The Evaluation Trap: Benchmark Design as Theoretical Commitment
Authors: Theodore J Kalaitzidis
Summary
arXiv:2605. 14167v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every AI benchmark operationalizes theoretical assumptions about the capability it claims to assess.
Relevance
Read next because The Evaluation Trap: Benchmark Design as Theoretical Commitment overlaps with clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)", clean result "Only continuous soft prefixes hit both EM axes at once on Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct: discrete prompt searches split between the alignment objective and the distributional objective, and both discretizations of the soft prefix collapse (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Training one persona to emit a [ZLT] marker without bystanders adopting it has a one-cell-wide LR x epochs window on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: rect, eval, rate, capability. Source: arxiv cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence).
Threat model
Potential threat/caveat for clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)": this item discusses failure, evaluation, benchmark.
Abstract
arXiv:2605.14167v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every AI benchmark operationalizes theoretical assumptions about the capability it claims to assess. When assumptions function as unexamined commitments, benchmarks stabilize the dominant paradigm by narrowing what counts as progress. Over time, narrow evaluation reorganizes capability concepts: architectures and definitions are selected for benchmark legibility until evaluation ceases to track an independent object and instead produces a version of the target defined by its own operational assumptions. The result is a trap: evaluation frameworks treat self-reinforcing assessments as valid, both creating and obscuring structural limits on what the current paradigm can accomplish. We introduce Epistematics, a methodology for deriving evaluation criteria directly from technical capability claims and auditing whether proposed benchmarks can discriminate the claimed capability from proxy behaviors. The contribution is meta-evaluative: an audit procedure, a failure mode taxonomy, and benchmark-design criteria for evaluating capability-evaluation coherence. We demonstrate the procedure through a worked audit of Dupoux et al. (2026), a proposal that revises the dominant paradigm's theoretical assumptions at the architectural level while reproducing them in its evaluation criteria, thereby entrenching the constraint it seeks to overcome in a form the evaluation cannot detect.