LongIns: A Challenging Long-context Instruction-based Exam for LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17588v2
• Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:28:04 GMT
• Title: LongIns: A Challenging Long-context Instruction-based Exam for LLMs
• Authors: Shawn Gavin, Tuney Zheng, Jiaheng Liu, Quehry Que, Noah Wang, Jian Yang, Chenchen Zhang, Wenhao Huang, Wenhu Chen, Ge Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Long-context capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been a hot topic in recent years. We propose the LongIns benchmark dataset, a challenging long-context instruction-based exam for LLMs.
• Score: 44.51209510772957
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The long-context capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been a hot topic in recent years. To evaluate the performance of LLMs in different scenarios, various assessment benchmarks have emerged. However, as most of these benchmarks focus on identifying key information to answer questions, which mainly requires the retrieval ability of LLMs, these benchmarks can partially represent the reasoning performance of LLMs from large amounts of information. Meanwhile, although LLMs often claim to have context windows of 32k, 128k, 200k, or even longer, these benchmarks fail to reveal the actual supported length of these LLMs. To address these issues, we propose the LongIns benchmark dataset, a challenging long-context instruction-based exam for LLMs, which is built based on the existing instruction datasets. Specifically, in our LongIns, we introduce three evaluation settings: Global Instruction & Single Task (GIST), Local Instruction & Single Task (LIST), and Local Instruction & Multiple Tasks (LIMT). Based on LongIns, we perform comprehensive evaluations on existing LLMs and have the following important findings: (1). The top-performing GPT-4 with 128k context length performs poorly on the evaluation context window of 16k in our LongIns. (2). For the multi-hop reasoning ability of many existing LLMs, significant efforts are still needed under short context windows (less than 4k).

Related papers

• NeedleBench: Can LLMs Do Retrieval and Reasoning in 1 Million Context Window? [37.64593022203498]
  NeedleBench is a framework consisting of progressively more challenging tasks for assessing bilingual long-context capabilities. We use the framework to assess how well the leading open-source models can identify key information relevant to the question. We propose the Ancestral Trace Challenge to mimic the complexity of logical reasoning challenges that are likely to be present in real-world long-context tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T17:59:06Z)
• RepoQA: Evaluating Long Context Code Understanding [12.329233433333416]
  RepoQA is a benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on long-context code understanding. RepoQA includes 500 code search tasks gathered from 50 popular repositories across 5 modern programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T05:15:30Z)
• Ada-LEval: Evaluating long-context LLMs with length-adaptable benchmarks [76.43527940649939]
  We introduce Ada-LEval, a benchmark for evaluating the long-context understanding of large language models (LLMs) Ada-LEval includes two challenging subsets, TSort and BestAnswer, which enable a more reliable evaluation of LLMs' long context capabilities. We evaluate 4 state-of-the-art closed-source API models and 6 open-source models with Ada-LEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T17:30:48Z)
• PPTC-R benchmark: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
  We construct adversarial user instructions by attacking user instructions at sentence, semantic, and multi-language levels. We test 3 closed-source and 4 open-source LLMs using a benchmark that incorporates robustness settings. We find that GPT-4 exhibits the highest performance and strong robustness in our benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T15:33:32Z)
• Large Language Models: A Survey [69.72787936480394]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks. LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z)
• State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation [28.307860675006545]
  We comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-31T22:21:36Z)
• LooGLE: Can Long-Context Language Models Understand Long Contexts? [46.143956498529796]
  LooGLE is a benchmark for large language models' long context understanding. It features relatively new documents post-2022, with over 24,000 tokens per document and 6,000 newly generated questions spanning diverse domains. The evaluation of eight state-of-the-art LLMs on LooGLE revealed key findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T01:45:37Z)
• Retrieval meets Long Context Large Language Models [59.431200671427064]
  Extending context window of large language models (LLMs) is getting popular recently. Retrieval-augmentation versus long context window, which one is better for downstream tasks? Can both methods be combined to get the best of both worlds? Our best model, retrieval-augmented Llama2-70B with 32K context window, outperforms GPT-3.5-turbo-16k and Davinci003 in terms of average score on nine long context tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T17:59:41Z)
• L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models [91.05820785008527]
  We propose L-Eval to institute a more standardized evaluation for long context language models (LCLMs) We build a new evaluation suite containing 20 sub-tasks, 508 long documents, and over 2,000 human-labeled query-response pairs. Results show that popular n-gram matching metrics generally can not correlate well with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:59:41Z)

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.