Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

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

Summary

arXiv:2609.19182v1 Announce Type: new 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, whil…

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Chao Wang (Independent Researcher)
What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 15 Sep 2026]

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

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

Submission history

From: Chao Wang [view email] [v1] Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:43:16 UTC (520 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

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)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CL

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

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, Media

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

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

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.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.19182v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks are central to how progress in large language models (LLMs) is assessed and communicated. Yet model rankings alone revea…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.