GameEval: Evaluating LLMs on Conversational Games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10032v1
• Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 14:33:40 GMT
• Title: GameEval: Evaluating LLMs on Conversational Games
• Authors: Dan Qiao, Chenfei Wu, Yaobo Liang, Juntao Li, Nan Duan
• Abstract summary: We propose GameEval, a novel approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs) GameEval treats LLMs as game players and assigns them distinct roles with specific goals achieved by launching conversations of various forms. We show that GameEval can effectively differentiate the capabilities of various LLMs, providing a comprehensive assessment of their integrated abilities to solve complex problems.
• Score: 93.40433639746331
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have presented challenges in evaluating those models. Existing evaluation methods are either reference-based or preference based, which inevitably need human intervention or introduce test bias caused by evaluator models. In this paper, we propose GameEval, a novel approach to evaluating LLMs through goal-driven conversational games, overcoming the limitations of previous methods. GameEval treats LLMs as game players and assigns them distinct roles with specific goals achieved by launching conversations of various forms, including discussion, question answering, and voting. We design three unique games with cooperative or adversarial objectives, accompanied by corresponding evaluation metrics, to show how this new paradigm comprehensively evaluates model performance.Through extensive experiments, we show that GameEval can effectively differentiate the capabilities of various LLMs, providing a comprehensive assessment of their integrated abilities to solve complex problems. Our public anonymous code is available at https://github.com/GameEval/GameEval.

Related papers

• TMGBench: A Systematic Game Benchmark for Evaluating Strategic Reasoning Abilities of LLMs [45.06415588947462]
  We propose TMGBench, a benchmark with comprehensive game type coverage, novel scenarios, and flexible organization. Specifically, we incorporate all 144 game types summarized by the Robinson-Goforth topology of 2x2 games, constructed as classic games. We also employ synthetic data generation to create diverse, higher-quality scenarios through topic guidance and human inspection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T13:15:34Z)
• 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)
• Weak-eval-Strong: Evaluating and Eliciting Lateral Thinking of LLMs with Situation Puzzles [20.18736445118689]
  We introduce SPLAT, a benchmark leveraging Situation Puzzles to evaluate and elicit lateral thinking of Large Language Models (LLMs) This benchmark, containing 975 graded situation puzzles across three difficulty levels, employs a new multi-turn player-judge framework instead of the traditional model-based evaluation. Experiments demonstrate that a robust evaluation model, such as WizardLM-2, closely matches human judgements in both intermediate question-answering and final scenario accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T10:09:11Z)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• Evaluating Language Model Agency through Negotiations [39.87262815823634]
  Negotiation games enable us to study multi-turn, and cross-model interactions, modulate complexity, and side-step accidental evaluation data leakage. We use our approach to test six widely used and publicly accessible LMs, evaluating performance and alignment in both self-play and cross-play settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T13:19:37Z)
• A Comprehensive Analysis of the Effectiveness of Large Language Models as Automatic Dialogue Evaluators [46.939611070781794]
  Large language models (LLMs) are shown to be promising substitutes for human judges. We analyze the multi-dimensional evaluation capability of 30 recently emerged LLMs at both turn and dialogue levels. We also probe the robustness of the LLMs in handling various adversarial perturbations at both turn and dialogue levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T04:50:57Z)
• Leveraging Word Guessing Games to Assess the Intelligence of Large Language Models [105.39236338147715]
  The paper is inspired by the popular language game Who is Spy'' We develop DEEP to evaluate LLMs' expression and disguising abilities. We then introduce SpyGame, an interactive multi-agent framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T14:37:42Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)
• Clembench: Using Game Play to Evaluate Chat-Optimized Language Models as Conversational Agents [20.202525145391093]
  Recent work has proposed a methodology for the systematic evaluation of "Situated Language Understanding Agents" This paper explores: Can Large Language Models be evaluated meaningfully by exposing them to constrained game-like settings? As a proof of concept, this paper investigates five interaction settings, showing that current chat-optimised LLMs are, to an extent, capable to follow game-play instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T19:56:10Z)

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.