The Science of Evaluating Foundation Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09670v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:55:43 GMT
• Title: The Science of Evaluating Foundation Models
• Authors: Jiayi Yuan, Jiamu Zhang, Andrew Wen, Xia Hu,
• Abstract summary: This work focuses on three key aspects: (1) Formalizing the Evaluation Process by providing a structured framework tailored to specific use-case contexts; (2) Offering Actionable Tools and Frameworks such as checklists and templates to ensure thorough, reproducible, and practical evaluations; and (3) Surveying Recent Work with a targeted review of advancements in LLM evaluation, emphasizing real-world applications.
• Score: 46.973855710909746
• License:
• Abstract: The emergent phenomena of large foundation models have revolutionized natural language processing. However, evaluating these models presents significant challenges due to their size, capabilities, and deployment across diverse applications. Existing literature often focuses on individual aspects, such as benchmark performance or specific tasks, but fails to provide a cohesive process that integrates the nuances of diverse use cases with broader ethical and operational considerations. This work focuses on three key aspects: (1) Formalizing the Evaluation Process by providing a structured framework tailored to specific use-case contexts, (2) Offering Actionable Tools and Frameworks such as checklists and templates to ensure thorough, reproducible, and practical evaluations, and (3) Surveying Recent Work with a targeted review of advancements in LLM evaluation, emphasizing real-world applications.

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)
• Multi-Faceted Evaluation of Modeling Languages for Augmented Reality Applications -- The Case of ARWFML [0.0]
  The Augmented Reality Modeling Language (ARWFML) enables the model-based creation of augmented reality scenarios without programming knowledge. This paper presents two further design iterations for refining the language based on multi-faceted evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-26T09:34:36Z)
• Beyond Metrics: A Critical Analysis of the Variability in Large Language Model Evaluation Frameworks [3.773596042872403]
  Large language models (LLMs) continue to evolve, the need for robust and standardized evaluation benchmarks becomes paramount. Various frameworks have emerged as noteworthy contributions to the field, offering comprehensive evaluation tests and benchmarks. This paper provides an exploration and critical analysis of some of these evaluation methodologies, shedding light on their strengths, limitations, and impact on advancing the state-of-the-art in natural language processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:37:14Z)
• OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluations [64.85905119836818]
  OLMES is a documented, practical, open standard for reproducible language model evaluations. It supports meaningful comparisons between smaller base models that require the unnatural "cloze" formulation of multiple-choice questions. OLMES includes well-considered, documented recommendations guided by results from existing literature as well as new experiments resolving open questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T17:37:09Z)
• A Review of Prominent Paradigms for LLM-Based Agents: Tool Use (Including RAG), Planning, and Feedback Learning [0.6247103460512108]
  Tool use, planning, and feedback learning are currently three prominent paradigms for developing Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents. This survey introduces a unified taxonomy to systematically review and discuss these frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T14:42:55Z)
• Scalable Language Model with Generalized Continual Learning [58.700439919096155]
  The Joint Adaptive Re-ization (JARe) is integrated with Dynamic Task-related Knowledge Retrieval (DTKR) to enable adaptive adjustment of language models based on specific downstream tasks. Our method demonstrates state-of-the-art performance on diverse backbones and benchmarks, achieving effective continual learning in both full-set and few-shot scenarios with minimal forgetting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T04:22:15Z)
• 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)
• Balancing Specialized and General Skills in LLMs: The Impact of Modern Tuning and Data Strategy [27.365319494865165]
  The paper details the design, data collection, analytical techniques, and results validating the proposed frameworks. It aims to provide businesses and researchers with actionable insights on effectively adapting LLMs for specialized contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T23:29:00Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Text Summarization with In-Context Learning [79.02280189976562]
  In this paper, we study the efficacy of large language models as multi-dimensional evaluators using in-context learning. Our experiments show that in-context learning-based evaluators are competitive with learned evaluation frameworks for the task of text summarization. We then analyze the effects of factors such as the selection and number of in-context examples on performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T23:27:49Z)
• Procedural Generalization by Planning with Self-Supervised World Models [10.119257232716834]
  We measure the generalization ability of model-based agents in comparison to their model-free counterparts. We identify three factors of procedural generalization -- planning, self-supervised representation learning, and procedural data diversity. We find that these factors do not always provide the same benefits for the task generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-02T13:32:21Z)

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.