Global MMLU: Understanding and Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Biases in Multilingual Evaluation
Paper
•
2412.03304
•
Published
•
17
Secure Learning Lab
university
AI & ML interests
Trustworthy Machine Learning
Recent Activity
View all activity
AI-Secure's activity
clefourrier
authored
a
paper
19 days ago
antiquality
updated
a
Space
about 1 month ago
chejian
updated
3
datasets
3 months ago
boxin-wbx
authored
a
paper
3 months ago
alphapav
updated
a
dataset
6 months ago
clefourrier
updated
a
Space
6 months ago
clefourrier
authored
2
papers
6 months ago
chejian
updated
a
dataset
7 months ago
clefourrier
posted
an
update
8 months ago
Post
5446
In a basic chatbots, errors are annoyances. In medical LLMs, errors can have life-threatening consequences 🩸
It's therefore vital to benchmark/follow advances in medical LLMs before even thinking about deployment.
This is why a small research team introduced a medical LLM leaderboard, to get reproducible and comparable results between LLMs, and allow everyone to follow advances in the field.
openlifescienceai/open_medical_llm_leaderboard
Congrats to @aaditya and @pminervini !
Learn more in the blog: https://huggingface.co/blog/leaderboard-medicalllm
It's therefore vital to benchmark/follow advances in medical LLMs before even thinking about deployment.
This is why a small research team introduced a medical LLM leaderboard, to get reproducible and comparable results between LLMs, and allow everyone to follow advances in the field.
openlifescienceai/open_medical_llm_leaderboard
Congrats to @aaditya and @pminervini !
Learn more in the blog: https://huggingface.co/blog/leaderboard-medicalllm
clefourrier
posted
an
update
8 months ago
Post
4427
Contamination free code evaluations with LiveCodeBench! 🖥️
LiveCodeBench is a new leaderboard, which contains:
- complete code evaluations (on code generation, self repair, code execution, tests)
- my favorite feature: problem selection by publication date 📅
This feature means that you can get model scores averaged only on new problems out of the training data. This means... contamination free code evals! 🚀
Check it out!
Blog: https://huggingface.co/blog/leaderboard-livecodebench
Leaderboard: livecodebench/leaderboard
Congrats to @StringChaos @minimario @xu3kev @kingh0730 and @FanjiaYan for the super cool leaderboard!
LiveCodeBench is a new leaderboard, which contains:
- complete code evaluations (on code generation, self repair, code execution, tests)
- my favorite feature: problem selection by publication date 📅
This feature means that you can get model scores averaged only on new problems out of the training data. This means... contamination free code evals! 🚀
Check it out!
Blog: https://huggingface.co/blog/leaderboard-livecodebench
Leaderboard: livecodebench/leaderboard
Congrats to @StringChaos @minimario @xu3kev @kingh0730 and @FanjiaYan for the super cool leaderboard!
clefourrier
posted
an
update
8 months ago
Post
2209
🆕 Evaluate your RL agents - who's best at Atari?🏆
The new RL leaderboard evaluates agents in 87 possible environments (from Atari 🎮 to motion control simulations🚶and more)!
When you submit your model, it's run and evaluated in real time - and the leaderboard displays small videos of the best model's run, which is super fun to watch! ✨
Kudos to @qgallouedec for creating and maintaining the leaderboard!
Let's find out which agent is the best at games! 🚀
open-rl-leaderboard/leaderboard
The new RL leaderboard evaluates agents in 87 possible environments (from Atari 🎮 to motion control simulations🚶and more)!
When you submit your model, it's run and evaluated in real time - and the leaderboard displays small videos of the best model's run, which is super fun to watch! ✨
Kudos to @qgallouedec for creating and maintaining the leaderboard!
Let's find out which agent is the best at games! 🚀
open-rl-leaderboard/leaderboard
clefourrier
posted
an
update
9 months ago
Post
2216
Fun fact about evaluation, part 2!
How much do scores change depending on prompt format choice?
Using different prompts (all present in the literature, from
10 points for a single model!
Keep in mind that we only changed the prompt, not the evaluation subsets, etc.
Again, this confirms that evaluation results reported without their details are basically bullshit.
Prompt format on the x axis, all these evals look at the logprob of either "choice A/choice B..." or "A/B...".
