence WebVoyager: Toward Consistent and Transparent Evaluation of (Web) Agents in The WildPreprint
Akkil, D., Allaham, M., Raj, A., Abuelsaad, T., & Kokku, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.29020 · Cited by 5
In Benchmarks We Trust ... Or Not?
Gevers, I., Marez, V. D., Nooten, J. V., Lemmens, J., Kosar, A., Lotfi, E., Banar, N., Fivez, P., Bruyne, L. D., & Daelemans, W. M. P. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1208 · Cited by 3
On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges
Liu, Y., Liu, P., & Cohan, A. (2025) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/085713-5051 · Cited by 3
The Flaw of Averages: Measuring Benchmark-Level Distributional Robustness
Uzunoğlu, A., Li, T., & Khashabi, D. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.1895 · Cited by 3
Benchmarking AI: Toward Inclusive Evaluation of Language Models
Jovanovic, M., & Campbell, M. (2025) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2025.3575880 · Cited by 3
Eye of Judgement: Dissecting the Evaluation of Russian-speaking LLMs with POLLUXPreprint
Martynov, N., Mordasheva, A., Gorbetskiy, D., Astafurov, D., Isaeva, U., Basyrova, E., Skachkov, S., Berestova, V., Ivanov, N., Zanina, V., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.24616 · Cited by 3
A Protocol for Trustless Verification Under UncertaintyPreprint
Shi, D., & Joo, K. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.00631 · Cited by 3
Termignon, L., Zilinskas, S., Pélissier, H., Barrot, A., Chesnais, N., & Gavoty, E. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06669 · Cited by 3
Leaderboard Incentives: Model Rankings under Strategic Post-TrainingPreprint
Chen, Y., Zhang, G., & Hardt, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.08371 · Cited by 3
MedArena: Comparing LLMs for Medicine-in-the-Wild Clinician PreferencesPreprint
Wu, E., Wu, K., Hom, J., Yi, P. H., Zhang, A., Lozano, A., Nirschl, J., Tangney, J., Byram, K., Dymm, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15677 · Cited by 3
Strategic Candidacy in Generative AI ArenasPreprint
Hays, C., Li, R., Flanigan, B., & Raghavan, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.26891 · Cited by 3
Pluralistic LeaderboardsPreprint
Haghtalab, N., Procaccia, A. D., Shao, H., Wang, S. L., & Yang, K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.02547 · Cited by 3
Ren, X., Zhai, W., Pu, T., Zhu, Y., Zhu, Y., Wei, H., & Zhao, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.02442 · Cited by 3
Quantifying Uncertainty in Error Consistency: Towards Reliable Behavioral Comparison of Classifiers
Klein, T., Meyen, S., Brendel, W., Wichmann, F. A., & Meding, K. (2025) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/085713-1702 · Cited by 2
Human at the Center: A Framework for Human‐Driven AI Development
Hu, D., Acosta-Navas, D., Gaube, S., Mozannar, H., Taylor, M. E., Dvijotham, K., & Bondi, E. (2025) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1002/aaai.70043 · Cited by 2
Active Evaluation of General Agents: Problem Definition and Comparison of Baseline Algorithms
Lanctot, M., Larson, K. S., Gemp, I., & Kaisers, M. (2026) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/pubn4692 · Cited by 2
There is no free benchmark: An institutional view of legal AI benchmarking
Guha, N., Zhang, A. K., Tsang, C., Manning, C. D., Nyarko, J., & Ho, D. E. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2509757122 · Cited by 2
Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Ranking
Zouhar, V., Kreutzer, J., Lavie, A., Kocmi, T., Post, M., Bojar, O., & Sachan, M. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.findings-emnlp.360 · Cited by 2
A Systematic Review of LLM Advancements from GPT-3 to Reasoning Agents
Nykonenko, A. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.15407/jai2025.03.032 · Cited by 2
Reward Models are Metrics in a Trench CoatPreprint
Gehrmann, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.03231 · Cited by 2
Living Synthetic Benchmarks: A Neutral and Cumulative Framework for Simulation StudiesPreprint
Bartos̆, F., Pawel, S., & Siepe, B. S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19489 · Cited by 2
Towards a Large Physics BenchmarkPreprint
Barman, K. G., Caron, S., Hasibi, F., Shalugin, E. D., Marcet, Y., Otte, J., de Regt, H. W., & Moody, M. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21695 · Cited by 2
CapBencher: Give Your LLM Benchmark a Built-in Alarm for Test-Set OverfittingPreprint
Ishida, T., Lodkaew, T., & Yamane, I. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.18102 · Cited by 2
Unpacking Human Preference for LLMs: Demographically Aware Evaluation with the HUMAINE FrameworkPreprint
Petrova, N., Gordon, A., & Blindow, E. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.04409 · Cited by 2
LLM Olympiad: Why Model Evaluation Needs a Sealed ExamPreprint
Cruz, J. C. B., & Aji, A. F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.23292 · Cited by 2
