Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative
Artificial Intelligence
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09880v1
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:08:10 GMT
- Title: Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative
Artificial Intelligence
- Authors: Timothy R. McIntosh, Teo Susnjak, Tong Liu, Paul Watters, and Malka N.
Halgamuge
- Abstract summary: We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models benchmarks.
Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning.
We advocate for an evolution from static benchmarks to dynamic behavioral profiling.
- Score: 5.454656183053655
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: The rapid rise in popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) with emerging
capabilities has spurred public curiosity to evaluate and compare different
LLMs, leading many researchers to propose their LLM benchmarks. Noticing
preliminary inadequacies in those benchmarks, we embarked on a study to
critically assess 23 state-of-the-art LLM benchmarks, using our novel unified
evaluation framework through the lenses of people, process, and technology,
under the pillars of functionality and security. Our research uncovered
significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine
reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering
complexity, evaluator diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and
ideological norms in one comprehensive assessment. Our discussions emphasized
the urgent need for standardized methodologies, regulatory certainties, and
ethical guidelines in light of Artificial Intelligence (AI) advancements,
including advocating for an evolution from static benchmarks to dynamic
behavioral profiling to accurately capture LLMs' complex behaviors and
potential risks. Our study highlighted the necessity for a paradigm shift in
LLM evaluation methodologies, underlining the importance of collaborative
efforts for the development of universally accepted benchmarks and the
enhancement of AI systems' integration into society.
Related papers
- Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment.
To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z) - Disce aut Deficere: Evaluating LLMs Proficiency on the INVALSI Italian Benchmark [12.729687989535359]
evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in languages other than English is crucial for ensuring their linguistic versatility, cultural relevance, and applicability in diverse global contexts.
We tackle this challenge by introducing a structured benchmark using the INVALSI tests, a set of well-established assessments designed to measure educational competencies across Italy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-25T13:20:08Z) - MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMs [34.43699121838648]
This paper introduces a novel benchmark designed to measure and compare the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)
We present the first comprehensive dataset specifically curated to probe the moral dimensions of LLM outputs.
Our methodology involves a multi-faceted approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from ethics scholars to ensure a thorough evaluation of model performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-06T18:15:01Z) - The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [59.424918263776284]
The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of large language models (LLMs)
We review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness.
We develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z) - Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress.
Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief.
By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z) - K-Level Reasoning with Large Language Models [80.13817747270029]
We explore the dynamic reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for decision-making in rapidly evolving environments.
We introduce two game theory-based pilot challenges that mirror the complexities of real-world dynamic decision-making.
These challenges are well-defined, enabling clear, controllable, and precise evaluation of LLMs' dynamic reasoning abilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-02T16:07:05Z) - Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges [57.88520765782177]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for assessing generated content quality, e.g., coherence, creativity, and context relevance.
We propose a coherent taxonomy for organizing existing LLM-based evaluation metrics, offering a structured framework to understand and compare these methods.
By discussing unresolved challenges, including bias, robustness, domain-specificity, and unified evaluation, this paper seeks to offer insights to researchers and advocate for fairer and more advanced NLG evaluation techniques.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-13T15:59:09Z) - Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation [22.517544562890663]
This paper traces the historical trajectory of Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluations, from the foundational questions posed by Alan Turing to the modern era of AI research.
We emphasize the pressing need for a unified evaluation system, given the broader societal implications of these models.
This work serves as a call for the AI community to collaboratively address the challenges of LLM evaluation, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and societal benefit.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-03T17:24:50Z) - Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models
and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation [71.76872586182981]
Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations.
We propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z) - Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gap [34.08410116336628]
We argue that model evaluation practices must take on a critical task to cope with the challenges and responsibilities brought by this homogenization.
We urge the community to develop evaluation methods based on real-world socio-requirements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-01T00:01:43Z)
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.