VarBench: Robust Language Model Benchmarking Through Dynamic Variable Perturbation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17681v2
• Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:21:49 GMT
• Title: VarBench: Robust Language Model Benchmarking Through Dynamic Variable Perturbation
• Authors: Kun Qian, Shunji Wan, Claudia Tang, Youzhi Wang, Xuanming Zhang, Maximillian Chen, Zhou Yu,
• Abstract summary: We propose to variabilize benchmarks and evaluate language models dynamically. Specifically, we extract variables from each test case and define a value range for each variable. For each evaluation, we sample new values from these value ranges to create unique test cases, thus ensuring a fresh evaluation each time.
• Score: 16.889939234103153
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models achieve impressive scores on traditional benchmarks, an increasing number of researchers are becoming concerned about benchmark data leakage during pre-training, commonly known as the data contamination problem. To ensure fair evaluation, recent benchmarks release only the training and validation sets, keeping the test set labels closed-source. They require anyone wishing to evaluate his language model to submit the model's predictions for centralized processing and then publish the model's result on their leaderboard. However, this submission process is inefficient and prevents effective error analysis. To address this issue, we propose to variabilize benchmarks and evaluate language models dynamically. Specifically, we extract variables from each test case and define a value range for each variable. For each evaluation, we sample new values from these value ranges to create unique test cases, thus ensuring a fresh evaluation each time. We applied this variable perturbation method to four datasets: GSM8K, ARC, CommonsenseQA, and TruthfulQA, which cover mathematical generation and multiple-choice tasks. Our experimental results demonstrate that this approach provides a more accurate assessment of the true capabilities of language models, effectively mitigating the contamination problem.

Related papers

• Evaluating language models as risk scores [23.779329697527054]
  We focus on the use of language models as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks. We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using large language models. We demonstrate the utility of folktexts through a sweep of empirical insights on 16 recent large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T18:13:37Z)
• 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)
• LatestEval: Addressing Data Contamination in Language Model Evaluation through Dynamic and Time-Sensitive Test Construction [21.553915781660905]
  LatestEval is an automatic method that leverages the most recent texts to create uncontaminated reading comprehension evaluations. It avoids data contamination by only using texts published within a recent time window, ensuring no overlap with the training corpora of pre-trained language models. Our experiments demonstrate that language models exhibit negligible memorisation behaviours on LatestEval as opposed to previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T17:16:43Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Preserving Knowledge Invariance: Rethinking Robustness Evaluation of Open Information Extraction [50.62245481416744]
  We present the first benchmark that simulates the evaluation of open information extraction models in the real world. We design and annotate a large-scale testbed in which each example is a knowledge-invariant clique. By further elaborating the robustness metric, a model is judged to be robust if its performance is consistently accurate on the overall cliques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T12:05:09Z)
• mFACE: Multilingual Summarization with Factual Consistency Evaluation [79.60172087719356]
  Abstractive summarization has enjoyed renewed interest in recent years, thanks to pre-trained language models and the availability of large-scale datasets. Despite promising results, current models still suffer from generating factually inconsistent summaries. We leverage factual consistency evaluation models to improve multilingual summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T19:52:41Z)
• Language Models in the Loop: Incorporating Prompting into Weak Supervision [11.10422546502386]
  We propose a new strategy for applying large pre-trained language models to novel tasks when labeled training data is limited. Instead of applying the model in a typical zero-shot or few-shot fashion, we treat the model as the basis for labeling functions in a weak supervision framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-04T20:42:40Z)
• Predicting the Performance of Multilingual NLP Models [16.250791929966685]
  This paper proposes an alternate solution for evaluating a model across languages which make use of the existing performance scores of the model on languages that a particular task has test sets for. We train a predictor on these performance scores and use this predictor to predict the model's performance in different evaluation settings. Our results show that our method is effective in filling the gaps in the evaluation for an existing set of languages, but might require additional improvements if we want it to generalize to unseen languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-17T17:36:53Z)
• Double Perturbation: On the Robustness of Robustness and Counterfactual Bias Evaluation [109.06060143938052]
  We propose a "double perturbation" framework to uncover model weaknesses beyond the test dataset. We apply this framework to study two perturbation-based approaches that are used to analyze models' robustness and counterfactual bias in English.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T06:57:36Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

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.