Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2306.04181 v2 pith:W74S6ZUH submitted 2023-06-07 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords examinerbenchmarkingquestionsevaluationcomprehensivefoundationframeworkgenerate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Metanym Game: A Self-Contained, Self-Consistent LLM Peer-Community Benchmark for Structural Intelligence

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Pretraining on the Test Set Is No Longer All You Need: A Debate-Driven Approach to QA Benchmarks

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools