Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07911v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 05:13:55 GMT
• Title: Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models
• Authors: Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, Le Hou
• Abstract summary: We introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market.
• Score: 52.90926820437014
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: One core capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to follow natural language instructions. However, the evaluation of such abilities is not standardized: Human evaluations are expensive, slow, and not objectively reproducible, while LLM-based auto-evaluation is potentially biased or limited by the ability of the evaluator LLM. To overcome these issues, we introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. It focuses on a set of "verifiable instructions" such as "write in more than 400 words" and "mention the keyword of AI at least 3 times". We identified 25 types of those verifiable instructions and constructed around 500 prompts, with each prompt containing one or more verifiable instructions. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/instruction_following_eval

Related papers

• Evaluation of Instruction-Following Ability for Large Language Models on Story-Ending Generation [2.4889060833127665]
  In this paper, we focus on evaluating the instruction-following ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of story-ending generation. We propose an automatic evaluation pipeline that utilizes a machine reading comprehension (MRC) model to determine whether the generated story-ending reflects instruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T06:53:36Z)
• LLMEval: A Preliminary Study on How to Evaluate Large Language Models [47.12588320134504]
  We analyze evaluation methods by comparing various criteria with both manual and automatic evaluation, utilizing onsite, crowd-sourcing, public annotators and GPT-4. A total of 2,186 individuals participated, leading to the generation of 243,337 manual annotations and 57,511 automatic evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T16:14:43Z)
• FollowEval: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Assessing the Instruction-Following Capability of Large Language Models [42.72420855478716]
  FollowEval benchmark is composed of instances in both English and Chinese. Each test example is designed to evaluate more than one dimension. We have evaluated various LLMs using the FollowEval benchmark and found that their performance significantly lags behind that of humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:53:31Z)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• VisIT-Bench: A Benchmark for Vision-Language Instruction Following Inspired by Real-World Use [49.574651930395305]
  VisIT-Bench is a benchmark for evaluation of instruction-following vision-language models. Our dataset comprises 592 test queries, each with a human-authored instruction-conditioned caption. We quantify quality gaps between models and references using both human and automatic evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-12T15:27:51Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

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.