LLM Evaluation as Tensor Completion: Low Rank Structure and Semiparametric EfficiencyPreprint
Li, J., Simchi‐Levi, D., & Sun, W. W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05460 · Cited by 2
On Challenges in Evaluation Methodology: A ReviewPreprint
Dhar, R., Peng, Q., & Søgaard, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.25923 · Cited by 2
K-Bench: measuring model performance on real scientific agent requestsPreprint
Brueckner, A., Patel, D., He, Y., & Kassis, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.21601 · Cited by 2
Agent Evaluation Reliability: More Tasks Won't (Always) Fix An Agent LeaderboardPreprint
Hardy, M., Azam, R., Reuel, A., Kochenderfer, M. J., & Koyejo, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
Self-citationQuantifying construct validity in large language model evaluations
Kearns, R. O. (2026) · arXiv · Cited by 1
Exploiting Leaderboards for Large-Scale Distribution of Malicious Models
Suri, A., Chaudhari, H., Peng, Y., Naseh, A., Oprea, A., & Houmansadr, A. (2026) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp63933.2026.00044 · Cited by 1
The Progress Illusion: Revisiting meta-evaluation standards of LLM evaluators
Xu, T. R., Gaur, V., Leqi, L., & Goyal, T. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1036 · Cited by 1
Boughorbel, S., Dalvi, F., Durrani, N., & Hawasly, M. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1598 · Cited by 1
Model Consistency as a Cheap yet Predictive Proxy for LLM Elo Scores
Ramaswamy, A., Demeure, N., & Rrapaj, E. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1534 · Cited by 1
Scaling Collaborative Effort with Agents
Shen, S. Z., Chen, V., Gu, K., Ross, A., Ma, Z., Ross, J., Gu, A., Si, C., Chi, W., Peng, A., et al. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.595 · Cited by 1
Zheng, J.-S., Xuan, R., Qin, B., He, Z., Tongshuai.ren, T. R., Li, X., Yao, J.-G., & Yang, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-demo.56 · Cited by 1
Emergent evaluation hubs in a decentralizing large language model ecosystemPreprint
Cebrián, M., Kito, T., & Fernandez, R. C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01286 · Cited by 1
Deprecating Benchmarks: Criteria and FrameworkPreprint
Joaquin, A. S., Gipiškis, R., Staufer, L., & Gil, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.06434 · Cited by 1
Branching Out: Broadening AI Measurement and Evaluation with Measurement TreesPreprint
Greenberg, C. S., Hall, P., Jensen, T., Greene, K., & Amironesei, R. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.26632 · Cited by 1
Expanding the AI evaluation toolbox with statistical models
Keller, A., Kwegyir-Aggrey, K., Steed, R., Rao, A., Sharp, J. L., & Bergman, A. S. (2026) · doi:10.6028/nist.ai.800-3 · Cited by 1
Reflections and New Directions for Human-Centered Large Language ModelsPreprint
Ziems, C., Zhao, D., Wang, R., Jörke, M., Rushdi, A., Deepak, A., Yu, S., Agarwal, A., Agarwal, H., Aránguiz-Dias, G., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.06901 · Cited by 1
How Hard is it to Rig a Benchmark? A Social Choice Analysis of Leaderboard RobustnessPreprint
Gordienko, P., Schollmeyer, G., Kreuter, F., & Jansen, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23628 · Cited by 1
Balance of Benchmarks: Semantic Density Reweighting for Task-Conditioned Model ComparisonPreprint
Lin, J.-K., & Lin, H.-Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.30044 · Cited by 1
How Sensitive Are LLM Leaderboard Claims to Hidden Model Selection?Preprint
Yang, C., & Chen, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.28177 · Cited by 1
The AI Evaluation EcosystemPreprint
Dave, Y., Truong, S., Wang, S., & Koyejo, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.09296 · Cited by 1
Self-citationIs Word2Vec Dead for Topic Modeling? A Case Study on Hospitality Opinion Mining
Azaïs, M.-A., Guillaume, J., & Coustaty, M. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06136-2_11
Beyond Ordinal Preferences: Why Alignment Needs Cardinal Human FeedbackPreprint
Whitfill, P., & Slocum, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.08486
Strüver, N. (2025) · Platforms & Society · doi:10.1177/29768624251399288
EigenBench: A Comparative Behavioral Measure of Value AlignmentPreprint
Chang, J., Piff, L., Sana, S., Li, J. X., & Levine, L. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.01938
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall -- Which is the Best Model of Them All?Preprint
Sayed, D., & Schuldt, H. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02043
Usability Evaluation of the Local Large Language Models
Kivimäki, T. (2025) · UTUPub (University of Turku)
Inclusion Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating Large Foundation Models with Real-World AppsPreprint
Wang, K., He, H., Liu, L., Liang, R., Lan, Z., & Li, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.11452
