PreprintCited by 109Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

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 access
Singh, Shivalika, Nan, Yiyang, Wang, Alex, D'Souza, Daniel, Kapoor, Sayash, Üstün, Ahmet, Koyejo, Sanmi, Deng, Yuntian, Longpre, Shayne, Smith, Noah A., Ermis, Beyza, Fadaee, Marzieh, Hooker, Sara·2025·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.20879

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

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
    • cites Dubois et al., 2023 source
    • cites Rafailov et al., 2023 source
    • cites Kim et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be 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.

  • 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.

    Interpretationcitation

    Providers 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.

    Premisecitation

    Adversarial 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 checked
    • cites Huang et al., 2025 source
    • cites Min et al., 2025 source
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Poor 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.

    Premisecitation

    Human-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.

    Premisecitation

    Chatbot 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 data

    The 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
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    In 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Incorporating 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 given

    Arena 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    Sampling 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    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 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    205 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Chatbot 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given

    This 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Other 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Open-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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Two 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Arena 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Many 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Some 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Some 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Sampling 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 data

    Increasing 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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 paperSubstantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Chinese 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Through 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    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 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Most 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given

    This 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    This 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Models 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given

    The 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    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 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    While 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Many 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Variant 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    In 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 given

    The 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    English 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 data

    In 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given

    There 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 claim
  • 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 given

    Historical 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Meta, 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    All 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The 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 data

    In 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Among 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given

    LMArena 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    For 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    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.

    “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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    The 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 data

    Google 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    At 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 data

    86.6% 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The 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 data

    The 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    Multiple 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Larger 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    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.

    “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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Deviations 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    With 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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    The 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Only 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    This 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
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationcitation

    These 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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    Retraction 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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Shifts 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    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.

    “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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    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?.

    “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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Transparency 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Adopting the sampling strategy would support more balanced and transparent evaluations.

    “support more balanced and transparent evaluations”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    The 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.

    Interpretationcitation

    Adopting 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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Adopting the sampling strategy would improve confidence in leaderboard dynamics over time.

    “improve confidence in leaderboard dynamics over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Deviations 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 claim
  • Probably 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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Adopting 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Benchmarking 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 data

    Gains 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    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.

    “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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Since 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Sustained 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation

    The 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Code-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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationnone given

    The 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given

    Transitivity 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Providing 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    Live 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    Dynamic 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Commonly 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.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Private 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Chatbot 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.

    Interpretationcitation

    These 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    Human 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The 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 given

    Chatbot 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Chatbot 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Maintaining 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    To 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 data

    The 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 given

    Many 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 claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Chatbot 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 data

    Patterns 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 claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    The 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
127 of 127
  • 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):”
15 of 15

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

    Minor

    If 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.

  • Theorem reverses its own variance condition

    Minor

    The 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.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Barry C. Arnold, N. Balakrishnan, and H. N. Nagaraja. A First Course in Order Statistics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1992.
  2. Mark E Glickman. Parameter estimation in large dynamic paired comparison experiments. Applied Statistics, pp. 377-394, 1999.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. David R Hunter. Mm algorithms for generalized bradley-terry models. The annals of statistics, 32 (1):384-406, 2004.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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

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)
OpenAlex
W4417172194
Cited by
108
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 42
FWCI
39.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
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