tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14992v2
• Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 22:27:23 GMT
• Title: tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples
• Authors: Felipe Maia Polo, Lucas Weber, Leshem Choshen, Yuekai Sun, Gongjun Xu, Mikhail Yurochkin,
• Abstract summary: We release evaluation tools and tiny versions of popular benchmarks: Open LLM Leaderboard, MMLU, HELM, and AlpacaEval 2.0. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that these tools and tiny benchmarks are sufficient to reliably and efficiently reproduce the original evaluation results.
• Score: 42.95407654805037
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The versatility of large language models (LLMs) led to the creation of diverse benchmarks that thoroughly test a variety of language models' abilities. These benchmarks consist of tens of thousands of examples making evaluation of LLMs very expensive. In this paper, we investigate strategies to reduce the number of evaluations needed to assess the performance of an LLM on several key benchmarks. For example, we show that to accurately estimate the performance of an LLM on MMLU, a popular multiple-choice QA benchmark consisting of 14K examples, it is sufficient to evaluate this LLM on 100 curated examples. We release evaluation tools and tiny versions of popular benchmarks: Open LLM Leaderboard, MMLU, HELM, and AlpacaEval 2.0. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that these tools and tiny benchmarks are sufficient to reliably and efficiently reproduce the original evaluation results.

Related papers

• LIME: Less Is More for MLLM Evaluation [36.29820380945517]
  We propose LIME (Less Is More for MLLM Evaluation), a benchmark curated through a semi-automated pipeline. This pipeline filters out uninformative samples and eliminates answer leakage by focusing on tasks that necessitate image-based understanding. Our experiments indicate that LIME reduces the number of samples by 76% and evaluation time by 77%, while also providing a more effective means of distinguishing the capabilities of different models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-10T20:19:14Z)
• Efficient multi-prompt evaluation of LLMs [36.46258631685666]
  We introduce PromptEval, a method for estimating performance across a large set of prompts. We prove that PromptEval consistently estimates the performance distribution and demonstrate its efficacy empirically. We show how PromptEval can be useful in LLM-as-a-judge and best prompt identification applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T14:24:47Z)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation [28.307860675006545]
  We comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-31T22:21:36Z)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.