MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures

Overview

• Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is challenging
• Traditional ground-truth-based benchmarks fail to capture the nuance of real-world queries
• LLM-as-judge benchmarks suffer from grading biases and limited query quantity
• Both can become contaminated over time
• User-facing evaluation like Chatbot Arena provides reliable signals but is costly and slow

Plain English Explanation

Assessing the performance of large language models (LLMs) is a complex task. The traditional approach of using pre-defined benchmark tests often falls short because they don't reflect the true diversity and complexity of real-world questions that people might ask.

Another method is to have the LLM itself grade its own performance, but this can be biased and limited in the number of queries it can handle. These benchmarks can also become less reliable over time as the models and data evolve.

User-based evaluations like Chatbot Arena provide more realistic feedback, but they are time-consuming and expensive to run.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a new evaluation paradigm called MixEval that strategically combines existing benchmarks to create a more efficient, high-quality evaluation system. MixEval bridges comprehensive real-world queries mined from the web with well-graded ground-truth benchmarks by matching the web-mined queries to similar ones in the existing datasets.

The authors further develop MixEval-Hard, which offers even more challenging queries for models to tackle. These benchmarks achieve a 0.96 correlation with the reliable Chatbot Arena evaluation, while being much faster and cheaper to run (6% of the time and cost of MMLU). The system also allows for dynamic updates to keep the evaluation current.

The paper provides extensive meta-evaluation and analysis of both its own and existing LLM benchmarks to deepen the community's understanding of LLM evaluation and guide future research.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a thoughtful and innovative approach to LLM evaluation that addresses many of the shortcomings of existing methods. By strategically combining benchmarks, MixEval and MixEval-Hard offer a balance of real-world relevance and efficient, impartial grading.

However, the authors acknowledge that their approach still has limitations. For example, the web-mined queries may not fully capture the breadth of real-world usage, and the ground-truth benchmarks may have their own biases. Additionally, the dynamic update pipeline, while an advantage, could introduce new challenges over time.

Further research may be needed to explore ways to address these limitations and continue improving LLM evaluation. Continued collaboration between researchers and industry practitioners will be crucial to develop robust, scalable, and meaningful benchmarks that keep pace with the rapid advancements in large language models.

Conclusion

This paper introduces a novel approach to LLM evaluation called MixEval that combines the strengths of existing benchmark methods. By strategically mixing real-world queries with well-curated ground-truth datasets, MixEval and MixEval-Hard provide a efficient, high-quality way to assess LLM performance that correlates strongly with user-facing evaluations.

The authors' extensive analysis and meta-evaluation offer valuable insights to deepen the community's understanding of LLM evaluation, guiding future research in this critical area. As large language models continue to advance, developing reliable and scalable evaluation frameworks will be essential to ensure their responsible development and deployment.