Enhancing LLM Evaluations: The Garbling Trick
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01533v2
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 03:17:34 GMT
- Title: Enhancing LLM Evaluations: The Garbling Trick
- Authors: William F. Bradley,
- Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) become increasingly powerful, making it challenging to distinguish between models based on their performance.
We propose a general method to transform existing LLM evaluations into a series of progressively more difficult tasks.
Our results offer insights into the comparative reasoning abilities of these models, particularly highlighting distinctions between OpenAI's o1-preview and Google's gemini-pro-1.5.
- Score: 0.0
- License:
- Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly powerful, traditional evaluation metrics tend to saturate, making it challenging to distinguish between models based on their performance. We propose a general method to transform existing LLM evaluations into a series of progressively more difficult tasks. These enhanced evaluations emphasize reasoning capabilities and can reveal relative performance differences that are not apparent in the original assessments. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we create a new multiple-choice test corpus, extend it into a family of evaluations, and assess a collection of LLMs. Our results offer insights into the comparative reasoning abilities of these models, particularly highlighting distinctions between OpenAI's o1-preview and Google's gemini-pro-1.5-002.
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) - Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes.
We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches.
We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z) - The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism [39.392450788666814]
Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism.
greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks.
Smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-15T06:12:17Z) - Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.
The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.
We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z) - Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings.
We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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)
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.