Grounding Synthetic Data Evaluations of Language Models in Unsupervised Document Corpora

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08905v2
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 01:35:01 GMT
• Title: Grounding Synthetic Data Evaluations of Language Models in Unsupervised Document Corpora
• Authors: Michael Majurski, Cynthia Matuszek,
• Abstract summary: Language Models (LMs) continue to advance, improving response quality and coherence.<n>A plethora of evaluation benchmarks have been constructed to assess model quality, response appropriateness, and reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose a methodology for automating the construction of fact-based synthetic data model evaluations grounded in document populations.
• Score: 9.871701356351542
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language Models (LMs) continue to advance, improving response quality and coherence. Given Internet-scale training datasets, LMs have likely encountered much of what users may ask them to generate in some form during their training. A plethora of evaluation benchmarks have been constructed to assess model quality, response appropriateness, and reasoning capabilities. However, the human effort required for benchmark construction is rapidly being outpaced by the size and scope of the models under evaluation. Having humans build a benchmark for every possible domain of interest is impractical. Therefore, we propose a methodology for automating the construction of fact-based synthetic data model evaluations grounded in document populations. This work leverages the same LMs to evaluate domain-specific knowledge automatically, using only grounding documents (e.g., a textbook) as input. This synthetic data benchmarking approach corresponds well with human curated questions producing a Spearman ranking correlation of 0.97 and a benchmark evaluation Pearson accuracy correlation of 0.75. This novel approach supports generating both multiple choice and open-ended synthetic data questions to gain diagnostic insight of LM capability. We apply this methodology to evaluate model performance on two recent arXiv preprints, discovering a surprisingly strong performance from Gemma-3 models on open-ended questions. Code is available at https://github.com/mmajurski/grounded-synth-lm-benchmark

Related papers

• From Rankings to Insights: Evaluation Should Shift Focus from Leaderboard to Feedback [36.68929551237421]
  We introduce bftextFeedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results.<n>Our project homepage and dataset are available at https://liudan193.io/Feedbacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-10T16:52:40Z)
• YourBench: Easy Custom Evaluation Sets for Everyone [12.995134931278056]
  YourBench is a novel, open-source framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>It generates reliable, up-to-date, and domain-tailored benchmarks cheaply and without manual annotation.<n>We release the YourBench library, the Tempora-0325 dataset, 150k+ question answer pairs based on Tempora and all evaluation and inference traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T15:40:24Z)
• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics.<n>SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric.<n>We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers.<n>LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs.<n>We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• Chatting Up Attachment: Using LLMs to Predict Adult Bonds [0.0]
  We use GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus to create agents that simulate adults with varying profiles, childhood memories, and attachment styles. We evaluate our models using a transcript dataset from 9 humans who underwent the same interview protocol, analyzed and labeled by mental health professionals. Our findings indicate that training the models using only synthetic data achieves performance comparable to training the models on human data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-31T04:29:19Z)
• Long-Span Question-Answering: Automatic Question Generation and QA-System Ranking via Side-by-Side Evaluation [65.16137964758612]
  We explore the use of long-context capabilities in large language models to create synthetic reading comprehension data from entire books. Our objective is to test the capabilities of LLMs to analyze, understand, and reason over problems that require a detailed comprehension of long spans of text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T20:15:10Z)
• Improving the TENOR of Labeling: Re-evaluating Topic Models for Content Analysis [5.757610495733924]
  We conduct the first evaluation of neural, supervised and classical topic models in an interactive task based setting. We show that current automated metrics do not provide a complete picture of topic modeling capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:54:04Z)
• Beyond Human Data: Scaling Self-Training for Problem-Solving with Language Models [115.501751261878]
  Fine-tuning language models(LMs) on human-generated data remains a prevalent practice. We investigate whether we can go beyond human data on tasks where we have access to scalar feedback. We find that ReST$EM$ scales favorably with model size and significantly surpasses fine-tuning only on human data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T18:17:43Z)
• The Languini Kitchen: Enabling Language Modelling Research at Different Scales of Compute [66.84421705029624]
  We introduce an experimental protocol that enables model comparisons based on equivalent compute, measured in accelerator hours. We pre-process an existing large, diverse, and high-quality dataset of books that surpasses existing academic benchmarks in quality, diversity, and document length. This work also provides two baseline models: a feed-forward model derived from the GPT-2 architecture and a recurrent model in the form of a novel LSTM with ten-fold throughput.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T10:31:17Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Discover, Explanation, Improvement: An Automatic Slice Detection Framework for Natural Language Processing [72.14557106085284]
  slice detection models (SDM) automatically identify underperforming groups of datapoints. This paper proposes a benchmark named "Discover, Explain, improve (DEIM)" for classification NLP tasks. Our evaluation shows that Edisa can accurately select error-prone datapoints with informative semantic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T19:00:00Z)
• Synthetic Benchmarks for Scientific Research in Explainable Machine Learning [14.172740234933215]
  We release XAI-Bench: a suite of synthetic datasets and a library for benchmarking feature attribution algorithms. Unlike real-world datasets, synthetic datasets allow the efficient computation of conditional expected values. We demonstrate the power of our library by benchmarking popular explainability techniques across several evaluation metrics and identifying failure modes for popular explainers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T17:10:21Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)
• Training Question Answering Models From Synthetic Data [26.91650323300262]
  This work aims to narrow the gap between synthetic and human-generated question-answer pairs. We synthesize questions and answers from a synthetic corpus generated by an 8.3 billion parameter GPT-2 model. With no access to human supervision and only access to other models, we are able to train state of the art question answering networks on entirely model-generated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-22T01:49:27Z)

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.