BenchmarkCards: Large Language Model and Risk Reporting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12974v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:09:02 GMT
• Title: BenchmarkCards: Large Language Model and Risk Reporting
• Authors: Anna Sokol, Nuno Moniz, Elizabeth Daly, Michael Hind, Nitesh Chawla,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) offer powerful capabilities but also introduce significant risks. One way to mitigate these risks is through comprehensive pre-deployment evaluations using benchmarks designed to test for specific vulnerabilities. BenchmarkCards addresses this gap by providing a structured framework specifically for documenting LLM benchmark properties.
• Score: 4.224255134206838
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) offer powerful capabilities but also introduce significant risks. One way to mitigate these risks is through comprehensive pre-deployment evaluations using benchmarks designed to test for specific vulnerabilities. However, the rapidly expanding body of LLM benchmark literature lacks a standardized method for documenting crucial benchmark details, hindering consistent use and informed selection. BenchmarkCards addresses this gap by providing a structured framework specifically for documenting LLM benchmark properties rather than defining the entire evaluation process itself. BenchmarkCards do not prescribe how to measure or interpret benchmark results (e.g., defining ``correctness'') but instead offer a standardized way to capture and report critical characteristics like targeted risks and evaluation methodologies, including properties such as bias and fairness. This structured metadata facilitates informed benchmark selection, enabling researchers to choose appropriate benchmarks and promoting transparency and reproducibility in LLM evaluation.

Related papers

• Unveiling Context-Aware Criteria in Self-Assessing LLMs [28.156979106994537]
  We propose a novel Self-Assessing LLM framework that integrates Context-Aware Criteria (SALC) with dynamic knowledge tailored to each evaluation instance. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing baseline evaluation frameworks. Our method also exhibits a improvement in LC Win-Rate in AlpacaEval2 leaderboard up to a 12% when employed for preference data generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T21:18:49Z)
• Position: LLM Unlearning Benchmarks are Weak Measures of Progress [31.957968729934745]
  We find that existing benchmarks provide an overly optimistic and potentially misleading view on the effectiveness of candidate unlearning methods. We identify that existing benchmarks are particularly vulnerable to modifications that introduce even loose dependencies between the forget and retain information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T18:07:25Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [69.4501863547618]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios. With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance. Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
  Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• 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)
• TRUCE: Private Benchmarking to Prevent Contamination and Improve Comparative Evaluation of LLMs [12.839640915518443]
  Benchmarking is the de-facto standard for evaluating LLMs, due to its speed, replicability and low cost. Recent work has pointed out that the majority of the open source benchmarks available today have been contaminated or leaked into LLMs. We propose Private Benchmarking, a solution where test datasets are kept private and models are evaluated without revealing the test data to the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T09:28:38Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• 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)
• Efficient Benchmarking of Language Models [22.696230279151166]
  We present the problem of Efficient Benchmarking, namely, intelligently reducing the costs of LM evaluation without compromising reliability. Using the HELM benchmark as a test case, we investigate how different benchmark design choices affect the computation-reliability trade-off. We propose an evaluation algorithm, that, when applied to the HELM benchmark, leads to dramatic cost savings with minimal loss of benchmark reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T17:59:30Z)
• 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)

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.