Revisiting Benchmark and Assessment: An Agent-based Exploratory Dynamic Evaluation Framework for LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11507v2
• Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:36:18 GMT
• Title: Revisiting Benchmark and Assessment: An Agent-based Exploratory Dynamic Evaluation Framework for LLMs
• Authors: Wanying Wang, Zeyu Ma, Pengfei Liu, Mingang Chen,
• Abstract summary: We introduce two concepts: Benchmark+, which extends traditional question-answer benchmark into a more flexible "strategy-criterion" format; and Assessment+, which enhances the interaction process. We propose an agent-based evaluation framework called TestAgent, which implements these concepts through retrieval augmented generation and reinforcement learning.
• Score: 29.72874725703848
• License:
• Abstract: While various vertical domain large language models (LLMs) have been developed, the challenge of automatically evaluating their performance across different domains remains significant. Current benchmark-based evaluation methods exhibit rigid, aimless interactions and rely on pre-collected static datasets that are costly to build, inflexible across domains, and misaligned with practical user needs. To address this issue, we revisit the evaluation components and introduce two concepts: Benchmark+, which extends traditional question-answer benchmark into a more flexible "strategy-criterion" format; and Assessment+, which enhances the interaction process, enabling deeper exploration and supporting both quantitative metrics and qualitative insights. These concepts capture the nuanced behaviors of LLMs through richer, multi-turn interactions. We propose an agent-based evaluation framework called TestAgent, which implements these concepts through retrieval augmented generation and reinforcement learning. Experiments on tasks ranging from constructing vertical domain evaluation to activating existing benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of TestAgent across various scenarios. We believe this work offers an interesting perspective on automatic evaluation for LLMs.

Related papers

• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia. In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models. This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates [0.0]
  We propose a framework that interprets large language models (LLMs) as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• RAG-Modulo: Solving Sequential Tasks using Experience, Critics, and Language Models [5.0741409008225755]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for solving challenging robotic tasks. Most existing LLM-based agents lack the ability to retain and learn from past interactions. We propose RAG-Modulo, a framework that enhances LLM-based agents with a memory of past interactions and incorporates critics to evaluate the agents' decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T20:03:32Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents [76.95062553043607]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) is essential for understanding their capabilities and facilitating their integration into practical applications. We introduce AgentBoard, a pioneering comprehensive benchmark and accompanied open-source evaluation framework tailored to analytical evaluation of LLM agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T01:51:00Z)
• 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)
• Domain-Expanded ASTE: Rethinking Generalization in Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction [67.54420015049732]
  Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) is a challenging task in sentiment analysis, aiming to provide fine-grained insights into human sentiments. Existing benchmarks are limited to two domains and do not evaluate model performance on unseen domains. We introduce a domain-expanded benchmark by annotating samples from diverse domains, enabling evaluation of models in both in-domain and out-of-domain settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T18:01:49Z)

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.