Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures

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 2406.06565 v2 pith:7WGTVI7K submitted 2024-06-03 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords benchmarksevaluationqueriesmixevalarenachatbotefficientexisting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is challenging. Traditional ground-truth-based benchmarks fail to capture the comprehensiveness and nuance of real-world queries, while LLM-as-judge benchmarks suffer from grading biases and limited query quantity. Both of them may also become contaminated over time. User-facing evaluation, such as Chatbot Arena, provides reliable signals but is costly and slow. In this work, we propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard LLM evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks. It bridges (1) comprehensive and well-distributed real-world user queries and (2) efficient and fairly-graded ground-truth-based benchmarks, by matching queries mined from the web with similar queries from existing benchmarks. Based on MixEval, we further build MixEval-Hard, which offers more room for model improvement. Our benchmarks' advantages lie in (1) a 0.96 model ranking correlation with Chatbot Arena arising from the highly impartial query distribution and grading mechanism, (2) fast, cheap, and reproducible execution (6% of the time and cost of MMLU), and (3) dynamic evaluation enabled by the rapid and stable data update pipeline. We provide extensive meta-evaluation and analysis for our and existing LLM benchmarks to deepen the community's understanding of LLM evaluation and guide future research directions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Establishing Trustworthy LLM Evaluation via Shortcut Neuron Analysis

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Shortcut neuron patching suppresses benchmark-contamination shortcuts in LLMs and yields evaluation scores that strongly correlate with the external MixEval benchmark.

  2. WILDCHAT-50M: A Deep Dive Into the Role of Synthetic Data in Post-Training

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 50-million-conversation synthetic chat dataset built from 54 open-weight models, plus an SFT mix that beats Tulu-3's mix with fewer samples.

  3. How to Select Datapoints for Efficient Human Evaluation of NLG Models?

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Selecting human-evaluation items by metric variance, metric consistency, output diversity, or IRT-based informativeness matches random-sampling ranking accuracy with roughly 70% of the annotation budget in WMT23 and SummEval.

  4. LLM Alignment as Retriever Optimization: An Information Retrieval Perspective

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LARPO, an iterative preference optimization method that adapts information retrieval techniques such as listwise ranking losses, hard negatives, and candidate lists, is claimed to substantially improve LLM alignment o...

Pith tools