Efficient multi-prompt evaluation of LLMs
2405.17202
0
0
Abstract
Most popular benchmarks for comparing LLMs rely on a limited set of prompt templates, which may not fully capture the LLMs' abilities and can affect the reproducibility of results on leaderboards. Many recent works empirically verify prompt sensitivity and advocate for changes in LLM evaluation. In this paper, we consider the problem of estimating the performance distribution across many prompt variants instead of finding a single prompt to evaluate with. We introduce PromptEval, a method for estimating performance across a large set of prompts borrowing strength across prompts and examples to produce accurate estimates under practical evaluation budgets. The resulting distribution can be used to obtain performance quantiles to construct various robust performance metrics (e.g., top 95% quantile or median). We prove that PromptEval consistently estimates the performance distribution and demonstrate its efficacy empirically on three prominent LLM benchmarks: MMLU, BIG-bench Hard, and LMentry. For example, PromptEval can accurately estimate performance quantiles across 100 prompt templates on MMLU with a budget equivalent to two single-prompt evaluations. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/felipemaiapolo/prompt-eval.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Efficient evaluation of large language models (LLMs) using multiple prompts
- Addresses the challenge of selecting the right prompts for evaluating LLM performance
- Introduces a framework for efficient multi-prompt evaluation of LLMs
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text on a wide range of topics. Evaluating the performance of these models is crucial, but it can be challenging to select the right prompts (or input text) to test their capabilities.
The paper presents a framework for efficient multi-prompt evaluation of LLMs. The key idea is to use a diverse set of prompts to assess the model's performance, rather than relying on a single prompt. This helps to ensure a more comprehensive evaluation and can reveal insights about the model's strengths and weaknesses.
The framework also includes techniques for selecting the most informative prompts and efficiently processing multiple prompts. This can save time and resources compared to evaluating the model on a large number of prompts individually.
The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach by applying it to benchmark tasks for introductory computer science prompts and code generation. Their results show that the multi-prompt evaluation framework can provide a more comprehensive and efficient assessment of LLM performance.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a framework for efficiently evaluating the performance of large language models (LLMs) using multiple prompts. The key components of the framework include:
-
Prompt Selection: The authors propose methods for automatically selecting the most informative prompts to evaluate the LLM's capabilities, such as prompt diversity and model uncertainty.
-
Prompt Exploration: The authors develop techniques for efficiently exploring a large set of prompts to identify the most useful ones, rather than evaluating the model on all prompts individually.
-
Multi-Prompt Evaluation: The framework allows for the simultaneous evaluation of an LLM on multiple prompts, which can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the model's performance.
The authors evaluate their framework on several benchmark tasks, including introductory computer science prompts and code generation. Their results demonstrate that the multi-prompt evaluation framework can identify the most informative prompts and provide a more efficient and comprehensive assessment of LLM performance compared to traditional single-prompt evaluation.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a compelling framework for the efficient evaluation of large language models using multiple prompts. However, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research:
-
Prompt Diversity: While the authors focus on selecting diverse prompts, it's unclear how they define and measure diversity. More research may be needed to ensure that the selected prompts truly capture the model's capabilities across a wide range of tasks and domains.
-
Generalization: The authors primarily evaluate their framework on specific benchmark tasks, such as computer science prompts and code generation. It would be interesting to see how well the framework generalizes to a broader range of tasks and real-world applications.
-
Computational Efficiency: The authors claim their framework is more computationally efficient than evaluating the model on all prompts individually. However, the exact performance gains and trade-offs compared to other approaches could be further explored.
-
User Interaction: The framework currently focuses on the automated selection and evaluation of prompts. Incorporating user input and preferences could potentially enhance the framework's usefulness for practical applications.
Overall, the paper presents an important contribution to the field of large language model evaluation, and the proposed framework shows promise for providing a more comprehensive and efficient assessment of these powerful AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a framework for the efficient multi-prompt evaluation of large language models (LLMs). The key innovations include methods for automatically selecting the most informative prompts, efficiently exploring a large set of prompts, and simultaneously evaluating the LLM on multiple prompts.
The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their framework on several benchmark tasks, showing that it can provide a more comprehensive and efficient assessment of LLM performance compared to traditional single-prompt evaluation. The framework's ability to identify the most useful prompts and process them efficiently could have significant implications for the development and deployment of LLMs in real-world applications.
While the paper presents a promising approach, there are some potential limitations and areas for further research, such as ensuring prompt diversity, evaluating generalization to a broader range of tasks, and incorporating user preferences. Overall, the work contributes valuable insights and tools for the effective evaluation of these powerful AI systems.
