TurtleBench: Evaluating Top Language Models via Real-World Yes/No Puzzles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05262v1
• Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:58:47 GMT
• Title: TurtleBench: Evaluating Top Language Models via Real-World Yes/No Puzzles
• Authors: Qingchen Yu, Shichao Song, Ke Fang, Yunfeng Shi, Zifan Zheng, Hanyu Wang, Simin Niu, Zhiyu Li,
• Abstract summary: TurtleBench collects real user guesses from our online Turtle Soup Puzzle platform. TurtleBench includes 1,532 user guesses along with the correctness of guesses after annotation. We thoroughly evaluated nine of the most advanced Large Language Models available today.
• Score: 2.8839090723566296
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) expands, the demand for reliable evaluations increases. Existing LLM evaluation benchmarks primarily rely on static datasets, making it challenging to assess model performance in dynamic interactions with users. Moreover, these benchmarks often depend on specific background knowledge, complicating the measurement of a model's logical reasoning capabilities. Other dynamic evaluation methods based on strong models or manual efforts may introduce biases and incur high costs and time demands, hindering large-scale application. To address these issues, we propose TurtleBench. TurtleBench collects real user guesses from our online Turtle Soup Puzzle platform that we developed. This approach allows for the relatively dynamic generation of evaluation datasets, mitigating the risk of model cheating while aligning assessments more closely with genuine user needs for reasoning capabilities, thus enhancing the reliability of evaluations. TurtleBench includes 1,532 user guesses along with the correctness of guesses after annotation. Using this dataset, we thoroughly evaluated nine of the most advanced LLMs available today. Notably, the OpenAI o1 series models did not achieve leading results in these evaluations. We propose several hypotheses for further research, such as "the latent reasoning of o1 utilizes trivial Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques" and "increasing CoT length not only provides reasoning benefits but also incurs noise costs."

Related papers

• Weak-eval-Strong: Evaluating and Eliciting Lateral Thinking of LLMs with Situation Puzzles [20.18736445118689]
  We introduce SPLAT, a benchmark leveraging Situation Puzzles to evaluate and elicit lateral thinking of Large Language Models (LLMs) This benchmark, containing 975 graded situation puzzles across three difficulty levels, employs a new multi-turn player-judge framework instead of the traditional model-based evaluation. Experiments demonstrate that a robust evaluation model, such as WizardLM-2, closely matches human judgements in both intermediate question-answering and final scenario accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T10:09:11Z)
• HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly [34.205934899868346]
  We present HELMET, a comprehensive benchmark encompassing seven diverse, application-centric categories. We find that synthetic tasks like NIAH are not good predictors of downstream performance. While most LCLMs achieve perfect NIAH scores, open-source models significantly lag behind closed ones when the task requires full-context reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:20:11Z)
• MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures [57.886592207948844]
  We propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks. It bridges (1) comprehensive and well-distributed real-world user queries and (2) efficient and fairly-graded ground-truth-based benchmarks, by matching queries mined from the web with similar queries from existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T05:47:05Z)
• Optimizing Language Model's Reasoning Abilities with Weak Supervision [48.60598455782159]
  We present textscPuzzleBen, a weakly supervised benchmark that comprises 25,147 complex questions, answers, and human-generated rationales. A unique aspect of our dataset is the inclusion of 10,000 unannotated questions, enabling us to explore utilizing fewer supersized data to boost LLMs' inference capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:39:15Z)
• 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)
• Investigating the Robustness of Counterfactual Learning to Rank Models: A Reproducibility Study [61.64685376882383]
  Counterfactual learning to rank (CLTR) has attracted extensive attention in the IR community for its ability to leverage massive logged user interaction data to train ranking models. This paper investigates the robustness of existing CLTR models in complex and diverse situations. We find that the DLA models and IPS-DCM show better robustness under various simulation settings than IPS-PBM and PRS with offline propensity estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T10:54:38Z)
• CogBench: a large language model walks into a psychology lab [12.981407327149679]
  This paper introduces CogBench, a benchmark that includes ten behavioral metrics derived from seven cognitive psychology experiments. We apply CogBench to 35 large language models (LLMs) and analyze this data using statistical multilevel modeling techniques. We find that open-source models are less risk-prone than proprietary models and that fine-tuning on code does not necessarily enhance LLMs' behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T10:43:54Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)
• 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)

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.