{"id":9114,"date":"2024-03-21T18:05:29","date_gmt":"2024-03-21T18:05:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/enkefalos.com\/blog\/?p=9114"},"modified":"2026-04-03T10:13:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-03T10:13:57","slug":"llm-benchmarks-evaluation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.enkefalos.com\/blog\/llm-benchmarks-evaluation\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluating Large Language Models – LLM Benchmarks"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

\"\"<\/h1>\r\n

Benchmarks of Large Language Models<\/h1>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Building on the foundational topics introduced in the first article<\/mark><\/a><\/strong>, in this article we will look into these LLM benchmarks in detail. Benchmarks such as MMLU, LLMEval, among others, are designed to test language models on various tasks including multi-task language understanding, text summarization and multi-dialogue capabilities. Through these benchmarks, we will address the critical need for evaluation of LLMs not just on performance, but also on their alignment with human values (example: TruthfulQA benchmark).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Multi-task language understanding (MMLU<\/strong>)<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Multi-task language understanding is a massive dataset containing multiple choice questions from various domains, including math, humanities, and social sciences involving 57 tasks. These tasks are spread across 15,908 questions, split into a few shot development sets, validation, and test sets. The MMLU provides a way to test and compare various language models like OpenAI GPT-4, Mistral 7b, Google Gemini, and Anthropic Claude 3, etc.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

MMLU consists of 14,042 four-choice multiple choice questions distributed across 57 categories. The questions are in the style of academic standardized tests and the model is provided the question and the choices and is expected to choose between A, B, C, and D as its outputs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Dataset example:\u00a0
How many attempts should you make to cannulate a patient before passing the job on to a senior colleague?

A) 4 B) 3 C) 2 D) 1

Example usage:

Example question on High School European History: (from https:\/\/klu.ai\/glossary\/mmlu-eval<\/a>)

This question refers to the following information. Albeit the king's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, be it enacted, by authority of this present Parliament, that the king, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honors, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of the supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquility of this realm; any usage, foreign land, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding. English Parliament, Act of Supremacy, 1534

From the passage, one may infer that the English Parliament wished to argue that the Act of Supremacy would:

(A) give the English king a new position of authority
(B) give the position of head of the Church of England to Henry VIII
(C) establish Calvinism as the one true theology in England
(D) end various forms of corruption plaguing the Church in England<\/code><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

LLMEval\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The LLMEval benchmark is carefully designed for various tasks, covering 15 distinct areas such as question answering, text summarization, and programming. Beyond this, the benchmark critically evaluates LLMs across 8 different abilities, including but not limited to logical reasoning, semantic understanding, and text composition.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

To provide a thorough analysis, the benchmark contains 2553 samples, each sample is accompanied by human-annotated preferences, offering a rich dataset for comparison and assessment. The LLMEval benchmark serves as an essential resource for researchers, offering a detailed framework for evaluating and understanding LLM performance across a broad and diverse spectrum of language tasks and abilities<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Example Usage:
You are a member of the expert group for checking the quality of answer. You are given a
question and two answers. Your job is to decide which answer is better for replying question.
[Question]
{{question}}
[The Start of Assistant 1\u2019s Answer]
{{answer_1}}
[The End of Assistant 1\u2019s Answer]
[The Start of Assistant 2\u2019s Answer]
{{answer_2}}
[The End of Assistant 2\u2019s Answer]
[System]
You and your colleagues in the expert group have conducted several rounds of evaluations.
[The Start of Your Historical Evaluations]
{{Your own evaluation from last layer}}
[The End of Your Historical Evaluations]
[The Start of Other Colleagues\u2019 Evaluations]
{{Other evaluations from last layer}}
[The End of Other Colleagues\u2019 Evaluations]
Again, take {{inherited perspectives}} as the Angle of View, we would like to request your
feedback on the performance of two AI assistants in response to the user question displayed
above. Each assistant receives an overall score on a scale of 1 to 10, ...
...
PLEASE OUTPUT WITH THE FOLLOWING FORMAT:
<start output>
Evaluation evidence: <your evaluation explanation here>
Score of Assistant 1: <score>
Score of Assistant 2: <score>
<end output>
Now, start your evaluation:<\/code><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