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
State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation
Moran Mizrahi, Guy Kaplan, Dan Malkin, Rotem Dror, Dafna Shahaf, Gabriel Stanovsky
0
0
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of various evaluation benchmarks. These benchmarks typically rely on a single instruction template for evaluating all LLMs on a specific task. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances, involving 20 different LLMs and 39 tasks from 3 benchmarks. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead. We discuss tailored evaluation metrics for specific use cases (e.g., LLM developers vs. developers interested in a specific downstream task), ensuring a more reliable and meaningful assessment of LLM capabilities. We then implement these criteria and conduct evaluations of multiple models, providing insights into the true strengths and limitations of current LLMs.
5/7/2024
On the Worst Prompt Performance of Large Language Models
Bowen Cao, Deng Cai, Zhisong Zhang, Yuexian Zou, Wai Lam
0
0
The performance of large language models (LLMs) is acutely sensitive to the phrasing of prompts, which raises significant concerns about their reliability in real-world scenarios. Existing studies often divide prompts into task-level instructions and case-level inputs and primarily focus on evaluating and improving robustness against variations in tasks-level instructions. However, this setup fails to fully address the diversity of real-world user queries and assumes the existence of task-specific datasets. To address these limitations, we introduce RobustAlpacaEval, a new benchmark that consists of semantically equivalent case-level queries and emphasizes the importance of using the worst prompt performance to gauge the lower bound of model performance. Extensive experiments on RobustAlpacaEval with ChatGPT and six open-source LLMs from the Llama, Mistral, and Gemma families uncover substantial variability in model performance; for instance, a difference of 45.48% between the worst and best performance for the Llama-2-70B-chat model, with its worst performance dipping as low as 9.38%. We further illustrate the difficulty in identifying the worst prompt from both model-agnostic and model-dependent perspectives, emphasizing the absence of a shortcut to characterize the worst prompt. We also attempt to enhance the worst prompt performance using existing prompt engineering and prompt consistency methods, but find that their impact is limited. These findings underscore the need to create more resilient LLMs that can maintain high performance across diverse prompts. Data and code are available at https://github.com/cbwbuaa/On-the-Worst-Prompt- Performance-of-LLMs.
6/24/2024
A Better LLM Evaluator for Text Generation: The Impact of Prompt Output Sequencing and Optimization
KuanChao Chu, Yi-Pei Chen, Hideki Nakayama
0
0
This research investigates prompt designs of evaluating generated texts using large language models (LLMs). While LLMs are increasingly used for scoring various inputs, creating effective prompts for open-ended text evaluation remains challenging due to model sensitivity and subjectivity in evaluation of text generation. Our study experimented with different prompt structures, altering the sequence of output instructions and including explanatory reasons. We found that the order of presenting reasons and scores significantly influences LLMs' scoring, with a different level of rule understanding in the prompt. An additional optimization may enhance scoring alignment if sufficient data is available. This insight is crucial for improving the accuracy and consistency of LLM-based evaluations.
6/17/2024
One Prompt To Rule Them All: LLMs for Opinion Summary Evaluation
Tejpalsingh Siledar, Swaroop Nath, Sankara Sri Raghava Ravindra Muddu, Rupasai Rangaraju, Swaprava Nath, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Suman Banerjee, Amey Patil, Sudhanshu Shekhar Singh, Muthusamy Chelliah, Nikesh Garera
0
0
Evaluation of opinion summaries using conventional reference-based metrics rarely provides a holistic evaluation and has been shown to have a relatively low correlation with human judgments. Recent studies suggest using Large Language Models (LLMs) as reference-free metrics for NLG evaluation, however, they remain unexplored for opinion summary evaluation. Moreover, limited opinion summary evaluation datasets inhibit progress. To address this, we release the SUMMEVAL-OP dataset covering 7 dimensions related to the evaluation of opinion summaries: fluency, coherence, relevance, faithfulness, aspect coverage, sentiment consistency, and specificity. We investigate Op-I-Prompt a dimension-independent prompt, and Op-Prompts, a dimension-dependent set of prompts for opinion summary evaluation. Experiments indicate that Op-I-Prompt emerges as a good alternative for evaluating opinion summaries achieving an average Spearman correlation of 0.70 with humans, outperforming all previous approaches. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to investigate LLMs as evaluators on both closed-source and open-source models in the opinion summarization domain.
6/11/2024