Beyond the Answers: Reviewing the Rationality of Multiple Choice Question Answering for the Evaluation of Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01349v2
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 01:57:14 GMT
- Title: Beyond the Answers: Reviewing the Rationality of Multiple Choice Question Answering for the Evaluation of Large Language Models
- Authors: Haochun Wang, Sendong Zhao, Zewen Qiang, Nuwa Xi, Bing Qin, Ting Liu,
- Abstract summary: This study investigates the limitations of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as an evaluation method for Large Language Models (LLMs)
We propose a dataset augmenting method for Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs), MCQA+, that can more accurately reflect the performance of the model.
- Score: 29.202758753639078
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: In the field of natural language processing (NLP), Large Language Models (LLMs) have precipitated a paradigm shift, markedly enhancing performance in natural language generation tasks. Despite these advancements, the comprehensive evaluation of LLMs remains an inevitable challenge for the community. Recently, the utilization of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as a benchmark for LLMs has gained considerable traction. This study first investigates the limitations of MCQA as an evaluation method for LLMs and then analyzes the fundamental reason for the limitations of MCQA, that while LLMs may select the correct answers, it is possible that they also recognize other wrong options as correct. Finally, we propose a dataset augmenting method for Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs), MCQA+, that can more accurately reflect the performance of the model, which underscores the need for more robust evaluation mechanisms in assessing the performance of LLMs.
Related papers
- CLR-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models in College-level Reasoning [17.081788240112417]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their remarkable performance across various language understanding tasks.
We present CLR-Bench to comprehensively evaluate the LLMs in complex college-level reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-23T04:55:08Z) - Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning [53.6472920229013]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in many natural language tasks.
LLMs are prone to produce errors, hallucinations and inconsistent statements when performing multi-step reasoning.
We introduce Q*, a framework for guiding LLMs decoding process with deliberative planning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-20T13:08:09Z) - 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) - Toward Self-Improvement of LLMs via Imagination, Searching, and Criticizing [56.75702900542643]
We introduce AlphaLLM for the self-improvements of Large Language Models.
It integrates Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with LLMs to establish a self-improving loop.
Our experimental results show that AlphaLLM significantly enhances the performance of LLMs without additional annotations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-18T15:21:34Z) - Cofca: A Step-Wise Counterfactual Multi-hop QA benchmark [39.64489055580211]
We introduce a Step-wise Counterfactual benchmark (CofCA), a novel evaluation benchmark consisting of factual data and counterfactual data.
Our experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between Wikipedia-based factual data and counterfactual data, deeming data contamination issues in existing benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-19T08:12:30Z) - CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark.
In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship.
We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z) - InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal
Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence.
Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning.
We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z) - Zero-Shot Question Answering over Financial Documents using Large
Language Models [0.18749305679160366]
We introduce a large language model (LLM) based approach to answer complex questions requiring multi-hop numerical reasoning over financial reports.
We use novel zero-shot prompts that guide the LLM to encode the required reasoning into a Python program or a domain specific language.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-19T16:23:34Z) - Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools.
Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions.
Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z) - 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)
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.