REVIEW 2 cited by
Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Numerous benchmarks have been established to assess the performance of foundation models on open-ended question answering, which serves as a comprehensive test of a model's ability to understand and generate language in a manner similar to humans. Most of these works focus on proposing new datasets, however, we see two main issues within previous benchmarking pipelines, namely testing leakage and evaluation automation. In this paper, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, Language-Model-as-an-Examiner, where the LM serves as a knowledgeable examiner that formulates questions based on its knowledge and evaluates responses in a reference-free manner. Our framework allows for effortless extensibility as various LMs can be adopted as the examiner, and the questions can be constantly updated given more diverse trigger topics. For a more comprehensive and equitable evaluation, we devise three strategies: (1) We instruct the LM examiner to generate questions across a multitude of domains to probe for a broad acquisition, and raise follow-up questions to engage in a more in-depth assessment. (2) Upon evaluation, the examiner combines both scoring and ranking measurements, providing a reliable result as it aligns closely with human annotations. (3) We additionally propose a decentralized Peer-examination method to address the biases in a single examiner. Our data and benchmarking results are available at: http://lmexam.xlore.cn.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Metanym Game: A Self-Contained, Self-Consistent LLM Peer-Community Benchmark for Structural Intelligence
The metanym game lets LLMs generate and judge novel analogies with no fixed test set, and a single SVD of their mutual ratings yields factual-competence scores that correlate r=0.92 with GPQA Diamond.
-
Pretraining on the Test Set Is No Longer All You Need: A Debate-Driven Approach to QA Benchmarks
A debate-based evaluation protocol on 50 MMLU-Pro questions: fine-tuning on the test set boosts standard accuracy from 50% to 82% but not debate win rates.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.