From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10512v3
• Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 09:24:01 GMT
• Title: From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation
• Authors: Yan Zhuang, Qi Liu, Yuting Ning, Weizhe Huang, Zachary A. Pardos, Patrick C. Kyllonen, Jiyun Zu, Qingyang Mao, Rui Lv, Zhenya Huang, Guanhao Zhao, Zheng Zhang, Shijin Wang, Enhong Chen,
• Abstract summary: We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
• Score: 60.14902811624433
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As AI systems continue to grow, particularly generative models like Large Language Models (LLMs), their rigorous evaluation is crucial for development and deployment. To determine their adequacy, researchers have developed various large-scale benchmarks against a so-called gold-standard test set and report metrics averaged across all items. However, this static evaluation paradigm increasingly shows its limitations, including high computational costs, data contamination, and the impact of low-quality or erroneous items on evaluation reliability and efficiency. In this Perspective, drawing from human psychometrics, we discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time, tailoring the evaluation based on the model's ongoing performance instead of relying on a fixed test set. This paradigm not only provides a more robust ability estimation but also significantly reduces the number of test items required. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation. We propose that adaptive testing will become the new norm in AI model evaluation, enhancing both the efficiency and effectiveness of assessing advanced intelligence systems.

Related papers

• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments [2.1370543868467275]
  This follow-up paper explores methods to align Large Language Models evaluator preferences with human evaluations. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T09:26:40Z)
• Adaptive Testing Environment Generation for Connected and Automated Vehicles with Dense Reinforcement Learning [7.6589102528398065]
  We develop an adaptive testing environment that bolsters evaluation robustness by incorporating multiple surrogate models. We propose the dense reinforcement learning method and devise a new adaptive policy with high sample efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T15:42:33Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Uncertainty-Driven Action Quality Assessment [67.20617610820857]
  We propose a novel probabilistic model, named Uncertainty-Driven AQA (UD-AQA), to capture the diversity among multiple judge scores. We generate the estimation of uncertainty for each prediction, which is employed to re-weight AQA regression loss. Our proposed method achieves competitive results on three benchmarks including the Olympic events MTL-AQA and FineDiving, and the surgical skill JIGSAWS datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-29T07:21:15Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.