When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboards

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01781v2
• Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:20:43 GMT
• Title: When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboards
• Authors: Norah Alzahrani, Hisham Abdullah Alyahya, Yazeed Alnumay, Sultan Alrashed, Shaykhah Alsubaie, Yusef Almushaykeh, Faisal Mirza, Nouf Alotaibi, Nora Altwairesh, Areeb Alowisheq, M Saiful Bari, Haidar Khan,
• Abstract summary: We show that under existing leaderboards, the relative performance of LLMs is highly sensitive to minute details. We show that for popular multiple-choice question benchmarks (e.g., MMLU), minor perturbations to the benchmark, such as changing the order of choices or the method of answer selection, result in changes in rankings up to 8 positions.
• Score: 9.751405901938895
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) leaderboards based on benchmark rankings are regularly used to guide practitioners in model selection. Often, the published leaderboard rankings are taken at face value - we show this is a (potentially costly) mistake. Under existing leaderboards, the relative performance of LLMs is highly sensitive to (often minute) details. We show that for popular multiple-choice question benchmarks (e.g., MMLU), minor perturbations to the benchmark, such as changing the order of choices or the method of answer selection, result in changes in rankings up to 8 positions. We explain this phenomenon by conducting systematic experiments over three broad categories of benchmark perturbations and identifying the sources of this behavior. Our analysis results in several best-practice recommendations, including the advantage of a hybrid scoring method for answer selection. Our study highlights the dangers of relying on simple benchmark evaluations and charts the path for more robust evaluation schemes on the existing benchmarks. The code for this paper is available at https://github.com/National-Center-for-AI-Saudi-Arabia/lm-evaluation-harness.

Related papers

• MR-BEN: A Comprehensive Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark that demands a meta reasoning skill. MR-BEN is a comprehensive benchmark comprising 5,975 questions collected from human experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• 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)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators [17.850224207182062]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. We evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr) We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T06:53:10Z)
• Vote'n'Rank: Revision of Benchmarking with Social Choice Theory [7.224599819499157]
  This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T20:19:11Z)
• Few-Shot Image Classification Benchmarks are Too Far From Reality: Build Back Better with Semantic Task Sampling [4.855663359344748]
  We introduce a new benchmark for Few-Shot Image Classification using the Danish Fungi 2020 dataset. This benchmark proposes a wide variety of evaluation tasks with various fine-graininess. Our experiments bring out the correlation between the difficulty of a task and the semantic similarity between its classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-10T20:25:43Z)
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review [61.27794774537103]
  In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. To mitigate this issue, conferences have started to ask reviewers to additionally provide a ranking of the papers they have reviewed. There are no standard procedure for using this ranking information and Area Chairs may use it in different ways. We take a principled approach to integrate the ranking information into the scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-05T19:39:13Z)
• Unbiased Pairwise Learning to Rank in Recommender Systems [4.058828240864671]
  Unbiased learning to rank algorithms are appealing candidates and have already been applied in many applications with single categorical labels. We propose a novel unbiased LTR algorithm to tackle the challenges, which innovatively models position bias in the pairwise fashion. Experiment results on public benchmark datasets and internal live traffic show the superior results of the proposed method for both categorical and continuous labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-25T06:04:59Z)
• The Benchmark Lottery [114.43978017484893]
  "A benchmark lottery" describes the overall fragility of the machine learning benchmarking process. We show that the relative performance of algorithms may be altered significantly simply by choosing different benchmark tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-14T21:08:30Z)

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.