LLM-Powered Benchmark Factory: Reliable, Generic, and Efficient

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01683v1
• Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2025 06:36:01 GMT
• Title: LLM-Powered Benchmark Factory: Reliable, Generic, and Efficient
• Authors: Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, Yiwei Li, Xinglin Wang, Yueqi Zhang, Jiayi Shi, Chuyi Tan, Boyuan Pan, Yao Hu, Kan Li,
• Abstract summary: We propose an automated and unbiased evaluation framework, structured around four dimensions and ten criteria. Under this framework, we analyze the advantages and weaknesses of directly prompting large language models (LLMs) as generic benchmark generators. We then introduce a series of methods to address the identified weaknesses and integrate them as BenchMaker. Experiments confirm that BenchMaker achieves superior or comparable performance to human-annotated benchmarks on all metrics.
• Score: 19.673388630963807
• License:
• Abstract: The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to a surge in both model supply and application demands. To facilitate effective matching between them, reliable, generic and efficient benchmark generators are widely needed. However, human annotators are constrained by inefficiency, and current LLM benchmark generators not only lack generalizability but also struggle with limited reliability, as they lack a comprehensive evaluation framework for validation and optimization. To fill this gap, we first propose an automated and unbiased evaluation framework, structured around four dimensions and ten criteria. Under this framework, we carefully analyze the advantages and weaknesses of directly prompting LLMs as generic benchmark generators. To enhance the reliability, we introduce a series of methods to address the identified weaknesses and integrate them as BenchMaker. Experiments across multiple LLMs and tasks confirm that BenchMaker achieves superior or comparable performance to human-annotated benchmarks on all metrics, highlighting its generalizability and reliability. More importantly, it delivers highly consistent evaluation results across 12 LLMs (0.967 Pearson correlation against MMLU-Pro), while taking only $0.005 and 0.38 minutes per sample.

Related papers

• 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)
• LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning [65.89293674479907]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs. We introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier. LLMs2 is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:32:36Z)
• Can You Trust LLM Judgments? Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge [0.3759936323189418]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly powerful and ubiquitous, but their nature poses challenges to the reliability of their outputs. We introduce a novel framework for rigorously evaluating the reliability of LLM judgments, leveraging McDonald's omega.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T03:37:31Z)
• HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly [34.205934899868346]
  We present HELMET, a comprehensive benchmark encompassing seven diverse, application-centric categories. We find that synthetic tasks like NIAH are not good predictors of downstream performance. While most LCLMs achieve perfect NIAH scores, open-source models significantly lag behind closed ones when the task requires full-context reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:20:11Z)
• MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures [57.886592207948844]
  We propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks. It bridges (1) comprehensive and well-distributed real-world user queries and (2) efficient and fairly-graded ground-truth-based benchmarks, by matching queries mined from the web with similar queries from existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T05:47:05Z)
• Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
  This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames. It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.