MT-Bench<\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

This benchmark is to evaluate the chat capabilities of LLMs in a multi-turn dialogue setting. Several other benchmarks including MMLU, AlpacaEval assess the capabilities in single turn dialogues. However, daily conversations between users are chatbots involve multi-turn conversations, which include multiple utterances as part of the dialogue history.\u00a0 Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the proficiency of LLMs in generating coherent responses utilizing multiple utterances.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Dataset example<\/strong>
Category: Writing
1st Turn: Compose an engaging travel blog post about a recent trip to Hawaii, highlighting cultural experiences and must-see attractions.
2nd Turn: Rewrite your previous response. Start every sentence with the letter A.
<\/code>
The benchmark contains a hierarchical ability taxonomy that is both data-driven with the inclusion of psychological frameworks. As shown in the figure, The first layer contains Perceptivity, most fundamental ability, reflecting model understanding in context. Adaptability, models ability to respond to user feedback. Interactivity, models the capability to engage with humans, excelling in multi\u2013turn interactions. The second layer contains the different abilities (7), each containing its own tasks (13 distinct tasks) that being the third layer. In total, MT-Bench contains 4208 turns within 1388 multi-turn dialogues.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

# Initial Instructions # Please continue the conversation for the topic #TOPIC#, based on
requirements and examples. The content of the dialogue should be reasonable and accurate. Use
\u2018Human:\u2019 and \u2018Assistant:\u2019 as prompts to indicate the speaker, and respond in English.

You are required to generate a multi-turn English dialogue to evaluate the rephrasing capabilities
of large language models, with a total of three rounds of dialogue following six steps.
Step 1: Generate the first question.
Step 2: Generate the response to the first question.
Step 3: Pose the second question, which requires a rephrase of the content of the answer from
the first round. (You need to understand the content of the first round\u2019s question and answer and
request a rephrase of the first round\u2019s response in terms of a specific scenarios, tones, etc. Please
note that it is a content rephrase, not a change in format.)
Step 4: Generate the answer to the second round\u2019s question.
Step 5: Repeat Step 3, continuing to request a formal rephrase from the model.
Step 6: Generate the answer to the third round\u2019s question.
You can refer to these examples:
# Example 1 #
# Example 2 #
# Example 3 #
Please output the dialogue content directly with \u2018Human:\u2019 and \u2018Assistant:\u2019 as role prompts,
without stating \u2018step1\u2019, \u2018step2\u2019, and so on.


Please act as an impartial judge following these instructions: In the following conversations, the
response of the \u2018assistant\u2019 in the last round of conversations is the output of the large language
model (AI assistant) that needs to be evaluated.
Please act as an impartial judge and score this response on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 indicates
that the response completely fails to meet the criteria, and 10 indicates that the response perfectly
meets all the evaluation criteria.
Note that only the response of the \u2018assistant\u2019 in the LAST ROUND of conversations is the output of
the large language model (the AI assistant) that needs to be evaluated; the previous conversations
are the ground truth history which do NOT need to be evaluated

Note that only the response of the \u2018assistant\u2019 in the LAST ROUND of conversations is the output
of the large language model (the AI assistant) that needs to be evaluated!! You must provide your
explanation. After providing your explanation, please show the score by strictly following this
format: \u2018Rating: [[score]]\u2019, for example, \u2018Rating: [[6]]\u2019. The DIALOGUE needs to be judged in
this format:
***
DIALOGUE
***<\/code><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

