Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17752v3
• Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 13:32:25 GMT
• Title: Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs?
• Authors: Wangyue Li, Liangzhi Li, Tong Xiang, Xiao Liu, Wei Deng, Noa Garcia,
• Abstract summary: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) The misalignment between the task and the evaluation method demands a thoughtful analysis of MCQ's efficacy. We evaluate nine LLMs on four question-answering (QA) datasets in two languages: Chinese and English.
• Score: 15.756543037102256
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) due to their simplicity and efficiency. However, there are concerns about whether MCQs can truly measure LLM's capabilities, particularly in knowledge-intensive scenarios where long-form generation (LFG) answers are required. The misalignment between the task and the evaluation method demands a thoughtful analysis of MCQ's efficacy, which we undertake in this paper by evaluating nine LLMs on four question-answering (QA) datasets in two languages: Chinese and English. We identify a significant issue: LLMs exhibit an order sensitivity in bilingual MCQs, favoring answers located at specific positions, i.e., the first position. We further quantify the gap between MCQs and long-form generation questions (LFGQs) by comparing their direct outputs, token logits, and embeddings. Our results reveal a relatively low correlation between answers from MCQs and LFGQs for identical questions. Additionally, we propose two methods to quantify the consistency and confidence of LLMs' output, which can be generalized to other QA evaluation benchmarks. Notably, our analysis challenges the idea that the higher the consistency, the greater the accuracy. We also find MCQs to be less reliable than LFGQs in terms of expected calibration error. Finally, the misalignment between MCQs and LFGQs is not only reflected in the evaluation performance but also in the embedding space. Our code and models can be accessed at https://github.com/Meetyou-AI-Lab/Can-MC-Evaluate-LLMs.

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)
• Eyes Can Deceive: Benchmarking Counterfactual Reasoning Abilities of Multi-modal Large Language Models [71.34097831618631]
  We introduce a novel textbfCountertextbfFactual textbfMultitextbfModal reasoning benchmark, abbreviated as textbfCFMM. Our CFMM comprises six challenging tasks, each including hundreds of carefully human-labeled counterfactual questions. We find that existing MLLMs prefer to believe what they see, but ignore the counterfactual presuppositions presented in the question.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:53:27Z)
• Let LLMs Take on the Latest Challenges! A Chinese Dynamic Question Answering Benchmark [69.3415799675046]
  We introduce CDQA, a Chinese Dynamic QA benchmark containing question-answer pairs related to the latest news on the Chinese Internet. We obtain high-quality data through a pipeline that combines humans and models. We have also evaluated and analyzed mainstream and advanced Chinese LLMs on CDQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T15:22:13Z)
• Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question? [15.308093827770474]
  We probe if large language models (LLMs) can perform multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) with choices-only prompts. This prompt bests a majority baseline in 11/12 cases, with up to 0.33 accuracy gain. We conduct an in-depth, black-box analysis on memorization, choice dynamics, and question inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T19:38:58Z)
• Evaluating LLMs' Inherent Multi-hop Reasoning Ability [39.64489055580211]
  Multi-step reasoning abilities on multiple evidence integration on Multi-hop QA tasks remain underexplored. Current Multi-hop QA benchmarks are factual and annotated on open-source corpora such as Wikipedia. We introduce the Inherent Reasoning Evaluation (IRE) method, a novel evaluation way that jointly evaluates the LLMs' chain-of-reasoning performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T08:12:30Z)
• Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs [52.42505579545893]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought explanations alongside answers. We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T05:22:56Z)
• Beyond the Answers: Reviewing the Rationality of Multiple Choice Question Answering for the Evaluation of Large Language Models [29.202758753639078]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T12:07:00Z)
• 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)
• Shifting Attention to Relevance: Towards the Predictive Uncertainty Quantification of Free-Form Large Language Models [27.491408293411734]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show promising results in language generation and instruction following but frequently "hallucinate" Our research introduces a simple redundancy: not all tokens in auto-regressive text equally represent the underlying meaning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-03T22:17:16Z)
• Make a Choice! Knowledge Base Question Answering with In-Context Learning [1.7827767384590838]
  Question answering over knowledge bases (KBQA) aims to answer factoid questions with a given knowledge base (KB) Due to the large scale of KB, annotated data is impossible to cover all fact schemas in KB. We present McL-KBQA, a framework that incorporates the few-shot ability of LLM into the KBQA method via ICL-based multiple choice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T11:56:03Z)
• Attributed Question Answering: Evaluation and Modeling for Attributed Large Language Models [68.37431984231338]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive results across a variety of tasks while requiring little or no direct supervision. We believe the ability of an LLM to an attribute to the text that it generates is likely to be crucial for both system developers and users in this setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T18:45:29Z)

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.