Utility is in the Eye of the User: A Critique of NLP Leaderboards
  Benchmarks such as GLUE have helped drive advances in NLP by incentivizing
the creation of more accurate models. While this leaderboard paradigm has been
remarkably successful, a historical focus on performance-based evaluation has
been at the expense of other qualities that the NLP community values in models,
such as compactness, fairness, and energy efficiency. In this opinion paper, we
study the divergence between what is incentivized by leaderboards and what is
useful in practice through the lens of microeconomic theory. We frame both the
leaderboard and NLP practitioners as consumers and the benefit they get from a
model as its utility to them. With this framing, we formalize how leaderboards
-- in their current form -- can be poor proxies for the NLP community at large.
For example, a highly inefficient model would provide less utility to
practitioners but not to a leaderboard, since it is a cost that only the former
must bear. To allow practitioners to better estimate a model's utility to them,
we advocate for more transparency on leaderboards, such as the reporting of
statistics that are of practical concern (e.g., model size, energy efficiency,
and inference latency).
