Beyond the Answers: Reviewing the Rationality of Multiple Choice Question Answering for the Evaluation of Large Language Models
2402.01349
0
0
Abstract
In the field of natural language processing (NLP), Large Language Models (LLMs) have precipitated a paradigm shift, markedly enhancing performance in natural language generation tasks. Despite these advancements, the comprehensive evaluation of LLMs remains an inevitable challenge for the community. Recently, the utilization of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as a benchmark for LLMs has gained considerable traction. This study first investigates the limitations of MCQA as an evaluation method for LLMs and then analyzes the fundamental reason for the limitations of MCQA, that while LLMs may select the correct answers, it is possible that they also recognize other wrong options as correct. Finally, we propose a dataset augmenting method for Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs), MCQA+, that can more accurately reflect the performance of the model, which underscores the need for more robust evaluation mechanisms in assessing the performance of LLMs.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the use of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for evaluating large language models (LLMs).
- The authors argue that simply looking at the correctness of answers provided by LLMs is not enough, and that we should also consider the "rationality" or reasoning behind those answers.
- The paper reviews related work on using MCQs for language model evaluation and proposes a new framework for assessing the rationality of LLM responses to MCQs.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers are looking at a common way of testing AI language models, which is to give them multiple-choice questions and see how well they can pick the correct answer. However, they argue that this is not enough on its own. Just because an AI can get the right answer doesn't mean it's actually understanding the question and reasoning through it the way a human would.
The paper reviews some past work on using multiple-choice questions to evaluate language models, including research on generating high-quality multiple-choice questions and using multiple-choice tasks to train language models. The authors then propose a new framework for also looking at the "rationality" of how language models arrive at their answers - in other words, analyzing the thought process and reasoning behind their responses, not just the final answer.
Technical Explanation
The paper first reviews related work on using multiple-choice questions (MCQs) to evaluate language models. This includes research on automatically generating high-quality MCQs for math problems and using MCQ tasks to train and tune large language models.
The key contribution of this paper is a proposed framework for assessing the "rationality" of language model responses to MCQs. Rather than just looking at whether the model selected the correct answer, the authors suggest analyzing the reasoning and thought process behind the model's response. This could involve things like:
- Evaluating how the model constructs its answer and the logical steps it takes
- Analyzing the model's understanding of the question and its ability to identify relevant information
- Assessing the model's grasp of the underlying concepts and its ability to apply them appropriately
The paper argues that this "rationality" analysis provides a more meaningful and insightful evaluation of language model capabilities compared to simple accuracy metrics. The authors suggest that MCQs can be an efficient and robust tool for evaluating large language models, but the assessment should go beyond just the final answers.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for looking beyond just correctness when using multiple-choice questions to evaluate language models. Assessing the rationality and reasoning behind model responses could provide valuable insights into their true understanding and capabilities.
However, the paper does not go into detail on exactly how this "rationality" analysis would be implemented in practice. The proposed framework is high-level, and more work would be needed to develop concrete methods for evaluating the thought processes of language models.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential challenges or limitations of this approach. For example, it's unclear how well this framework would scale to large, complex MCQ datasets, or how it would handle language models that use diverse strategies to arrive at their answers.
Further research would be needed to fully validate the utility and feasibility of this rationality-based evaluation approach. The authors acknowledge this as an area for future work, but additional details and empirical studies would strengthen the overall argument.
Conclusion
This paper makes an important contribution by highlighting the need to look beyond just answer correctness when using multiple-choice questions to evaluate large language models. The proposed framework for assessing the "rationality" of model responses could lead to more meaningful and insightful evaluations of language model capabilities.
While the details of implementation remain to be worked out, the core idea of considering the reasoning and thought processes behind language model answers is a valuable direction for future research. Developing robust methods for this type of analysis could significantly enhance our understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and inner workings of large language models.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs?
