The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03597v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:49:21 GMT
• Title: The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance?
• Authors: Sourav Banerjee, Ayushi Agarwal, Eishkaran Singh,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability.<n>Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum.<n>We lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks.
• Score: 1.3810901729134184
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The pursuit of leaderboard rankings in Large Language Models (LLMs) has created a fundamental paradox: models excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability. Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum, from basic metrics to complex benchmarks like GLUE and MMLU. These vulnerabilities manifest through benchmark exploitation, dataset contamination, and evaluation bias, creating a false perception of progress in language understanding capabilities. Through extensive review of contemporary evaluation approaches, we identify significant limitations in static benchmark designs, human evaluation protocols, and LLM-as-judge frameworks, all of which compromise the reliability of current performance assessments. As LLM capabilities evolve and existing benchmarks become redundant, we lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks. This requires frameworks that are adapted dynamically, addressing current limitations and providing a more accurate reflection of LLM performance.

Related papers

• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection. Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities? This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• Meta-Evaluating Local LLMs: Rethinking Performance Metrics for Serious Games [3.725822359130832]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as evaluators in serious games. This study investigates the reliability of five small-scale LLMs when assessing player responses in textitEn-join, a game that simulates decision-making within energy communities. Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of each model, revealing trade-offs between sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T10:46:13Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations. Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation. We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• FLEX: A Benchmark for Evaluating Robustness of Fairness in Large Language Models [7.221774553388335]
  We introduce a new benchmark to test whether Large Language Models can sustain fairness even when exposed to prompts constructed to induce bias. We integrate prompts that amplify potential biases into the fairness assessment. This highlights the need for more stringent evaluation benchmarks to guarantee safety and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T10:48:33Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise. We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• FACT-AUDIT: An Adaptive Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic Fact-Checking Evaluation of Large Language Models [79.41859481668618]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies. Existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics. We introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T07:44:22Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications. Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• RealCritic: Towards Effectiveness-Driven Evaluation of Language Model Critiques [59.861013614500024]
  We introduce a new benchmark designed to assess the critique capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike existing benchmarks, which typically function in an open-loop fashion, our approach employs a closed-loop methodology that evaluates the quality of corrections generated from critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:48:10Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs. Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets. We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• Beyond Benchmarking: A New Paradigm for Evaluation and Assessment of Large Language Models [7.529095331830944]
  In current benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs), there are issues such as evaluation content restriction, untimely updates, and lack of optimization guidance. We propose a new paradigm for the measurement of LLMs: Benchmarking-Evaluation-Assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T10:42:02Z)
• FreeEval: A Modular Framework for Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models [36.273451767886726]
  FreeEval is a modular and scalable framework crafted to enable trustworthy and efficient automatic evaluations of large language models. FreeEval's unified abstractions simplify the integration and improve the transparency of diverse evaluation methodologies. The framework integrates meta-evaluation techniques like human evaluation and data contamination detection, which, along with dynamic evaluation modules, enhance the fairness of the evaluation outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T04:17:51Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• 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)
• DyVal: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Reasoning Tasks [112.66827096358857]
  We introduce DyVal, a protocol for dynamic evaluation of large language models (LLMs) Based on our framework, we build graph-informed DyVal by leveraging the structural advantage of directed acyclic graphs. We evaluate various LLMs ranging from Flan-T5-large to GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T12:04:14Z)
• An Examination of the Compositionality of Large Generative Vision-Language Models [7.639748270719836]
  Generative Vision-Language Models (GVLMs) have been constructed via multimodal instruction tuning. In this paper, we examine both the evaluation metrics (VisualGPTScore, etc.) and current benchmarks for evaluating the compositionality of GVLMs. We identify the syntactical bias in current benchmarks, which is exploited by the linguistic capability of GVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T06:50:29Z)
• 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.