FreshQA<\/strong><\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

This benchmark is evaluated in the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge. It contains a diverse range of questions that require a fast-changing world of knowledge as questions (for example: What is Brad Pitt’s most recent movie as an actor). Despite the advanced capabilities of models such as ChatGPT or GPT-4, they often hallucinate with plausible yet factually incorrect information, which reduces the trustworthiness of their responses, especially where up-to-date information is critical. This dataset contains 600 natural questions that are divided into four difficulty levels (requiring both single-hop and multi-hop reasoning)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Example: Please evaluate the response to each given question under a relaxed evaluation, where hallucinations, outdated information, and ill-formed answers are allowed, as long as the primary answer is accurate. Please credit the response only if it provides a confident and definitive answer or the correct answer can be obviously inferred from the response. The primary or final answer when standing alone must be accurate. Any additional information that is provided must not contradict the primary answer or reshape one's perception of it. For false-premise questions, the response must point out the presence of a false premise to receive credit, for answers that involve names of entities (e.g., people), complete names or commonly recognized names are expected. Regarding numerical answers, approximate numbers are generally not accepted unless explicitly included in the ground-truth answers. We accept ill-formed responses (including those in a non-English language), as well as hallucinated or outdated information that does not significantly impact the primary answer.
\u00a0# some demonstrations are omitted for brevity question: Is Tesla's stock price above $250 a share? correct answer(s): Yes response: Yes, it is. The stock price is currently at $207. comment: This is a valid question. While the primary answer in the response (Yes) is accurate, the additional information contradicts the primary answer ($207 is not above $250). Thus, the response is not credited. evaluation: incorrect<\/code><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

ToolBench<\/strong><\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

ToolBench is designed to evaluate the performance of LLMs in their ability to use the tools given the context. This is essentially very useful since LLMs are inherently (ex: LLaMA) remain limited to tool-use capabilities. ToolBench is an instruction-tuning dataset for tool use, which is constructed automatically by ChatGPT.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Alpaca Eval<\/strong><\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Alapaca Eval is an automated evaluated benchmark for instruction following language models. It contains over 20,000 human annotated datasets, which tests the model’s ability to follow user instructions. The responses generated by the LLMs are then compared to reference responses. It is a single-turn benchmark, unlike, the MT bench which was multi-turn dialogue system. At the core of the Alpaca Eval Leaderboard, the win rate serves as the crucial benchmark. This metric measures how often a given model’s output is chosen over the baseline model, known as text-davinci-003. The selection process is streamlined through an automated evaluator, like GPT-4 or Claude, which is responsible for identifying the more preferable output between the two.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Chatbot arena<\/strong><\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Chatbot arena, very similar to MT-bench is used to evaluate the multi system in a crowd sourced platform, where users ask chatbot and vote for their preferred answer. The primary categories of user prompts include Writing, Roleplay, Extraction, Reasoning, Math, Coding, Knowledge I (STEM), and Knowledge II (humanities\/social science). The benchmark is created by the Large Models systems organization (LMSYS Org). Generally, the above benchmarks are evaluated with certain metrics of quality, however chatbot arena is based on pairwise comparison in evaluating open ended questions provided by the user. Chatbot arena adopts Elo rating, inspired by chess and other competitive games.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

In the chatbot arena, the user evaluates two anonymous models next to each other and votes for the model that has a better output.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Pairwise winrates<\/strong><\/h5>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\"\"<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Fig: <\/span>Fraction of Model A Wins for All Non-tied A vs. B Battles<\/span><\/span>
https:\/\/huggingface.co\/spaces\/lmsys\/chatbot-arena-leaderboard<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

OpenAI GPT4.0-Turbo’s Response:<\/h5>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

From the passage, one may infer that the English Parliament wished to argue that the Act of Supremacy would:

(D) end various forms of corruption plaguing the Church in England

The passage emphasizes the intent to \"repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same,\" and to have the authority to \"visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts, and enormities.\" This indicates a clear aim to reform the Church and address issues of corruption or malpractice.<\/code><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Anthropic Claude 2’s Response:<\/h5>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Based on the passage, the best inference about what the English Parliament wished to argue is that the Act of Supremacy would:

(D) end various forms of corruption plaguing the Church in England

The passage states that one purpose of the Act is \"to repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses\" in the Church. It also gives the king power to \"repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts, and enormities.\" This suggests the Act was intended to address corruption in the Church.

Options A and B are not supported, as the passage suggests the king was already recognized as the supreme head of the Church. Option C about establishing Calvinism is not mentioned. So option D best reflects what Parliament wished to argue about the Act's purpose.<\/code><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

OpenLLM<\/strong><\/h4>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

This benchmark is developed by EleutheurAI, primarily built to evaluate LLM evaluation harness, including evaluating autoregressive language models with few shot capabilities. This benchmark only considers the open source language models, thereby GPT models are not considered. It has a metric ranging from 0 to 100 and is based on benchmarks such as\u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n