Line Goes Up? Inherent Limitations of Benchmarks for Evaluating Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14318v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 07:13:29 GMT
• Title: Line Goes Up? Inherent Limitations of Benchmarks for Evaluating Large Language Models
• Authors: James Fodor,
• Abstract summary: I argue that inherent limitations with the benchmarking paradigm render benchmark performance highly unsuitable as a metric for generalisable competence over cognitive tasks. I conclude that benchmark performance should not be used as a reliable indicator of general LLM cognitive capabilities.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) regularly demonstrate new and impressive performance on a wide range of language, knowledge, and reasoning benchmarks. Such rapid progress has led many commentators to argue that LLM general cognitive capabilities have likewise rapidly improved, with the implication that such models are becoming progressively more capable on various real-world tasks. Here I summarise theoretical and empirical considerations to challenge this narrative. I argue that inherent limitations with the benchmarking paradigm, along with specific limitations of existing benchmarks, render benchmark performance highly unsuitable as a metric for generalisable competence over cognitive tasks. I also contend that alternative methods for assessing LLM capabilities, including adversarial stimuli and interpretability techniques, have shown that LLMs do not have robust competence in many language and reasoning tasks, and often fail to learn representations which facilitate generalisable inferences. I conclude that benchmark performance should not be used as a reliable indicator of general LLM cognitive capabilities.

Related papers

• 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. Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum. 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)
• A Preliminary Study of Multilingual Code Language Models for Code Generation Task Using Translated Benchmarks [0.0]
  We evaluate the performance of Poly-Coder, a pioneering open-source, multilingual CLM built for code generation. Our results suggest that the outcomes observed in these translated benchmarks align well with evaluation metrics used during the training phase. These initial insights highlight the need for more comprehensive empirical studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T06:40:47Z)
• Understanding the Role of LLMs in Multimodal Evaluation Benchmarks [77.59035801244278]
  This paper investigates the role of the Large Language Model (LLM) backbone in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evaluation. Our study encompasses four diverse MLLM benchmarks and eight state-of-the-art MLLMs. Key findings reveal that some benchmarks allow high performance even without visual inputs and up to 50% of error rates can be attributed to insufficient world knowledge in the LLM backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T07:49:13Z)
• Can Long-Context Language Models Subsume Retrieval, RAG, SQL, and More? [54.667202878390526]
  Long-context language models (LCLMs) have the potential to revolutionize our approach to tasks traditionally reliant on external tools like retrieval systems or databases. We introduce LOFT, a benchmark of real-world tasks requiring context up to millions of tokens designed to evaluate LCLMs' performance on in-context retrieval and reasoning. Our findings reveal LCLMs' surprising ability to rival state-of-the-art retrieval and RAG systems, despite never having been explicitly trained for these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T00:28:58Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models via Debates [43.40134389150456]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either based on fixed, domain-specific questions, or rely on human input. We propose an automated benchmarking framework based on debates between LLMs, judged by another LLM. This method assesses not only domain knowledge, but also skills such as argumentative reasoning and inconsistency recognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:02:31Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We? [8.840750655261251]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized many areas by achieving state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks. Recent efforts have demonstrated that the LLMs are poor at solving sequential decision-making problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T08:22:52Z)
• A Principled Framework for Knowledge-enhanced Large Language Model [58.1536118111993]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are versatile, yet they often falter in tasks requiring deep and reliable reasoning. This paper introduces a rigorously designed framework for creating LLMs that effectively anchor knowledge and employ a closed-loop reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T18:10:02Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Large Language Models Are Not Strong Abstract Reasoners [12.354660792999269]
  Large Language Models have shown tremendous performance on a variety of natural language processing tasks. It is unclear whether LLMs can achieve human-like cognitive capabilities or whether these models are still fundamentally circumscribed. We introduce a new benchmark for evaluating language models beyond memorization on abstract reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T04:50:29Z)

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.