What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks

Benchmark scores increasingly influence the development, marketing, and selection of large language models (LLMs). Yet an overall score is interpretable only in relation to the system tested, the questions included, and the conditions of evaluation. This perspective examines five connected limitations of general LLM rankings: differences between evaluated and publicly available systems; commercial incentives and dependencies in external evaluation; benchmark saturation, defective tests, and data contamination; models exploiting scoring procedures; and the limited relevance of general scores to users' tasks. Documented cases illustrate why these problems require different responses. I argue for evaluation procedures that disclose the tested configuration, validate questions and successful task completion, report performance alongside cost and execution time, and make the scope of generalization explicit. I then discuss Isotanta, a crowdsourced benchmarking platform, as a practical example of contributed questions and repeated evaluation. A larger question pool may improve task coverage, while repeated sampling can improve the stability of estimates on that pool; neither guarantees validity or personalization. The paper distinguishes the platform's current shared ranking from proposed task-specific and user-provided evaluations. Its central argument is that model selection requires evidence about performance on the intended work, not simply a high position on a general leaderboard.

Benchmarks are the de facto standard for tracking progress in large language models (LLMs), yet static test sets can rapidly saturate, become vulnerable to contamination, and are costly to refresh. Scalable evaluation of open-ended items often relies on LLM judges, introducing additional sources of bias and prompt sensitivity. We argue that evaluation must extend beyond how well models answer benchmarks to how well models design them. We introduce BenchBench, a three-stage pipeline and dataset for benchmarking automated benchmark generation: (i) extract structured domain cards from seed benchmarks, (ii) prompt multiple designer LLMs to generate quota-controlled suites, and (iii) validate items with a multi-model answerer panel using exact/numeric/symbolic verifiers when possible and rubric-guided judging otherwise, yielding designer--answerer matrices with item-level quality flags and psychometric diagnostics. Across nine variants spanning computer science, mathematics, medicine, and theory-of-mind reasoning (including multilingual and multimodal settings), we generate 16.7K items, retain ~15K core items post-filtering, and produce ~152K graded model--item responses. BenchBench shows that benchmark-design ability is only moderately correlated with answer-time strength (Spearman rho 0.37), invalidity is negatively associated with discrimination (Pearson r0.62), and the resulting designer--answerer matrices enable scalable audits of format/modality/language fidelity and suite-dependent self/family interactions. The project is available at: https://github.com/koanatakiyo/BenchBench.

LLM benchmarks are often treated as coherent measurement units, yet they are heterogeneous collections of instances spanning diverse domains, skills, formats, and contexts. As a result, aggregate benchmark scores can conflate model capability with benchmark composition, obscuring what existing benchmarks actually cover. We introduce BenchHub, a composition-aware evaluation framework that represents benchmarks as distributions over instance-level attributes. BenchHub integrates 54 benchmarks comprising 839K samples across 10 languages. It enables researchers to inspect benchmark contents, uncover reusable coverage hidden behind benchmark names, transparently compare benchmarks, and construct controllable evaluation sets for application-aligned model selection. Using BenchHub, we show that similarly motivated benchmarks can differ substantially in internal composition, existing benchmarks often contain reusable coverage beyond their stated purposes, models exhibit fine-grained category-level performance variation hidden by aggregate scores, and model rankings can shift under different reweighting and resampling configurations. Our results motivate evaluation practices that make benchmark composition explicit, inspectable, and controllable.