Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models via Debates

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11044v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:02:31 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models via Debates
• Authors: Behrad Moniri, Hamed Hassani, Edgar Dobriban,
• Abstract summary: We propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between Large Language Models (LLMs) This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as problem definition and inconsistency recognition. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs using the debate framework and achieve rankings that align closely with popular rankings based on human input.
• Score: 43.40134389150456
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields, necessitating the development of effective methods to evaluate and compare their performance. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either based on fixed, domain-specific questions that lack the flexibility required in many real-world applications where tasks are not always from a single domain, or rely on human input, making them unscalable. We propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between LLMs, judged by another LLM. This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as problem definition and inconsistency recognition. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs using the debate framework and achieve rankings that align closely with popular rankings based on human input, eliminating the need for costly human crowdsourcing.

Related papers

• Revisiting Benchmark and Assessment: An Agent-based Exploratory Dynamic Evaluation Framework for LLMs [29.72874725703848]
  We introduce two concepts: Benchmark+, which extends traditional question-answer benchmark into a more flexible "strategy-criterion" format; and Assessment+, which enhances the interaction process. We propose an agent-based evaluation framework called TestAgent, which implements these concepts through retrieval augmented generation and reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:20:42Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text [12.879551933541345]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating human-like conversations. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T16:01:45Z)
• SLIDE: A Framework Integrating Small and Large Language Models for Open-Domain Dialogues Evaluation [23.203761925540736]
  We propose a novel framework SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation) Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both the classification and evaluation tasks, and additionally the SLIDE exhibits better correlation with human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T20:32:49Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• 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)
• Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation [71.76872586182981]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations. We propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• NuclearQA: A Human-Made Benchmark for Language Models for the Nuclear Domain [0.0]
  NuclearQA is a human-made benchmark of 100 questions to evaluate language models in the nuclear domain. We show how the mix of several types of questions makes our benchmark uniquely capable of evaluating models in the nuclear domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T01:27:20Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)

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.