Incidentally, it also changes model rankings - so a "best" model might only be best on one type of prompt...
How much do scores change depending on prompt format choice?
Using different prompts (all present in the literature, from
Prompt question? to Question: prompt question?\nChoices: enumeration of all choices\nAnswer: ), we get a score range of...10 points for a single model!
Keep in mind that we only changed the prompt, not the evaluation subsets, etc.
Again, this confirms that evaluation results reported without their details are basically bullshit.
Prompt format on the x axis, all these evals look at the logprob of either "choice A/choice B..." or "A/B...".
Incidentally, it also changes model rankings - so a "best" model might only be best on one type of prompt...
alphapav
authored
2
papers
9 months ago
clefourrier
posted
an
update
9 months ago
Post
2352
Fun fact about evaluation!
Did you know that, if you evaluate the same model, with the same prompt formatting & the same fixed few-shot examples, only changing
♻️the order in which the few shot examples are added to the prompt ♻️
you get a difference of up to 3 points in evaluation score?
I did a small experiment using some MMLU subsets on the best performing 7B and lower pretrained models from the leaderboard.
I tried 8 different prompting methods (containing more or less information, such as just the question, or Question: question, or Question: question Choices: ..., see the x axis) that are commonly used in evaluation.
I then compared the results for all these methods, in 5-shot, during 2 runs. The *only difference* between the first and second run being that the samples used in few-shot are not introduced in the same order.
For example, run one would have been "A B C D E Current sample", vs, in run 2, "D C E A B Current sample".
All the other experiment parameters stayed exactly the same.
As you can see on the attached picture, you get a difference of up to 3 points between the 2 few-shot samples shuffling.
So, when just changing *the order of the few shot samples* can change your results by several points, what is the impact of all other "minimal" and unreported prompting changes?
-> Any kind of model score, provided without an evaluation script for reproducibility, is basically bullshit (or coms).
-> This is why we need reproducible evaluation in a fair and exactly similar setup, using evaluation suites such as
Did you know that, if you evaluate the same model, with the same prompt formatting & the same fixed few-shot examples, only changing
♻️the order in which the few shot examples are added to the prompt ♻️
you get a difference of up to 3 points in evaluation score?
I did a small experiment using some MMLU subsets on the best performing 7B and lower pretrained models from the leaderboard.
I tried 8 different prompting methods (containing more or less information, such as just the question, or Question: question, or Question: question Choices: ..., see the x axis) that are commonly used in evaluation.
I then compared the results for all these methods, in 5-shot, during 2 runs. The *only difference* between the first and second run being that the samples used in few-shot are not introduced in the same order.
For example, run one would have been "A B C D E Current sample", vs, in run 2, "D C E A B Current sample".
All the other experiment parameters stayed exactly the same.
As you can see on the attached picture, you get a difference of up to 3 points between the 2 few-shot samples shuffling.
So, when just changing *the order of the few shot samples* can change your results by several points, what is the impact of all other "minimal" and unreported prompting changes?
-> Any kind of model score, provided without an evaluation script for reproducibility, is basically bullshit (or coms).
-> This is why we need reproducible evaluation in a fair and exactly similar setup, using evaluation suites such as
lm_eval from the Harness, lighteval from HF, or the Open LLM Leaderboard.
-
- 4 replies
clefourrier
posted
an
update
9 months ago
Post
2012
Are you looking for the perfect leaderboard/arena for your use case? 👀
There's a new tool for this!
https://huggingface.co/spaces/leaderboards/LeaderboardFinder
Select your modality, language, task... then search! 🔍
Some categories of interest:
- does the leaderboard accept submissions?
- is the test set private or public?
- is it using an automatic metric, human evaluators, or llm as a judge?
The spaces list is build from space metadata, and reloaded every hour.
Enjoy!
There's a new tool for this!
https://huggingface.co/spaces/leaderboards/LeaderboardFinder
Select your modality, language, task... then search! 🔍
Some categories of interest:
- does the leaderboard accept submissions?
- is the test set private or public?
- is it using an automatic metric, human evaluators, or llm as a judge?
The spaces list is build from space metadata, and reloaded every hour.
Enjoy!
alphapav
authored
a
paper
9 months ago