The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10457v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 06:12:17 GMT
• Title: The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism
• Authors: Yifan Song, Guoyin Wang, Sujian Li, Bill Yuchen Lin,
• Abstract summary: Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism. greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks. Smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo.
• Score: 39.392450788666814
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism, typically focusing on a single output per example. This limits our understanding of LLM performance variability in real-world applications. Our study addresses this issue by exploring key questions about the performance differences between greedy decoding and sampling, identifying benchmarks' consistency regarding non-determinism, and examining unique model behaviors. Through extensive experiments, we observe that greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks. We also observe consistent performance across different LLM sizes and alignment methods, noting that alignment can reduce sampling variance. Moreover, our best-of-N sampling approach demonstrates that smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo, highlighting the untapped potential of smaller LLMs. This research shows the importance of considering non-determinism in LLM evaluations and provides insights for future LLM development and evaluation.

Related papers

• Towards Reproducible LLM Evaluation: Quantifying Uncertainty in LLM Benchmark Scores [2.886479348067378]
  We use benchmarks designed for testing large language models' capacity to reason about cardinal directions. We suggest a simple method for cost-effectively quantifying the uncertainty of a benchmark score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:04:28Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates [10.091146498861333]
  Commercial large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 have been recently employed to evaluate and compare different alignment approaches. We develop a framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:49:01Z)
• Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning [53.6472920229013]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in many natural language tasks. LLMs are prone to produce errors, hallucinations and inconsistent statements when performing multi-step reasoning. We introduce Q*, a framework for guiding LLMs decoding process with deliberative planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T13:08:09Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• LLMRec: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Recommendation Task [54.48899723591296]
  The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated. We benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization. The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T16:32:54Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.