BENCHAGENTS: Automated Benchmark Creation with Agent Interaction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22584v1
• Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:56:18 GMT
• Title: BENCHAGENTS: Automated Benchmark Creation with Agent Interaction
• Authors: Natasha Butt, Varun Chandrasekaran, Neel Joshi, Besmira Nushi, Vidhisha Balachandran,
• Abstract summary: We introduce BENCHAGENTS, a framework that methodically leverages large language models (LLMs) to automate benchmark creation for complex capabilities. We use BENCHAGENTS to create benchmarks to evaluate capabilities related to planning and constraint satisfaction during text generation. We then use these benchmarks to study seven state-of-the-art models and extract new insights on common failure modes and model differences.
• Score: 16.4783894348333
• License:
• Abstract: Evaluations are limited by benchmark availability. As models evolve, there is a need to create benchmarks that can measure progress on new generative capabilities. However, creating new benchmarks through human annotations is slow and expensive, restricting comprehensive evaluations for any capability. We introduce BENCHAGENTS, a framework that methodically leverages large language models (LLMs) to automate benchmark creation for complex capabilities while inherently ensuring data and metric quality. BENCHAGENTS decomposes the benchmark creation process into planning, generation, data verification, and evaluation, each of which is executed by an LLM agent. These agents interact with each other and utilize human-in-the-loop feedback from benchmark developers to explicitly improve and flexibly control data diversity and quality. We use BENCHAGENTS to create benchmarks to evaluate capabilities related to planning and constraint satisfaction during text generation. We then use these benchmarks to study seven state-of-the-art models and extract new insights on common failure modes and model differences.

Related papers

• Revisiting Benchmark and Assessment: An Agent-based Exploratory Dynamic Evaluation Framework for LLMs [29.72874725703848]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:20:42Z)
• EBES: Easy Benchmarking for Event Sequences [17.277513178760348]
  Event sequences are common data structures in various real-world domains such as healthcare, finance, and user interaction logs. Despite advances in temporal data modeling techniques, there is no standardized benchmarks for evaluating their performance on event sequences. We introduce EBES, a comprehensive benchmarking tool with standardized evaluation scenarios and protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T13:03:43Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• 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)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• GEMv2: Multilingual NLG Benchmarking in a Single Line of Code [161.1761414080574]
  Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics Benchmark introduces a modular infrastructure for dataset, model, and metric developers. GEMv2 supports 40 documented datasets in 51 languages. Models for all datasets can be evaluated online and our interactive data card creation and rendering tools make it easier to add new datasets to the living benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T17:52:30Z)
• Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP [82.26699038776812]
  We introduce Dynabench, an open-source platform for dynamic dataset creation and model benchmarking. Dynabench runs in a web browser and supports human-and-model-in-the-loop dataset creation. We report on four initial NLP tasks, illustrating these concepts and highlighting the promise of the platform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-07T17:49:17Z)
• NUBIA: NeUral Based Interchangeability Assessor for Text Generation [0.0]
  We present NUBIA, a methodology to build automatic evaluation metrics for text generation using only machine learning models as core components. A typical NUBIA model is composed of three modules: a neural feature extractor, an aggregator and a calibrator. We demonstrate an implementation of NUBIA which outperforms metrics currently used to evaluate machine translation, summaries and slightly exceeds/matches state of the art metrics on correlation with human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T10:11:33Z)

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.