Holistic Evaluation of Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09110v2
• Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2023 21:44:23 GMT
• Title: Holistic Evaluation of Language Models
• Authors: Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher R\'e, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, Yuta Koreeda
• Abstract summary: Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models.
• Score: 183.94891340168175
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models. First, we taxonomize the vast space of potential scenarios (i.e. use cases) and metrics (i.e. desiderata) that are of interest for LMs. Then we select a broad subset based on coverage and feasibility, noting what's missing or underrepresented (e.g. question answering for neglected English dialects, metrics for trustworthiness). Second, we adopt a multi-metric approach: We measure 7 metrics (accuracy, calibration, robustness, fairness, bias, toxicity, and efficiency) for each of 16 core scenarios when possible (87.5% of the time). This ensures metrics beyond accuracy don't fall to the wayside, and that trade-offs are clearly exposed. We also perform 7 targeted evaluations, based on 26 targeted scenarios, to analyze specific aspects (e.g. reasoning, disinformation). Third, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 30 prominent language models (spanning open, limited-access, and closed models) on all 42 scenarios, 21 of which were not previously used in mainstream LM evaluation. Prior to HELM, models on average were evaluated on just 17.9% of the core HELM scenarios, with some prominent models not sharing a single scenario in common. We improve this to 96.0%: now all 30 models have been densely benchmarked on the same core scenarios and metrics under standardized conditions. Our evaluation surfaces 25 top-level findings. For full transparency, we release all raw model prompts and completions publicly for further analysis, as well as a general modular toolkit. We intend for HELM to be a living benchmark for the community, continuously updated with new scenarios, metrics, and models.

Related papers

• Towards Unifying Evaluation of Counterfactual Explanations: Leveraging Large Language Models for Human-Centric Assessments [0.7852714805965528]
  We develop a set of 30 counterfactual scenarios and collect ratings across 8 evaluation metrics from 206 respondents. We fine-tuned different Large Language Models to predict average or individual human judgment across these metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T15:33:37Z)
• MM-Eval: A Multilingual Meta-Evaluation Benchmark for LLM-as-a-Judge and Reward Models [3.961168847961322]
  Large language models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in tasks, where they act as proxies for human preferences or judgments. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on English, offering limited insight into LLMs' effectiveness as evaluators in non-English contexts. We introduce MM-Eval, a multilingual meta-evaluation benchmark that covers 18 languages across six categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-23T06:04:55Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• VHELM: A Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models [75.88987277686914]
  We present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM) VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects: visual perception, knowledge, reasoning, bias, fairness, multilinguality, robustness, toxicity, and safety. Our framework is designed to be lightweight and automatic so that evaluation runs are cheap and fast.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:46:34Z)
• A Probabilistic Perspective on Unlearning and Alignment for Large Language Models [48.96686419141881]
  We introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework in Large Language Models (LLMs) We derive novel metrics with high-probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model. Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:44:23Z)
• STOP! Benchmarking Large Language Models with Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions [6.19084217044276]
  Mitigating explicit and implicit biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a critical focus in the field of natural language processing. We introduce the Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions dataset, which includes 450 offensive progressions containing 2,700 unique sentences. Our findings reveal that even the best-performing models detect bias inconsistently, with success rates ranging from 19.3% to 69.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T18:34:38Z)
• VLBiasBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Bias in Large Vision-Language Model [72.13121434085116]
  VLBiasBench is a benchmark aimed at evaluating biases in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) We construct a dataset encompassing nine distinct categories of social biases, including age, disability status, gender, nationality, physical appearance, race, religion, profession, social economic status and two intersectional bias categories (race x gender, and race x social economic status) We conduct extensive evaluations on 15 open-source models as well as one advanced closed-source model, providing some new insights into the biases revealing from these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T10:56:59Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Language Models for Code Completion: A Practical Evaluation [13.174471984950857]
  This study provides both quantitative and qualitative assessments of three public code language models when completing real-world code. We collected real auto-completion usage data for over a year from more than 1200 users, resulting in over 600K valid completions. We found that 66.3% of failures were due to the models' limitations, 24.4% occurred due to inappropriate model usage in a development context, and 9.3% were valid requests that developers overwrote.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T20:43:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.