ECBD: Evidence-Centered Benchmark Design for NLP

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08723v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:59:55 GMT
• Title: ECBD: Evidence-Centered Benchmark Design for NLP
• Authors: Yu Lu Liu, Su Lin Blodgett, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, Q. Vera Liao, Alexandra Olteanu, Ziang Xiao,
• Abstract summary: We propose Evidence-Centered Benchmark Design (ECBD), a framework which formalizes the benchmark design process into five modules. Each module requires benchmark designers to describe, justify, and support benchmark design choices. Our analysis reveals common trends in benchmark design and documentation that could threaten the validity of benchmarks' measurements.
• Score: 95.50252564938417
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarking is seen as critical to assessing progress in NLP. However, creating a benchmark involves many design decisions (e.g., which datasets to include, which metrics to use) that often rely on tacit, untested assumptions about what the benchmark is intended to measure or is actually measuring. There is currently no principled way of analyzing these decisions and how they impact the validity of the benchmark's measurements. To address this gap, we draw on evidence-centered design in educational assessments and propose Evidence-Centered Benchmark Design (ECBD), a framework which formalizes the benchmark design process into five modules. ECBD specifies the role each module plays in helping practitioners collect evidence about capabilities of interest. Specifically, each module requires benchmark designers to describe, justify, and support benchmark design choices -- e.g., clearly specifying the capabilities the benchmark aims to measure or how evidence about those capabilities is collected from model responses. To demonstrate the use of ECBD, we conduct case studies with three benchmarks: BoolQ, SuperGLUE, and HELM. Our analysis reveals common trends in benchmark design and documentation that could threaten the validity of benchmarks' measurements.

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)
• Do These LLM Benchmarks Agree? Fixing Benchmark Evaluation with BenchBench [15.565644819269803]
  We show how some overlooked methodological choices can significantly influence Benchmark Agreement Testing (BAT) results. We introduce BenchBench, a python package for BAT, and release the BenchBench-leaderboard, a meta-benchmark designed to evaluate benchmarks using their peers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T17:00:23Z)
• A Critical Review of Causal Reasoning Benchmarks for Large Language Models [2.1311710788645617]
  We present a comprehensive overview of LLM benchmarks for causality. We derive a set of criteria that a useful benchmark or set of benchmarks should aim to satisfy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T20:11:51Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner [47.345760054595246]
  We propose a novel benchmarking framework, Language-Model-as-an-Examiner. The LM serves as a knowledgeable examiner that formulates questions based on its knowledge and evaluates responses in a reference-free manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T06:29:58Z)
• A Review of Benchmarks for Visual Defect Detection in the Manufacturing Industry [63.52264764099532]
  We propose a study of existing benchmarks to compare and expose their characteristics and their use-cases. A study of industrial metrics requirements, as well as testing procedures, will be presented and applied to the studied benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T07:44:23Z)
• OPT-IML: Scaling Language Model Instruction Meta Learning through the Lens of Generalization [101.37439352091612]
  We describe the effect of instruction-tuning decisions on downstream task performance when scaling both model and benchmark sizes. We present insights about instruction-tuning decisions as applied to OPT-30B and further exploit these insights to train OPT-IML 30B and 175B, which are instruction-tuned versions of OPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-22T19:56:09Z)
• QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization [116.56171113972944]
  We show that carefully choosing the components of a QA-based metric is critical to performance. Our solution improves upon the best-performing entailment-based metric and achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T00:38:35Z)
• Exploring and Analyzing Machine Commonsense Benchmarks [0.13999481573773073]
  We argue that the lack of a common vocabulary for aligning these approaches' metadata limits researchers in their efforts to understand systems' deficiencies. We describe our initial MCS Benchmark Ontology, an common vocabulary that formalizes benchmark metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-21T19:01:55Z)
• AIBench: An Agile Domain-specific Benchmarking Methodology and an AI Benchmark Suite [26.820244556465333]
  This paper proposes an agile domain-specific benchmarking methodology. We identify ten important end-to-end application scenarios, among which sixteen representative AI tasks are distilled as the AI component benchmarks. We present the first end-to-end Internet service AI benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-17T07:29:05Z)

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.