Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12794v2
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:00:01 GMT
- Title: Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification
- Authors: Fanghua Ye, Mingming Yang, Jianhui Pang, Longyue Wang, Derek F. Wong, Emine Yilmaz, Shuming Shi, Zhaopeng Tu,
- Abstract summary: The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods.
We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification.
Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
- Score: 91.72588235407379
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) from various institutions has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. However, current evaluation platforms, such as the widely recognized HuggingFace open LLM leaderboard, neglect a crucial aspect -- uncertainty, which is vital for thoroughly assessing LLMs. To bridge this gap, we introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our examination involves eight LLMs (LLM series) spanning five representative natural language processing tasks. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs. These results underscore the significance of incorporating uncertainty in the evaluation of LLMs.
Related papers
- Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks.
We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z) - Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.
The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.
We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z) - Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large
Language Models [89.20169610517381]
We propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps.
Experiments show that FaR achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Error by 23.5%.
FaR even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-27T01:37:23Z) - MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark [41.68821233828375]
This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities.
Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-07T12:28:32Z) - TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models [446.5640421311468]
This paper introduces TrustLLM, a comprehensive study of trustworthiness in large language models (LLMs)
We first propose a set of principles for trustworthy LLMs that span eight different dimensions.
Based on these principles, we establish a benchmark across six dimensions including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-10T22:07:21Z) - Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and
Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)
As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z) - Through the Lens of Core Competency: Survey on Evaluation of Large
Language Models [27.271533306818732]
Large language model (LLM) has excellent performance and wide practical uses.
Existing evaluation tasks are difficult to keep up with the wide range of applications in real-world scenarios.
We summarize 4 core competencies of LLM, including reasoning, knowledge, reliability, and safety.
Under this competency architecture, similar tasks are combined to reflect corresponding ability, while new tasks can also be easily added into the system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-15T17:40:34Z) - Look Before You Leap: An Exploratory Study of Uncertainty Measurement
for Large Language Models [16.524794442035265]
We study the risk assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) from the lens of uncertainty.
Our findings validate the effectiveness of uncertainty estimation for revealing LLMs' uncertain/non-factual predictions.
Insights from our study shed light on future design and development for reliable LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-16T08:28:04Z) - A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry.
This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
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.