Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

AutoBencher: Towards Declarative Benchmark Construction

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 2407.08351 v2 pith:IDVKK3FJ submitted 2024-07-11 cs.CL cs.LG

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

We present AutoBencher, a declarative framework for automatic benchmark construction, and use it to scalably discover novel insights and vulnerabilities of existing language models. Concretely, given a few desiderata of benchmarks (e.g., question difficulty, topic salience), we operationalize each desideratum and cast benchmark creation as an optimization problem. Specifically, we experiment with two settings with different optimization objectives: (i) for capability evaluation, we declare the goal of finding a salient, difficult dataset that induces novel performance patterns; (ii) for safety evaluation, we declare the goal of finding a dataset of unsafe prompts that existing LMs fail to decline. To tackle this optimization problem, we use a language model to iteratively propose and refine dataset descriptions, which are then used to generate topic-specific questions and answers. These descriptions are optimized to improve the declared desiderata. We use AutoBencher (powered by GPT-4) to create datasets for math, multilinguality, knowledge, and safety. The scalability of AutoBencher allows it to test fine-grained categories and tail knowledge, creating datasets that elicit 22% more model errors (i.e., difficulty) than existing benchmarks. On the novelty ends, AutoBencher also helps identify specific gaps not captured by existing benchmarks: e.g., Gemini-Pro has knowledge gaps on Permian Extinction and Fordism while GPT-4o fails to decline harmful requests about cryptocurrency scams.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Enterprise Large Language Model Evaluation Benchmark

    cs.AI 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A 14-task enterprise LLM benchmark built mostly from GPT-4o-generated labels and scored by GPT-4o-as-judge shows open-source models closing the reasoning gap, but the dataset is not public and the evaluation is partly...

Pith tools