  Models that top leaderboards often perform unsatisfactorily when deployed in
real world applications; this has necessitated rigorous and expensive
pre-deployment model testing. A hitherto unexplored facet of model performance
is: Are our leaderboards doing equitable evaluation? In this paper, we
introduce a task-agnostic method to probe leaderboards by weighting samples
based on their `difficulty' level. We find that leaderboards can be
adversarially attacked and top performing models may not always be the best
models. We subsequently propose alternate evaluation metrics. Our experiments
on 10 models show changes in model ranking and an overall reduction in
previously reported performance -- thus rectifying the overestimation of AI
systems' capabilities. Inspired by behavioral testing principles, we further
develop a prototype of a visual analytics tool that enables leaderboard
revamping through customization, based on an end user's focus area. This helps
users analyze models' strengths and weaknesses, and guides them in the
selection of a model best suited for their application scenario. In a user
study, members of various commercial product development teams, covering 5
focus areas, find that our prototype reduces pre-deployment development and
testing effort by 41% on average.

Computation and Language;Artificial Intelligence;Human-Computer Interaction;Machine Learning