100 instances is all you need: predicting the success of a new LLM on unseen data by testing on a few instances

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03563v1
• Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:19:45 GMT
• Title: 100 instances is all you need: predicting the success of a new LLM on unseen data by testing on a few instances
• Authors: Lorenzo Pacchiardi, Lucy G. Cheke, José Hernández-Orallo,
• Abstract summary: We use the evaluation results of previously tested LLMs to reduce the number of evaluations required to predict the performance of a new LLM. We conduct empirical studies on HELM-Lite and KindsOfReasoning, a collection of existing reasoning datasets.
• Score: 11.783547185760007
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Predicting the performance of LLMs on individual task instances is essential to ensure their reliability in high-stakes applications. To do so, a possibility is to evaluate the considered LLM on a set of task instances and train an assessor to predict its performance based on features of the instances. However, this approach requires evaluating each new LLM on a sufficiently large set of task instances to train an assessor specific to it. In this work, we leverage the evaluation results of previously tested LLMs to reduce the number of evaluations required to predict the performance of a new LLM. In practice, we propose to test the new LLM on a small set of reference instances and train a generic assessor which predicts the performance of the LLM on an instance based on the performance of the former on the reference set and features of the instance of interest. We conduct empirical studies on HELM-Lite and KindsOfReasoning, a collection of existing reasoning datasets that we introduce, where we evaluate all instruction-fine-tuned OpenAI models until the January 2024 version of GPT4. When predicting performance on instances with the same distribution as those used to train the generic assessor, we find this achieves performance comparable to the LLM-specific assessors trained on the full set of instances. Additionally, we find that randomly selecting the reference instances performs as well as some advanced selection methods we tested. For out of distribution, however, no clear winner emerges and the overall performance is worse, suggesting that the inherent predictability of LLMs is low.

Related papers

• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization [19.130941716491716]
  We use peer-review mechanisms to measure large language models (LLMs) automatically. We formalize it as a constrained optimization problem, intending to maximize the consistency of each LLM's capabilities and scores. We propose three metrics called PEN, CIN, and LIS to evaluate the gap in aligning human rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:49:26Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• 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)
• Do LLMs Understand User Preferences? Evaluating LLMs On User Rating Prediction [15.793007223588672]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generalizing to new tasks in a zero-shot or few-shot manner. We investigate various LLMs in different sizes, ranging from 250M to 540B parameters and evaluate their performance in zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T21:43:42Z)

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.