AutoEvoEval: An Automated Framework for Evolving Close-Ended LLM Evaluation Data

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23735v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:18:56 GMT
• Title: AutoEvoEval: An Automated Framework for Evolving Close-Ended LLM Evaluation Data
• Authors: JiaRu Wu, Mingwei Liu,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on various tasks.<n>Existing evaluation benchmarks are often static and insufficient to fully assess their robustness and generalization.<n>We propose AutoEvoEval, an evolution-based evaluation framework for close-ended tasks such as question answering.
• Score: 0.6278186810520364
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on various tasks, but existing evaluation benchmarks are often static and insufficient to fully assess their robustness and generalization in realistic scenarios. Prior work using evolutionary or adversarial data augmentation has improved evaluation diversity but lacks systematic control over perturbation types and multi-step complexity, limiting comprehensive robustness analysis. To address these gaps, we propose AutoEvoEval, an evolution-based evaluation framework for close-ended tasks such as multi-choice question answering. AutoEvoEval introduces 22 interpretable atomic evolution operations and supports multi-round compositions, enabling controlled generation of diverse, challenging, and realistic test samples. We conduct extensive experiments addressing four research questions on a broad set of open- and closed-source LLMs. Our results show that atomic operations cause an average accuracy drop of 7.283\%, with structure-disrupting or misleading semantic edits causing the largest declines. Model sensitivities vary significantly for the same perturbation, and combining multiple evolution steps amplifies adversarial effects by up to 52.932\%. These findings suggest current benchmarks may overestimate true model generalization and emphasize the need for evolution-aware robustness evaluation. Code and resources are available at: https://github.com/SYSUSELab/AutoEvoEval.

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)
• Integrating Counterfactual Simulations with Language Models for Explaining Multi-Agent Behaviour [26.04296415316974]
  We propose Agentic eXplanations via Interrogative Simulation (AXIS)<n>AXIS generates intelligible causal explanations for pre-trained multi-agent policies.<n>We evaluate AXIS on autonomous driving across 10 scenarios for 5 LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T12:19:18Z)
• MTR-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multi-Turn Reasoning Evaluation [56.87891213797931]
  We present MTR-Bench for Large Language Models' Multi-Turn Reasoning evaluation.<n>Comprising 4 classes, 40 tasks, and 3600 instances, MTR-Bench covers diverse reasoning capabilities.<n>MTR-Bench features fully-automated framework spanning both dataset constructions and model evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:59:12Z)
• AskToAct: Enhancing LLMs Tool Use via Self-Correcting Clarification [25.27444694706659]
  We present AskToAct, which exploits the structural mapping between queries and their tool invocation solutions.<n>By systematically removing key parameters from queries while retaining them as ground truth, we enable automated construction of high-quality training data.<n>Our framework exhibits robust performance across different model architectures and successfully generalizes to entirely unseen APIs without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T12:55:49Z)
• Beyond Words: How Large Language Models Perform in Quantitative Management Problem-Solving [0.0]
  This study examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) perform when tackling quantitative management decision problems in a zero-shot setting.<n>We generated 900 responses generated by five leading models across 20 diverse managerial scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T12:39:39Z)
• Breaking Focus: Contextual Distraction Curse in Large Language Models [68.4534308805202]
  We investigate a critical vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>This phenomenon arises when models fail to maintain consistent performance on questions modified with semantically coherent but irrelevant context.<n>We propose an efficient tree-based search methodology to automatically generate CDV examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T18:43:36Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• IDGen: Item Discrimination Induced Prompt Generation for LLM Evaluation [15.895295957106772]
  We propose an ID-induced prompt synthesis framework for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) Our data synthesis framework prioritizes both breadth and specificity. It can generate prompts that comprehensively evaluate the capabilities of LLMs. We will release a dataset of over 3,000 carefully crafted prompts to facilitate evaluation research of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T16:29:12Z)
• Automating Dataset Updates Towards Reliable and Timely Evaluation of Large Language Models [81.27391252152199]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various natural language benchmarks. We propose to automate dataset updating and provide systematic analysis regarding its effectiveness. There are two updating strategies: 1) mimicking strategy to generate similar samples based on original data, and 2) extending strategy that further expands existing samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T07:15:59Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)
• MT-Eval: A Multi-Turn Capabilities Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models [70.92847554971065]
  We introduce MT-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate multi-turn conversational abilities. By analyzing human-LLM conversations, we categorize interaction patterns into four types: recollection, expansion, refinement, and follow-up. Our evaluation of 11 well-known LLMs shows that while closed-source models generally surpass open-source ones, certain open-source models exceed GPT-3.5-Turbo in specific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T04:50:28Z)

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.