OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08446v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:37:09 GMT
• Title: OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluations
• Authors: Yuling Gu, Oyvind Tafjord, Bailey Kuehl, Dany Haddad, Jesse Dodge, Hannaneh Hajishirzi,
• Abstract summary: We propose OLMES, a practical, open standard for reproducible language model evaluations. We identify and review the varying factors in evaluation practices adopted by the community. OLMES supports meaningful comparisons between smaller base models that require the unnatural "cloze" formulation of multiple-choice questions.
• Score: 64.85905119836818
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Progress in AI is often demonstrated by new models claiming improved performance on tasks measuring model capabilities. Evaluating language models in particular is challenging, as small changes to how a model is evaluated on a task can lead to large changes in measured performance. There is no common standard setup, so different models are evaluated on the same tasks in different ways, leading to claims about which models perform best not being reproducible. We propose OLMES, a completely documented, practical, open standard for reproducible LLM evaluations. In developing this standard, we identify and review the varying factors in evaluation practices adopted by the community - such as details of prompt formatting, choice of in-context examples, probability normalizations, and task formulation. In particular, OLMES supports meaningful comparisons between smaller base models that require the unnatural "cloze" formulation of multiple-choice questions against larger models that can utilize the original formulation. OLMES includes well-considered recommendations guided by results from existing literature as well as new experiments investigating open questions.

Related papers

• Revisiting SMoE Language Models by Evaluating Inefficiencies with Task Specific Expert Pruning [78.72226641279863]
  Sparse Mixture of Expert (SMoE) models have emerged as a scalable alternative to dense models in language modeling. Our research explores task-specific model pruning to inform decisions about designing SMoE architectures. We introduce an adaptive task-aware pruning technique UNCURL to reduce the number of experts per MoE layer in an offline manner post-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-02T22:35:03Z)
• Estimating Knowledge in Large Language Models Without Generating a Single Token [12.913172023910203]
  Current methods to evaluate knowledge in large language models (LLMs) query the model and then evaluate its generated responses. In this work, we ask whether evaluation can be done before the model has generated any text. Experiments with a variety of LLMs show that KEEN, a simple probe trained over internal subject representations, succeeds at both tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T14:45:50Z)
• LLM Reading Tea Leaves: Automatically Evaluating Topic Models with Large Language Models [12.500091504010067]
  We propose WALM (Words Agreement with Language Model), a new evaluation method for topic modeling. With extensive experiments involving different types of topic models, WALM is shown to align with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T11:19:50Z)
• Alice in Wonderland: Simple Tasks Showing Complete Reasoning Breakdown in State-Of-the-Art Large Language Models [13.532180752491954]
  We demonstrate a dramatic breakdown of function and reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art models trained at the largest available scales. The breakdown is dramatic, as models show strong fluctuations across even slight problem variations that should not affect problem solving. We take these initial observations to stimulate urgent re-assessment of the claimed capabilities of current generation of Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T07:43:33Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• BLESS: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Sentence Simplification [55.461555829492866]
  We present BLESS, a performance benchmark of the most recent state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on the task of text simplification (TS) We assess a total of 44 models, differing in size, architecture, pre-training methods, and accessibility, on three test sets from different domains (Wikipedia, news, and medical) under a few-shot setting. Our evaluation indicates that the best LLMs, despite not being trained on TS, perform comparably with state-of-the-art TS baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T12:18:17Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• Adapting Large Language Models for Content Moderation: Pitfalls in Data Engineering and Supervised Fine-tuning [79.53130089003986]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become a feasible solution for handling tasks in various domains. In this paper, we introduce how to fine-tune a LLM model that can be privately deployed for content moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T09:09:44Z)
• Evaluation of HTR models without Ground Truth Material [2.4792948967354236]
  evaluation of Handwritten Text Recognition models during their development is straightforward. But the evaluation process becomes tricky as soon as we switch from development to application. We show that lexicon-based evaluation can compete with lexicon-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T01:26:09Z)

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.