Gaming the Arena: AI Model Evaluation and the Viral Capture of AttentionPreprint
Hind, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.15252
Bhattarai, K., Keloth, V. K., Wright, D., Loza, A. J., Ren, Y., & Xu, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.12632
Biological risk and the AI capability shift
Turner, S. D. (2026) · doi:10.59350/zp9qy-3gg73
The Benchmark Illusion: How Bounded AI Performance Becomes Unsupported Institutional ProofPreprint
Devin, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6135667
K-Sort Eval: Efficient Preference Evaluation for Visual Generation via Corrected VLM-as-a-JudgePreprint
Li, Z., Li, J., Liu, X., Zhao, W., Du, P., Zhou, K., Gu, Q., You, Y., Dong, Z., & Keutzer, K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.09411
A Theoretical Framework for Adaptive Utility-Weighted BenchmarkingPreprint
Waggoner, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12356
InterPol: De-anonymizing LM Arena via Interpolated Preference Learning
Cho, M., & Kim, J. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.1121
MELAC: Massive Evaluation of Large Language Models with Alignment of Culture in Persian Language
Farsi, F., Aghababaloo, F., Motlagh, S. S., Ghofrani, P., SadraeiJavaheri, M., Bali, S., Shabani, A. H., Bijary, F., Zamaninejad, G., Salehoof, A., et al. (2025) · International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (IJCNLP-AACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.ijcnlp-long.105
Dynamic Normativity: Learning Human Preferences
Corrêa, N. K. (2026) · The International library of ethics, law and technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-22150-6_5
Making GenAI valuable: Benchmarks, singularities, and the enrichment economy
Aradau, C., & Blanke, T. (2026) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517261451463
Yuming, Huang, Liu, Y., Ding, P., Wang, L., & Wan, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.27914
Validity Threats for Foundation Model ResearchPreprint
König, G., Pawelczyk, M., Ulrike Von Luxburg, A., & Bordt, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05029
Don't Trust the Process: When Verifiability Undermines AI Accountability
Paris, T., Moon, A., & Guo, J. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812373
Cabrera, L. M., D'Arcy, J., & Saxton-Knight, I. (2026) · Workshop on Evaluating Evaluations (EvalEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.evaleval-1.20
Progressive Disclosure for LLM-Maintained Wiki Knowledge Bases: a Preregistered AblationPreprint
Cochran, T. O. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.04576
Shilov, E. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.06411
Wang, Z. (2026) · Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University)
Li, K., Gao, J., & Wang, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.24063
ChaosAthena: A Framework to Compare Gen AI Model States - A Post-Training Quantization Case Study
Vaz, F. L. (2026) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
Reducing Manual Intervention in Deep Learning
Zhang, M. R. (2026) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Turning Domain Expertise into Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Biomedical AI with KareninaPreprint
Carli, F., Rusina, P. V., Ai, L., Küchenhoff, L., To, P. K. P., McDonagh, E. M., Lobentanzer, S., Petroni, F., Dugourd, A. J. F., Ochoa, D., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.09.01.748513
MESA: Requirements-Oriented Review of AI Benchmarks as Measurement Instruments
Raposo, V., & Alwidian, S. (2026) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW) · doi:10.1109/rew72749.2026.00076
Responsible Language Model Design for Complex Populations
Fleisig, E. (2026) · eScholarship (California Digital Library)
LEGIT: Credentialing Protocol for Trustworthy AI Agent MarketplacesPreprint
Drew, S., & Zhou, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.21325
Rai, S. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7503218
Whose Facts Count? A Culturally Responsive Audit of LLM Evaluation BenchmarksPreprint
Zahra, F. T., Sk., M. S. I., & Chung, R. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Metadata
- Authors
- Singh, S., Nan, Y., Wang, A., D'Souza, D., Kapoor, S., Üstün, A., Koyejo, S., Deng, Y., Longpre, S., Smith, N. A., Ermis, B., Fadaee, M., & Hooker, S.
- Affiliations
- Cohere (Canada) (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 86910-86964
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2504.20879
- OpenAlex
- W4417172194
- Semantic Scholar
- dc3b7ca920f25223101ba36227a894d37c238df1
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 66 · 2025: 42
- FWCI
- 39.24
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- Chatbot Arena, AI benchmarking, LLM evaluation, assessment fairness, large language models
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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