This page is a fallback for search engines and cases when javascript fails or is disabled.
Please view this card in the library, where you can also find the rest of the plot4ai cards.
Could the AI system's performance on benchmarks be misleading or fail to reflect real-world risks?
Could the AI system's performance on benchmarks be misleading or fail to reflect real-world risks?
AI models often report strong results on standard academic benchmarks, but these benchmarks may not reflect the diversity, complexity, or unpredictability of real-world use cases. Overfitting to test sets, narrow coverage, or outdated benchmarks can lead to misleading performance estimates. As a result, systems may behave unreliably or unfairly once deployed, especially in edge cases, non-English contexts, or under adversarial conditions. This can cause harm, erode trust, and create legal or reputational liabilities.
If you answered Yes then you are at risk
If you are not sure, then you might be at risk too
Recommendations
- Evaluate performance using diverse, real-world datasets that better represent deployment contexts and edge cases.
- Use stress tests and adversarial examples to probe model robustness.
- Complement quantitative metrics (e.g., accuracy, F1) with qualitative error analysis and stakeholder reviews.
- Include fairness, reliability, and uncertainty metrics in your evaluation pipeline.
- Regularly update benchmarks to reflect evolving societal contexts, data distributions, and risk environments.
- Document evaluation limitations transparently, including what is not tested and where the model may underperform.