How Hard is it to Rig a Benchmark? A Social Choice Analysis of Leaderboard Robustness

Multi-task benchmarks have become a central pillar of machine learning research, yet their growing influence has incentivised benchmark gaming -- strategic actions taken to improve the leaderboard rank of a specific model. Treating datasets as voters and models as candidates, we consider benchmark-specific training -- the inclusion of benchmark data in training -- as a form of election manipulation. For any ordinal benchmark, the problem of choosing datasets to train on so that a target model becomes top-ranked corresponds to shift bribery, a class of manipulation problems from computational social choice. Leveraging this identification, we show that the benchmark-specific training problem is NP-hard under Borda count and mean win rate. Complementing this worst-case perspective, we introduce the instance-level robustness, the minimum number of datasets a model developer must include in training to top a given leaderboard, and derive expressions for it under arithmetic mean, median, mean win rate and pairwise majority. We evaluate these expressions on MMLU under HELM and on BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) under the Open LLM Leaderboard. Across both suites, mean win rate is hardest to manipulate: this gap is clear on BBH (24 tasks, 4507 models), where its median robustness is 22 tasks (92%), compared with 13 (54%) under arithmetic mean and 12 (50%) under median and pairwise majority.

Beyond Arrow: From Impossibility to Possibilities in Multi-Criteria Benchmarking

Modern benchmarks such as HELM MMLU account for multiple metrics like accuracy, robustness and efficiency. When trying to turn these metrics into a single ranking, natural aggregation procedures can become incoherent or unstable to changes in the model set. We formalize this aggregation as a social choice problem where each metric induces a preference ranking over models on each dataset, and a benchmark operator aggregates these votes across metrics. While prior work has focused on Arrow's impossibility result, we argue that the impossibility often originates from pathological examples and identify sufficient conditions under which these disappear, and meaningful multi-criteria benchmarking becomes possible. In particular, we deal with three restrictions on the combinations of rankings and prove that on single-peaked, group-separable and distance-restricted preferences, the benchmark operator allows for the construction of well-behaved rankings of the involved models. Empirically, we investigate several modern benchmark suites like HELM MMLU and verify which structural conditions are fulfilled on which benchmark problems.

Consensus in Motion: A Case of Dynamic Rationality of Sequential Learning in Probability Aggregation

We propose a framework for probability aggregation based on propositional probability logic. Unlike conventional judgment aggregation, which focuses on static rationality, our model addresses dynamic rationality by ensuring that collective beliefs update consistently with new information. We show that any consensus-compatible and independent aggregation rule on a non-nested agenda is necessarily linear. Furthermore, we provide sufficient conditions for a fair learning process, where individuals initially agree on a specified subset of propositions known as the common ground, and new information is restricted to this shared foundation. This guarantees that updating individual judgments via Bayesian conditioning-whether performed before or after aggregation-yields the same collective belief. A distinctive feature of our framework is its treatment of sequential decision-making, which allows new information to be incorporated progressively through multiple stages while maintaining the established common ground. We illustrate our findings with a running example in a political scenario concerning healthcare and immigration policies.