Why Measuring AI Intelligence is Challenging

For a long time, static benchmarks like MMLU for general knowledge, HumanEval for programming, and GSM8K for mathematical problems provided a common framework for assessing progress. They were invaluable: easy to share, reproducible, and quick to run. But the landscape is changing.

• Benchmark saturation: Leading models now achieve very high scores on popular tests like MMLU and HumanEval, making it difficult to notice meaningful advancements and rendering small performance fluctuations insignificant or unreliable (Hendrycks et al., 2021), (Chen et al., 2021).
• Data contamination: Many evaluation questions can be found online or are included in training datasets. If we don’t carefully clean the data, models may simply memorize answers, inflating scores without genuine understanding (Kandpal et al., 2022).
• Gaming through prompt design: Scores can significantly vary based on the phrasing of questions, step-by-step reasoning, or the use of external tools, complicating direct comparisons (Liang et al., 2022).
• Distribution shift: Real-world tasks evolve over time. Static datasets fail to account for new challenges, adversarial behavior, or shifting standards and risks (Kiela et al., 2021).

In summary, we require evaluations that demonstrate whether systems can generalize, adapt, and reason effectively in real-world scenarios, rather than merely regurgitating memorized answers.

What Do We Mean by Intelligence in AI?

There isn’t a universally accepted definition, but three key concepts often emerge in discussions:

• Generalization: Can the AI tackle new problems that it hasn’t encountered before?
• Adaptation and learning efficiency: How quickly can it acquire new skills using limited data or feedback?
• Reasoning and planning: Is it capable of breaking down tasks, validating its own conclusions, and making corrections as needed?

Francois Chollet posits that intelligence revolves around generalization and the ability to learn efficiently, based on prior knowledge and experiences, rather than just raw performance on fixed tests (Chollet, 2019). This perspective encourages us to focus on measuring learning transfer, robustness, and flexibility instead of simply accuracy.

Aiming for Better Evaluations: A Multi-Dimensional Toolkit

There will never be a single metric that thoroughly captures AI intelligence. Rather, we should envision a dashboard that monitors areas such as capabilities, reliability, and risks across diverse scenarios.

Reasoning and Problem Solving

• Mathematics and logic: Benchmarks like GSM8K and MATH evaluate multi-step reasoning with verifiable results (Cobbe et al., 2021), (Hendrycks et al., 2021).
• Abstract reasoning: The ARC benchmark assesses pattern recognition from minimal examples, reflecting human-like concept development (ARC benchmark), while the community-driven ARC Prize monitors progress with stringent anti-contamination protocols (ARC Prize).
• Difficult tasks under constraints: BIG-bench and its challenging subset explore long-tail reasoning abilities across various domains (BIG-bench, 2022).

Process-oriented evaluations—scoring intermediate actions, code paths, or tool usage—can differentiate between genuine reasoning and mere luck. Approaches like program-aided reasoning and step validation play a crucial role in this regard (Gao et al., 2022).

Knowledge, Factuality, and Calibration

• Truthfulness and robustness to inaccuracies: TruthfulQA examines how well models avoid repeating common falsehoods (Lin et al., 2022).
• Realistic assistant tasks: GAIA introduces multi-step, tool-using tasks such as searching, summarizing, and citing, reflective of everyday AI usage (Mialon et al., 2023).
• Confidence and abstention: Effective AI knows its limits. Metrics for calibration and refusal rates under uncertainty are essential (Liang et al., 2022).

Safety, Robustness, and Resistance to Misuse

• Adversarial prompting: Studies on jailbreaks reveal how easily models can be manipulated into producing unsafe outputs without proper alignment and safeguards (Zou et al., 2023).
• Red-teaming and dynamic testing: Ongoing, human-in-the-loop evaluations provide insights beyond those of static tests (Perez et al., 2022).
• Preference-based evaluation: Community preference tests like Chatbot Arena offer expansive, comparative signals across common use cases (LMsys, 2023).

Grounded, Real-World Tasks

• Software engineering: SWE-bench evaluates end-to-end bug fixing against real repositories including unit tests (Jimenez et al., 2023).
• Web agents and tool usage: WebArena assesses agents performing realistic web tasks within controlled settings (Zhou et al., 2023).
• Multimodal understanding: Datasets such as MMMU test reasoning across images, diagrams, and text from various fields (Yue et al., 2024).

No single score can encapsulate intelligence. The key goal is to acquire decision-ready insights: Can this system perform its tasks effectively, under certain constraints, with safety and consistency?

Preventing Leakage, Gaming, and Misleading Metrics

As models and benchmarks evolve together, certain practices help maintain the integrity of evaluations:

• Data transparency and decontamination: Remove duplicates from training and test sets and release contamination checks whenever feasible (Kandpal et al., 2022).
• Time-split and private test sets: Reserve unseen items with strict access controls to mitigate leakage. Community initiatives like ARC Prize and HELM implement these controls (ARC Prize), (HELM).
• Report the setup, not just the score: Provide details such as prompts, temperature settings, tools, context windows, and token limits; assess cost, latency, and energy use in addition to accuracy (HELM).
• Beware of self-training loops: Models relying on data generated by other models can drift or forget, complicating evaluations if not closely monitored (Shumailov et al., 2023).

