None of the Others: a General Technique to Distinguish Reasoning from Memorization in Multiple-Choice LLM Evaluation Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12896v2
• Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:15:12 GMT
• Title: None of the Others: a General Technique to Distinguish Reasoning from Memorization in Multiple-Choice LLM Evaluation Benchmarks
• Authors: Eva Sánchez Salido, Julio Gonzalo, Guillermo Marco,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a general variation method for multiple-choice questions that completely dissociates the correct answer from previously seen tokens or concepts.<n>Using this method, we evaluate state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source LLMs on two datasets available in English and Spanish.<n>Results show that all models experience remarkable accuracy drops, with an average loss of 57% on MMLU and 50% on UNED-Access 2024.
• Score: 0.9831489366502301
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In LLM evaluations, reasoning is often distinguished from recall/memorization by performing numerical variations to math-oriented questions. Here we introduce a general variation method for multiple-choice questions that completely dissociates the correct answer from previously seen tokens or concepts, requiring LLMs to understand and reason (rather than memorizing) in order to answer correctly. Using this method, we evaluate state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source LLMs on two datasets available in English and Spanish: the public MMLU benchmark and the private UNED-Access 2024 dataset. Results show that all models experience remarkable accuracy drops under our proposed variation, with an average loss of 57% on MMLU and 50% on UNED-Access 2024, ranging from 10% to 93% across models. Notably, the most accurate model in our experimentation (OpenAI-o3-mini) is not the most robust (DeepSeek-R1-70B), suggesting that the best models in standard evaluations may not be the ones with better reasoning capabilities. Also, we see larger accuracy drops in public (vs private) datasets and questions posed in their original language (vs a manual translation), which are signs of contamination and also point to a relevant role of recall/memorization in current LLMs' answers.

Related papers

• MINERVA: Evaluating Complex Video Reasoning [72.12644008002566]
  We provide a new video reasoning dataset called MINERVA for modern multimodal models. Our dataset is multimodal, diverse in terms of video domain and length, and consists of complex multi-step questions. We perform fine-grained error analysis to identify common failure modes across various models, and create a taxonomy of reasoning errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T17:41:49Z)
• Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering [78.89231943329885]
  One of the most widely used tasks to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) is Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) In this work, we shed light on the inconsistencies of MCQA evaluation strategies, which can lead to inaccurate and misleading model comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T08:45:03Z)
• None of the Above, Less of the Right: Parallel Patterns between Humans and LLMs on Multi-Choice Questions Answering [23.176280217718002]
  Multiple-choice exam questions with "None of the above" (NA) options have been extensively studied in educational testing. We examine how NA options affect model performance and confidence calibration. Our results highlight important implications for benchmark design and raise questions about LLMs' ability to handle uncertainty in real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T13:55:29Z)
• IdentifyMe: A Challenging Long-Context Mention Resolution Benchmark [22.238377215355545]
  We introduce IdentifyMe, a new benchmark for mention resolution presented in a multiple-choice question (MCQ) format. We observe a significant performance gap between the state-of-the-art sub-10B open models vs. closed ones. The highest-scoring model, GPT-4o, achieves 81.9% accuracy, highlighting the strong referential capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T01:05:55Z)
• Modeling Future Conversation Turns to Teach LLMs to Ask Clarifying Questions [45.04582353648683]
  Large language models (LLMs) must often respond to highly ambiguous user requests. Existing LLMs often respond by presupposing a single interpretation of such ambiguous requests, frustrating users who intended a different interpretation. We propose preference labels by simulating their expected outcomes in future turns. This allows LLMs to learn to ask clarifying questions when it can generate responses that are tailored to each user interpretation in future turns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T17:29:04Z)
• Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arena [23.264049073539663]
  Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) are frequently used to assess large language models (LLMs) LLMs may inherently favor certain answer choice IDs, such as A/B/C/D, due to inherent biases of priori unbalanced probabilities. This work aims to tackle these significant difficulties, and establish a new LLM evaluation benchmark through entirely open-style questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:59:47Z)
• UnibucLLM: Harnessing LLMs for Automated Prediction of Item Difficulty and Response Time for Multiple-Choice Questions [25.877058354902953]
  This work explores a novel data augmentation method based on Large Language Models (LLMs) for predicting item difficulty and response time of retired USMLE Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs) in the BEA 2024 Shared Task. Our approach is based on augmenting the dataset with answers from zero-shot LLMs and employing transformer-based models based on six alternative feature combinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-20T10:41:02Z)
• InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence. Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z)
• Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Models [27.479260572913724]
  Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs. We study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:03:04Z)
• Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors [117.72712117510953]
  Multiple choice questions (MCQs) serve as a common yet important task format in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) This work shows that modern LLMs are vulnerable to option position changes due to their inherent "selection bias" We propose a label-free, inference-time debiasing method, called PriDe, which separates the model's prior bias for option IDs from the overall prediction distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T17:44:56Z)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)
• Holistic Evaluation of Language Models [183.94891340168175]
  Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T18:51:34Z)

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.