What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
arXiv:2609.19182 (cs)
[Submitted on 15 Sep 2026]
Title:What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks
Authors:Chao Wang (Independent Researcher)
View a PDF of the paper titled What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks, by Chao Wang (Independent Researcher)
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Benchmarks are central to how progress in large language models (LLMs) is assessed and communicated. Yet model rankings alone reveal little about how evaluation requirements themselves are changing. The expanding variety of benchmarks offers another perspective: what researchers expect LLMs to do, and what they count as successful performance. We systematically map 14,767 papers introducing or updating evaluation resources from arXiv submissions between January 2022 and August 2026. Using staged screening and automated full-text coding, we examine changes in target systems and domains, evaluation materials and conditions, and scoring mechanisms. The collection shows growing emphasis on action, interaction, and professional applications, while established and newer design elements frequently coexist. Model participation also develops unevenly: LLM-based scoring grows within both agent and non-agent groups, whereas model-generated materials show no comparable sustained increase in recent cohorts. These findings illuminate how public research translates capability expectations into concrete tests and criteria for success. As AI participates in constructing tests, performing tasks, and judging responses, they also raise a question: does expanding evaluation provide more independent evidence, or risk reproducing the preferences and blind spots of its participating models?
| Comments: | 15 pages, 5 figures, 7 tables. Data and code: this https URL |
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.19182 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2609.19182v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.19182
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks, by Chao Wang (Independent Researcher)
References & Citations
Loading...
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.