MERA: A Comprehensive LLM Evaluation in Russian

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04531v3
• Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:23:18 GMT
• Title: MERA: A Comprehensive LLM Evaluation in Russian
• Authors: Alena Fenogenova, Artem Chervyakov, Nikita Martynov, Anastasia Kozlova, Maria Tikhonova, Albina Akhmetgareeva, Anton Emelyanov, Denis Shevelev, Pavel Lebedev, Leonid Sinev, Ulyana Isaeva, Katerina Kolomeytseva, Daniil Moskovskiy, Elizaveta Goncharova, Nikita Savushkin, Polina Mikhailova, Denis Dimitrov, Alexander Panchenko, Sergei Markov,
• Abstract summary: We introduce an open Multimodal Evaluation of Russian-language Architectures (MERA) benchmark for evaluating foundation models. The benchmark encompasses 21 evaluation tasks for generative models in 11 skill domains. We propose an evaluation methodology, an open-source code base for the MERA assessment, and a leaderboard with a submission system.
• Score: 43.02318109348788
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Over the past few years, one of the most notable advancements in AI research has been in foundation models (FMs), headlined by the rise of language models (LMs). As the models' size increases, LMs demonstrate enhancements in measurable aspects and the development of new qualitative features. However, despite researchers' attention and the rapid growth in LM application, the capabilities, limitations, and associated risks still need to be better understood. To address these issues, we introduce an open Multimodal Evaluation of Russian-language Architectures (MERA), a new instruction benchmark for evaluating foundation models oriented towards the Russian language. The benchmark encompasses 21 evaluation tasks for generative models in 11 skill domains and is designed as a black-box test to ensure the exclusion of data leakage. The paper introduces a methodology to evaluate FMs and LMs in zero- and few-shot fixed instruction settings that can be extended to other modalities. We propose an evaluation methodology, an open-source code base for the MERA assessment, and a leaderboard with a submission system. We evaluate open LMs as baselines and find that they are still far behind the human level. We publicly release MERA to guide forthcoming research, anticipate groundbreaking model features, standardize the evaluation procedure, and address potential societal drawbacks.

Related papers

• 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)
• LMMs-Eval: Reality Check on the Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models [71.8065384742686]
  LMMS-EVAL is a unified and standardized multimodal benchmark framework with over 50 tasks and more than 10 models. LMMS-EVAL LITE is a pruned evaluation toolkit that emphasizes both coverage and efficiency. Multimodal LIVEBENCH utilizes continuously updating news and online forums to assess models' generalization abilities in the wild.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T17:51:53Z)
• Belief Revision: The Adaptability of Large Language Models Reasoning [63.0281286287648]
  We introduce Belief-R, a new dataset designed to test LMs' belief revision ability when presented with new evidence. Inspired by how humans suppress prior inferences, this task assesses LMs within the newly proposed delta reasoning framework. We evaluate $sim$30 LMs across diverse prompting strategies and found that LMs generally struggle to appropriately revise their beliefs in response to new information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T09:09:36Z)
• LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
  We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z)
• MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player? [114.45702807380415]
  We propose MMBench, a benchmark for assessing the multi-modal capabilities of vision-language models. MMBench is meticulously curated with well-designed quality control schemes. MMBench incorporates multiple-choice questions in both English and Chinese versions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-12T16:23:09Z)
• CARE-MI: Chinese Benchmark for Misinformation Evaluation in Maternity and Infant Care [14.326936563564171]
  We present a benchmark, CARE-MI, for evaluating misinformation in large language models (LLMs) Our proposed benchmark fills the gap between the extensive usage of LLMs and the lack of datasets for assessing the misinformation generated by these models. Using our benchmark, we conduct extensive experiments and found that current Chinese LLMs are far from perfect in the topic of maternity and infant care.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T03:34:19Z)
• Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner [47.345760054595246]
  We propose a novel benchmarking framework, Language-Model-as-an-Examiner. The LM serves as a knowledgeable examiner that formulates questions based on its knowledge and evaluates responses in a reference-free manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T06:29:58Z)

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.