Shifting from Single Scores to Decision-Ready Dashboards

Practitioners require a comprehensive view of capabilities, weaknesses, and trade-offs—not just a ranking. A useful evaluation report may include:

• Capability slices: Reasoning, accuracy, programming, tool usage, multimodal understanding.
• Reliability metrics: Rates of hallucinations, calibration, robustness to minor changes.
• Safety metrics: Refusal rates on unsafe requests, resistance to jailbreak attempts, quality of generated content.
• Operational metrics: Latency, cost per task, token and energy consumption, and variability across different runs.
• Human preferences and success in tasks: A/B-tested results from representative workflows.

Whenever feasible, combine automated checks (e.g., unit tests for coding, executable mathematical proofs, citation validation) with anonymous human reviews to lessen bias. Open-source tools like OpenAI Evals can assist in standardizing experiments and reporting (OpenAI Evals).

What Good Looks Like: Principles for Modern AI Evaluation

• Clarity: Clearly define what capacity or risk is being measured and its significance.
• Representativeness: Select tasks that realistically reflect real-world use instead of merely accessible ones.
• Adaptability: Incorporate dynamic or adversarial data to keep tests relevant.
• Reproducibility: Share specific parameters, seeds, and evaluation scripts; utilize held-out datasets and time splits.
• Safety-first: Evaluate for misuse and robustness, in addition to capability; employ red-teaming techniques.
• Holistic approach: Present multi-dimensional dashboards that convey uncertainty instead of relying on single metrics.

Conclusion

As AI systems continue to become more versatile and useful, our methods of evaluation must keep pace. We need to progress beyond static leaderboards towards dynamic, multi-faceted, and decision-ready assessments. This involves testing for generalization, process-level reasoning, safety, and real-world task performance, all while ensuring transparency in reporting results. Improved measurement leads to enhanced models and, ultimately, better outcomes for those leveraging AI in various aspects of life and work.

FAQs

Is AI becoming more intelligent or just better at tests?

Both. Models have advanced in various aspects, but some improvements may stem from familiarity with tests, prompt engineering, or contamination. Dynamic and process-focused evaluations along with real-world tasks provide a clearer understanding of genuine generalization (HELM), (Kiela et al., 2021).

What is the best single benchmark for comparing models?

There isn’t a universal best benchmark. Instead, utilize a suite of benchmarks: reasoning (GSM8K, MATH), general knowledge and truthfulness (MMLU, TruthfulQA), safety (AdvBench), programming (HumanEval, SWE-bench), and task success (GAIA, WebArena). Pair these with human evaluations and performance metrics.

How can we reduce data contamination?

Employ time-split test sets, remove duplicate entries, and maintain certain evaluation aspects as confidential. Publish contamination checks and complete experiment configurations (Kandpal et al., 2022).

Why are dynamic, adversarial evaluations important?

Users, adversaries, and environments are constantly changing. Ongoing red-teaming and adversarial data collection unveil failure modes that static datasets often overlook (Kiela et al., 2021), (Perez et al., 2022).

What should organizations monitor when adopting AI?

Track task success, safety incidents, latency, cost, data leakage, and user satisfaction. Create an internal evaluation suite with representative tasks and re-examine it whenever models, prompts, or tools change. Consider using community benchmarks for external validation.

Sources

1. Chollet, F. (2019). On the Measure of Intelligence. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547
2. Hendrycks, D. et al. (2021). Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03300
3. Chen, M. et al. (2021). Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code (HumanEval). https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374
4. Cobbe, K. et al. (2021). Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems (GSM8K). https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168
5. Hendrycks, D. et al. (2021). Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03874
6. Srivastava, A. et al. (2022). Beyond the Imitation Game Benchmark (BIG-bench). https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04615
7. ARC Benchmark and Prize. https://github.com/fchollet/ARC and https://arcprize.org/
8. Liang, P. et al. (2022). Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM). https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09110 and https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/latest/
9. Kandpal, N. et al. (2022). Deduplicating Training Data Makes Language Models Better (and measuring contamination). https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14030
10. Kiela, D. et al. (2021). Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.14337
11. Lin, S. et al. (2022). TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.07958
12. Mialon, G. et al. (2023). GAIA: A Benchmark for General AI Assistants. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12983
13. Zou, A. et al. (2023). Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03825
14. Perez, E. et al. (2022). Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03286
15. LMsys Chatbot Arena. https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-05-03-arena/
16. Jimenez, C. et al. (2023). SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues? https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06770
17. Zhou, X. et al. (2023). WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09042
18. Yue, X. et al. (2024). MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for LMMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01574
19. Gao, L. et al. (2022). PAL: Program-aided Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10435
20. OpenAI Evals (tools and templates). https://github.com/openai/evals
21. Shumailov, I. et al. (2023). The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493