The rapid advancements of Large Language models (LLMs) necessitate robust benchmarks. In this paper, we present AraEval, a pioneering and comprehensive evaluation suite specifically developed to assess the advanced knowledge, reasoning, truthfulness, and instruction- following capabilities of foundation models in the Arabic context. AraEval includes a diverse set of evaluation tasks that test various dimensions of knowledge and reasoning, with a total of 24,378 samples. These tasks cover areas such as linguistic understanding, factual recall, logical inference, commonsense reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, and domain-specific expertise, ensuring that the evaluation goes beyond basic language comprehension. It covers multiple domains of knowledge, such as science, history, religion, and literature, ensuring that the LLMs are tested on a broad spectrum of topics relevant to Arabic-speaking contexts. AraEval is designed to facilitate comparisons across different foundation models, enabling LLM developers and users to benchmark perfor- mance effectively. In addition, it provides diagnostic insights to identify specific areas where models excel or struggle, guiding further development. AraEval datasets can be found at https://huggingface.co/collections/humain-ai/araeval-datasets-687760e04b12a7afb429a4a0.

Large Language Model (LLM) leaderboards based on benchmark rankings are regularly used to guide practitioners in model selection. Often, the published leaderboard rankings are taken at face value — we show this is a (potentially costly) mistake. Under existing leaderboards, the relative performance of LLMs is highly sensitive to (often minute) details. We show that for popular multiple-choice question benchmarks (e.g., MMLU), minor perturbations to the benchmark, such as changing the order of choices or the method of answer selection, result in changes in rankings up to 8 positions. We explain this phenomenon by conducting systematic experiments over three broad categories of benchmark perturbations and identifying the sources of this behavior. Our analysis results in several best-practice recommendations, including the advantage of a *hybrid* scoring method for answer selection. Our study highlights the dangers of relying on simple benchmark evaluations and charts the path for more robust evaluation schemes on the existing benchmarks. The code for this paper is available at [https://github.com/National-Center-for-AI-Saudi-Arabia/lm-evaluation-harness](https://github.com/National-Center-for-AI-Saudi-Arabia/lm-evaluation-harness).