Many existing benchmarks of large (multimodal) language models (LLMs) focus on measuring LLMs’ academic proficiency, often with also an interest in comparing model performance with human test takers’. While such benchmarks have proven key to the development of LLMs, they suffer from several limitations, including questionable measurement quality (e.g., Do they measure what they are supposed to in a reliable way?), lack of quality assessment on the item level (e.g., Are some items more important or difficult than others?) and unclear human population reference (e.g., To whom can the model be compared?). In response to these challenges, we propose leveraging knowledge from psychometrics—a field dedicated to the measurement of latent variables like academic proficiency—into LLM benchmarking. We make four primary contributions. First, we reflect on current LLM benchmark developments and contrast them with psychometrics-based test development. Second, we introduce PATCH: a novel framework for Psychometrics-AssisTed benCHmarking of LLMs. PATCH addresses the aforementioned limitations. In particular, PATCH enables valid comparison between LLMs and human populations.Third, we demonstrate PATCH by measuring several LLMs’ proficiency in 8th grade mathematics against 56 human populations. We show that adopting a psychometrics-based approach yields evaluation outcomes that diverge from those based on current benchmarking practices. Fourth, we release 4 high-quality datasets to support measuring and comparing LLM proficiency in grade school mathematics and science with human populations.

Text-based personality computing (TPC) has gained many research interests in NLP. In this paper, we describe 15 challenges that we consider deserving the attention of the NLP research community. These challenges are organized by the following topics: personality taxonomies, measurement quality, datasets, performance evaluation, modelling choices, as well as ethics and fairness. When addressing each challenge, not only do we combine perspectives from both NLP and social sciences, but also offer concrete suggestions. We hope to inspire more valid and reliable TPC research.