RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11020v1
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:26:44 GMT
- Title: RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models
- Authors: Yuqing Wang, Yun Zhao,
- Abstract summary: We present RUPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across diverse reasoning tasks.
Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning.
By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns.
- Score: 12.112914393948415
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: With the increasing use of large language models (LLMs), ensuring reliable performance in diverse, real-world environments is essential. Despite their remarkable achievements, LLMs often struggle with adversarial inputs, significantly impacting their effectiveness in practical applications. To systematically understand the robustness of LLMs, we present RUPBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate LLM robustness across diverse reasoning tasks. Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning, and introduces nine types of textual perturbations at lexical, syntactic, and semantic levels. By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns. Our findings highlight that larger models tend to exhibit greater robustness to perturbations. Additionally, common error types are identified through manual inspection, revealing specific challenges faced by LLMs in different reasoning contexts. This work provides insights into areas where LLMs need further improvement to handle diverse and noisy inputs effectively.
Related papers
- Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation [65.92001420372007]
This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) across diverse benchmarks.
We show significant performance drops when negation arguments are introduced to initially correct responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z) - What You See Is Not Always What You Get: An Empirical Study of Code Comprehension by Large Language Models [0.5735035463793009]
We investigate the vulnerability of large language models (LLMs) to imperceptible attacks, where hidden character manipulation in source code misleads LLMs' behaviour while remaining undetectable to human reviewers.
These attacks include coding reordering, invisible coding characters, code deletions, and code homoglyphs.
Our findings confirm the susceptibility of LLMs to imperceptible coding character attacks, while different LLMs present different negative correlations between perturbation magnitude and performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-11T04:52:41Z) - Exploring Knowledge Boundaries in Large Language Models for Retrieval Judgment [56.87031484108484]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly recognized for their practical applications.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) tackles this challenge and has shown a significant impact on LLMs.
By minimizing retrieval requests that yield neutral or harmful results, we can effectively reduce both time and computational costs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-09T15:12:28Z) - Understanding the Role of LLMs in Multimodal Evaluation Benchmarks [77.59035801244278]
This paper investigates the role of the Large Language Model (LLM) backbone in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evaluation.
Our study encompasses four diverse MLLM benchmarks and eight state-of-the-art MLLMs.
Key findings reveal that some benchmarks allow high performance even without visual inputs and up to 50% of error rates can be attributed to insufficient world knowledge in the LLM backbone.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-16T07:49:13Z) - Learning on Graphs with Large Language Models(LLMs): A Deep Dive into Model Robustness [39.57155321515097]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various natural language processing tasks.
It remains unclear whether LLMs exhibit robustness in learning on graphs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-16T09:05:31Z) - FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks.
We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z) - From Understanding to Utilization: A Survey on Explainability for Large
Language Models [27.295767173801426]
This survey underscores the imperative for increased explainability in Large Language Models (LLMs)
Our focus is primarily on pre-trained Transformer-based LLMs, which pose distinctive interpretability challenges due to their scale and complexity.
When considering the utilization of explainability, we explore several compelling methods that concentrate on model editing, control generation, and model enhancement.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-23T16:09:53Z) - Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and
Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)
As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z) - FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm.
We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner.
Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z) - Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools.
Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions.
Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
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.