Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arena

Fuente: arXiv
Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Myrzakhan, Aidar, Bsharat, Sondos Mahmoud, Shen, Zhiqiang
Format: Preprint
Publié: 2024
Sujets:
Accès en ligne:
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
_version_ 1866929382247890944
author Myrzakhan, Aidar
Bsharat, Sondos Mahmoud
Shen, Zhiqiang
author_facet Myrzakhan, Aidar
Bsharat, Sondos Mahmoud
Shen, Zhiqiang
contents Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) are frequently used to assess large language models (LLMs). Typically, an LLM is given a question and selects the answer deemed most probable after adjustments for factors like length. Unfortunately, LLMs may inherently favor certain answer choice IDs, such as A/B/C/D, due to inherent biases of priori unbalanced probabilities, influencing the prediction of answers based on these IDs. Previous research has introduced methods to reduce this ''selection bias'' by simply permutating options on a few test samples and applying to new ones. Another problem of MCQ is the lottery ticket choice by ''random guessing''. The LLM does not learn particular knowledge, but the option is guessed correctly. This situation is especially serious for those small-scale LLMs. To address them, a more thorough approach involves shifting from MCQ to open-style questions, which can fundamentally eliminate selection bias and random guessing issues. However, transitioning causes its own set of challenges in (1) identifying suitable open-style questions and (2) validating the correctness of LLM open-style responses against human-annotated ground-truths. This work aims to tackle these significant difficulties, and establish a new LLM evaluation benchmark through entirely open-style questions. Consequently, we introduce the Open-LLM-Leaderboard to track various LLMs' performance and reflect true capability of them, such as GPT-4o/4/3.5, Claude 3, Gemini, etc. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/Open-LLM-Leaderboard.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2406_07545
institution arXiv
publishDate 2024
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arena
Myrzakhan, Aidar
Bsharat, Sondos Mahmoud
Shen, Zhiqiang
Computation and Language
Artificial Intelligence
Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) are frequently used to assess large language models (LLMs). Typically, an LLM is given a question and selects the answer deemed most probable after adjustments for factors like length. Unfortunately, LLMs may inherently favor certain answer choice IDs, such as A/B/C/D, due to inherent biases of priori unbalanced probabilities, influencing the prediction of answers based on these IDs. Previous research has introduced methods to reduce this ''selection bias'' by simply permutating options on a few test samples and applying to new ones. Another problem of MCQ is the lottery ticket choice by ''random guessing''. The LLM does not learn particular knowledge, but the option is guessed correctly. This situation is especially serious for those small-scale LLMs. To address them, a more thorough approach involves shifting from MCQ to open-style questions, which can fundamentally eliminate selection bias and random guessing issues. However, transitioning causes its own set of challenges in (1) identifying suitable open-style questions and (2) validating the correctness of LLM open-style responses against human-annotated ground-truths. This work aims to tackle these significant difficulties, and establish a new LLM evaluation benchmark through entirely open-style questions. Consequently, we introduce the Open-LLM-Leaderboard to track various LLMs' performance and reflect true capability of them, such as GPT-4o/4/3.5, Claude 3, Gemini, etc. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/Open-LLM-Leaderboard.
title Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arena
topic Computation and Language
Artificial Intelligence
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07545