Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08943v2
• Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 06:10:00 GMT
• Title: Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis
• Authors: Wenbo Zhang, Hengrui Cai, Wenyu Chen,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
• Score: 10.133537818749291
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications, exhibiting impressive capabilities in natural language processing and understanding. Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs as they can provide a comprehensive assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. However, current evaluation methods often overlook the inherent randomness of LLMs by employing deterministic generation strategies or relying on a single random sample, resulting in unaccounted sampling variance and unreliable benchmark score estimates. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical statistical model that provides a more comprehensive representation of the benchmarking process by incorporating both benchmark characteristics and LLM randomness. We show that leveraging multiple generations improves the accuracy of estimating the benchmark score and reduces variance. We also introduce $\mathbb P\left(\text{correct}\right)$, a prompt-level difficulty score based on correct ratios, providing fine-grained insights into individual prompts. Additionally, we create a data map that visualizes difficulty and semantic prompts, enabling error detection and quality control in benchmark construction.

Related papers

• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Importance Sampling is All You Need: Predict LLM's performance on new benchmark by reusing existing benchmark [38.42021928363628]
  Existing benchmarks face two major challenges: (1) the escalating cost of constructing high-quality test suites and reference solutions, and (2) the increasing risk of data contamination.<n>We propose BIS, a prompt-centric evaluation framework that enables ground-truth-free prediction of LLM performance on code generation tasks.<n>Our framework achieves an average absolute prediction error of 1.1% for code correctness scores, with best- and worst-case errors of 0.3% and 1.9%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T05:34:05Z)
• How Much Do Large Language Model Cheat on Evaluation? Benchmarking Overestimation under the One-Time-Pad-Based Framework [8.76693832650115]
  Overestimation in evaluating large language models (LLMs) has become an increasing concern.<n>We propose ArxivRoll, a dynamic evaluation framework inspired by one-time pad encryption in cryptography.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T12:39:03Z)
• 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)
• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks.<n>We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance? [1.3810901729134184]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:49:21Z)
• BenchmarkCards: Large Language Model and Risk Reporting [4.224255134206838]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T19:09:02Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Regression-aware Inference with LLMs [52.764328080398805]
  We show that an inference strategy can be sub-optimal for common regression and scoring evaluation metrics. We propose alternate inference strategies that estimate the Bayes-optimal solution for regression and scoring metrics in closed-form from sampled responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T03:24:34Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• 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)
• The Benchmark Lottery [114.43978017484893]
  "A benchmark lottery" describes the overall fragility of the machine learning benchmarking process. We show that the relative performance of algorithms may be altered significantly simply by choosing different benchmark tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-14T21:08:30Z)

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.