بنقرة واحدة
artifact-detection
Detect annotation artifacts and shortcuts in benchmarks
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
القائمة
Detect annotation artifacts and shortcuts in benchmarks
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
SOTA Performance Baseline Campaign — 5 strategies for systematically collecting, standardizing, and analyzing performance data across methods. Produces standardized comparison tables, progress curves, and headroom analysis.
Assess systematic biases in the evidence body — publication bias, reporting bias, and selective outcome reporting. Budget: 40 studies, 40 effect sizes, 40 web searches.
Track evidence accumulation over time — cumulative meta-analysis protocol design. Budget: 40 studies, 40 effect sizes, 30 web searches.
Design structured data extraction form for systematic meta-analysis data collection
Systematically extract effect sizes and conditions from papers for meta-analytic synthesis
Determine effect size types and calculation methods for meta-analytic synthesis
| name | artifact-detection |
| description | Detect annotation artifacts and shortcuts in benchmarks |
| execution | tactic |
| used-by | benchmark-archaeology |
Systematically probe benchmarks for annotation artifacts, dataset shortcuts, and spurious correlations that allow models to achieve high scores without the intended capability.
Search literature for evidence that partial-input baselines achieve unexpectedly high performance:
Search queries: "[benchmark] annotation artifacts", "[benchmark] hypothesis only", "[benchmark] spurious correlations", "[benchmark] dataset bias"
If published partial-input results exist, record performance gap between partial and full input. Gap < 10 points above random indicates severe artifacts.
Identify whether contrast sets or adversarial evaluations exist:
Record performance drops on contrast sets. Drops > 20 points indicate reliance on surface patterns.
Search for evidence of format sensitivity:
Record whether minor format changes cause disproportionate score changes.
Aggregate evidence into artifact severity assessment:
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Critical | Partial-input baseline within 5 points of full model |
| High | Contrast set drop >20 points OR format sensitivity >10 points |
| Medium | Known artifacts documented but partial mitigations exist |
| Low | Minor artifacts, full-input still required for high performance |
| None | No evidence of artifacts (may indicate insufficient probing) |
artifact_report:
benchmark: string
overall_severity: critical|high|medium|low|none
partial_input_baselines:
- input_type: string # e.g., "hypothesis only"
performance: float
full_model_performance: float
gap: float
source: string
contrast_set_results:
- contrast_set: string
original_performance: float
contrast_performance: float
drop: float
source: string
format_sensitivity:
- manipulation: string
score_range: string
source: string
shortcuts_identified:
- shortcut: string
mechanism: string
exploitability: high|medium|low
evidence_completeness: thorough|partial|minimal
| Metric | Minimum |
|---|---|
| Literature sources checked | 5 |
| Artifact categories probed | 3 |
| Evidence items collected | 4 |
| Severity classification produced | 1 |