StructEval: Deepen and Broaden Large Language Model Assessment via Structured Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03281v2
• Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 01:00:55 GMT
• Title: StructEval: Deepen and Broaden Large Language Model Assessment via Structured Evaluation
• Authors: Boxi Cao, Mengjie Ren, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Feng Zhang, Junfeng Zhan, Le Sun,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel evaluation framework referred to as StructEval. Starting from an atomic test objective, StructEval deepens and broadens the evaluation by conducting a structured assessment across multiple cognitive levels and critical concepts. Experiments on three widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that StructEval serves as a reliable tool for resisting the risk of data contamination.
• Score: 46.59416831869014
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluation is the baton for the development of large language models. Current evaluations typically employ a single-item assessment paradigm for each atomic test objective, which struggles to discern whether a model genuinely possesses the required capabilities or merely memorizes/guesses the answers to specific questions. To this end, we propose a novel evaluation framework referred to as StructEval. Starting from an atomic test objective, StructEval deepens and broadens the evaluation by conducting a structured assessment across multiple cognitive levels and critical concepts, and therefore offers a comprehensive, robust and consistent evaluation for LLMs. Experiments on three widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that StructEval serves as a reliable tool for resisting the risk of data contamination and reducing the interference of potential biases, thereby providing more reliable and consistent conclusions regarding model capabilities. Our framework also sheds light on the design of future principled and trustworthy LLM evaluation protocols.

Related papers

• Michelangelo: Long Context Evaluations Beyond Haystacks via Latent Structure Queries [54.325172923155414]
  We introduce Michelangelo: a minimal, synthetic, and unleaked long-context reasoning evaluation for large language models. This evaluation is derived via a novel, unifying framework for evaluations over arbitrarily long contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T10:38:01Z)
• Beyond Metrics: A Critical Analysis of the Variability in Large Language Model Evaluation Frameworks [3.773596042872403]
  Large language models (LLMs) continue to evolve, the need for robust and standardized evaluation benchmarks becomes paramount. Various frameworks have emerged as noteworthy contributions to the field, offering comprehensive evaluation tests and benchmarks. This paper provides an exploration and critical analysis of some of these evaluation methodologies, shedding light on their strengths, limitations, and impact on advancing the state-of-the-art in natural language processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:37:14Z)
• CheckEval: Robust Evaluation Framework using Large Language Model via Checklist [6.713203569074019]
  We introduce CheckEval, a novel evaluation framework using Large Language Models. CheckEval addresses the challenges of ambiguity and inconsistency in current evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T17:20:39Z)
• 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)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Establishing Trustworthiness: Rethinking Tasks and Model Evaluation [36.329415036660535]
  We argue that it is time to rethink what constitutes tasks and model evaluation in NLP. We review existing compartmentalized approaches for understanding the origins of a model's functional capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T06:32:10Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Deep Model Robustness [44.20580847861682]
  Deep neural networks (DNNs) have achieved remarkable performance across a wide area of applications. They are vulnerable to adversarial examples, which motivates the adversarial defense. This paper presents a model evaluation framework containing a comprehensive, rigorous, and coherent set of evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T01:04:25Z)

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.