Wangyue Li, Liangzhi Li, Tong Xiang, Xiao Liu, Wei Deng, Noa Garcia
0
0
Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) due to their simplicity and efficiency. However, there are concerns about whether MCQs can truly measure LLM's capabilities, particularly in knowledge-intensive scenarios where long-form generation (LFG) answers are required. The misalignment between the task and the evaluation method demands a thoughtful analysis of MCQ's efficacy, which we undertake in this paper by evaluating nine LLMs on four question-answering (QA) datasets in two languages: Chinese and English. We identify a significant issue: LLMs exhibit an order sensitivity in bilingual MCQs, favoring answers located at specific positions, i.e., the first position. We further quantify the gap between MCQs and long-form generation questions (LFGQs) by comparing their direct outputs, token logits, and embeddings. Our results reveal a relatively low correlation between answers from MCQs and LFGQs for identical questions. Additionally, we propose two methods to quantify the consistency and confidence of LLMs' output, which can be generalized to other QA evaluation benchmarks. Notably, our analysis challenges the idea that the higher the consistency, the greater the accuracy. We also find MCQs to be less reliable than LFGQs in terms of expected calibration error. Finally, the misalignment between MCQs and LFGQs is not only reflected in the evaluation performance but also in the embedding space. Our code and models can be accessed at https://github.com/Meetyou-AI-Lab/Can-MC-Evaluate-LLMs.
5/24/2024
Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?
Nishant Balepur, Abhilasha Ravichander, Rachel Rudinger
0
0
Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is often used to evaluate large language models (LLMs). To see if MCQA assesses LLMs as intended, we probe if LLMs can perform MCQA with choices-only prompts, where models must select the correct answer only from the choices. In three MCQA datasets and four LLMs, this prompt bests a majority baseline in 11/12 cases, with up to 0.33 accuracy gain. To help explain this behavior, we conduct an in-depth, black-box analysis on memorization, choice dynamics, and question inference. Our key findings are threefold. First, we find no evidence that the choices-only accuracy stems from memorization alone. Second, priors over individual choices do not fully explain choices-only accuracy, hinting that LLMs use the group dynamics of choices. Third, LLMs have some ability to infer a relevant question from choices, and surprisingly can sometimes even match the original question. Inferring the original question is an impressive reasoning strategy, but it cannot fully explain the high choices-only accuracy of LLMs in MCQA. Thus, while LLMs are not fully incapable of reasoning in MCQA, we still advocate for the use of stronger baselines in MCQA benchmarks, the design of robust MCQA datasets for fair evaluations, and further efforts to explain LLM decision-making.
6/11/2024
🛸
Math Multiple Choice Question Generation via Human-Large Language Model Collaboration
Jaewook Lee, Digory Smith, Simon Woodhead, Andrew Lan
0
0
Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are a popular method for evaluating students' knowledge due to their efficiency in administration and grading. Crafting high-quality math MCQs is a labor-intensive process that requires educators to formulate precise stems and plausible distractors. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have sparked interest in automating MCQ creation, but challenges persist in ensuring mathematical accuracy and addressing student errors. This paper introduces a prototype tool designed to facilitate collaboration between LLMs and educators for streamlining the math MCQ generation process. We conduct a pilot study involving math educators to investigate how the tool can help them simplify the process of crafting high-quality math MCQs. We found that while LLMs can generate well-formulated question stems, their ability to generate distractors that capture common student errors and misconceptions is limited. Nevertheless, a human-AI collaboration has the potential to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of MCQ generation.
5/3/2024
Multiple Choice Questions and Large Languages Models: A Case Study with Fictional Medical Data
Maxime Griot, Jean Vanderdonckt, Demet Yuksel, Coralie Hemptinne
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT demonstrate significant potential in the medical field, often evaluated using multiple-choice questions (MCQs) similar to those found on the USMLE. Despite their prevalence in medical education, MCQs have limitations that might be exacerbated when assessing LLMs. To evaluate the effectiveness of MCQs in assessing the performance of LLMs, we developed a fictional medical benchmark focused on a non-existent gland, the Glianorex. This approach allowed us to isolate the knowledge of the LLM from its test-taking abilities. We used GPT-4 to generate a comprehensive textbook on the Glianorex in both English and French and developed corresponding multiple-choice questions in both languages. We evaluated various open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific LLMs using these questions in a zero-shot setting. The models achieved average scores around 67%, with minor performance differences between larger and smaller models. Performance was slightly higher in English than in French. Fine-tuned medical models showed some improvement over their base versions in English but not in French. The uniformly high performance across models suggests that traditional MCQ-based benchmarks may not accurately measure LLMs' clinical knowledge and reasoning abilities, instead highlighting their pattern recognition skills. This study underscores the need for more robust evaluation methods to better assess the true capabilities of LLMs in medical contexts.
6/5/2024