Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

A Survey of Useful LLM Evaluation

Published 3 Jun 2024 in cs.CL | (2406.00936v1)

Abstract: LLMs have gotten attention across various research domains due to their exceptional performance on a wide range of complex tasks. Therefore, refined methods to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs are needed to determine the tasks and responsibility they should undertake. Our study mainly discussed how LLMs, as useful tools, should be effectively assessed. We proposed the two-stage framework: from core ability'' toagent'', clearly explaining how LLMs can be applied based on their specific capabilities, along with the evaluation methods in each stage. Core ability refers to the capabilities that LLMs need in order to generate high-quality natural language texts. After confirming LLMs possess core ability, they can solve real-world and complex tasks as agent. In the "core ability" stage, we discussed the reasoning ability, societal impact, and domain knowledge of LLMs. In the ``agent'' stage, we demonstrated embodied action, planning, and tool learning of LLMs agent applications. Finally, we examined the challenges currently confronting the evaluation methods for LLMs, as well as the directions for future development.

Citations (7)

Summary

  • The paper presents a dual-stage evaluation framework that assesses both inherent linguistic abilities and practical agent applications of LLMs.
  • It details methodologies using benchmarks like GSM8K for reasoning, ToxicChat for ethical safety, and domain-specific models such as BloombergGPT.
  • The study highlights challenges and future directions, emphasizing improved evaluative strategies for real-world LLM implementations.

Insights into LLM Evaluation: Core Abilities and Agent Applications

LLMs have seen widespread adoption due to their capability to handle complex tasks, from text generation to intricate robotic manipulation. The paper “A Survey of Useful LLM Evaluation” presents a nuanced exploration of evaluation methodologies, dissecting the transition from “core ability” to “agent” roles in LLMs.

The authors propose a two-stage evaluation framework that ensures a comprehensive assessment of LLM capabilities, initially focusing on intrinsic linguistic competencies and subsequently on practical applications. This dual-phased evaluation provides a structured means of analyzing LLM utility.

Core Ability Evaluation

The paper divides the evaluation of core abilities into three key areas: reasoning, societal impact, and domain knowledge.

  1. Reasoning: This fundamental ability includes logical, mathematical, commonsense, multi-hop, and structured data reasoning. Diverse datasets such as GSM8K for mathematical problem-solving or WebCPM for commonsense tasks are employed, showing that LLMs exhibit variability in performance across different reasoning tasks. Achieving human-level reasoning remains an evolving challenge, with finer nuances like causal detection or sequential decision-making being areas of active development.
  2. Societal Impact: Here, the focus is on safety and truthfulness. Evaluations extend beyond traditional metrics to include aspects like content safety, privacy concerns, and bias mitigation. Benchmarks such as ToxicChat and CValues highlight the broader ethical considerations, driving the focus on creating methods that enhance the trustworthiness and security of LLM outputs. The discussions on bias reveal that despite advancements, systemic biases remain a critical challenge.
  3. Domain Knowledge: The paper examines how LLMs are leveraged across finance, legislation, psychology, medicine, and education. Notably, specialized models like BloombergGPT illustrate how domain-specific training can enhance performance. The evaluation often relies on domain-specific datasets, prompting a closer look at the integration of expert knowledge in evaluation frameworks.

Agent-Level Applications

Building on core abilities, the paper explores LLMs as agents, focusing on planning, various applications, and established benchmarks.

  1. Planning: This capability emphasizes the LLM-based agent's role in dynamic environments, requiring autonomous task decomposition and execution. Tools like SayPlan indicate the growing sophistication in task planning capabilities.
  2. Application Scenarios: Evaluation covers areas like web grounding, code generation, and robotic manipulation. Scenarios such as API interactions via tools like API-Bank extend LLM utility into practical domains, with the evaluation focusing on executing real-world tasks. The enhancement of code generation through frameworks like Code as Policies demonstrates the transition of LLMs into areas requiring precise and adaptive decision-making.
  3. Benchmarks: Several benchmarks such as WebArena and MIND2WEB explore the LLM capabilities in controlled environments, assessing the integration of multiple tools. These benchmarks are essential for diagnosing model behavior under various conditions, underscoring the need for diverse yet coherent evaluation strategies.

Future Directions and Challenges

The paper highlights the need for dynamic evaluations and suggests integrating intelligent models as evaluators, to keep pace with LLM advancements. Addressing root-cause analysis is emphasized, as understanding model decisions becomes crucial for iterative improvement. Furthermore, as LLM applications in robotics expand, benchmarks in robotic applications need enhancement to account for real-world complexities and sim-to-real challenges.

Conclusion

While LLMs continue to exhibit remarkable capabilities, their evaluation, as outlined in the paper, remains a rapidly evolving challenge. By adopting comprehensive evaluation frameworks and addressing existing limitations, we can ensure that LLMs evolve as a genuinely useful tool, consistently meeting the growing demands of complex human-centered applications. The paper serves as both a critique and a guide, outlining past achievements and paving the way for future advancements in LLM evaluation methodologies.

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a single, concrete list of unresolved issues the paper leaves open for future research to address.

  • Lack of a formal, operational definition of “useful” and explicit thresholds for transitioning an LLM from “core ability” to “agent” status (e.g., minimal performance, safety, and reliability criteria).
  • No standardized, end-to-end evaluation pipeline instantiating the proposed two-stage framework (data collection, metrics, protocols, reporting) that enables reproducible, cross-domain comparisons.
  • Absence of unified, domain-agnostic metrics for reasoning quality beyond task accuracy (e.g., calibration, confidence, robustness, faithfulness, and efficiency), hindering comparability across reasoning tasks.
  • Insufficient methods to measure reasoning faithfulness and validity of chain-of-thought explanations at scale (i.e., detecting when rationales are post-hoc or misleading).
  • Limited treatment of benchmark contamination and data leakage (e.g., training-set overlap with evaluation tasks) in core ability evaluations, especially for proprietary models.
  • Overreliance on multiple-choice and short-answer formats for reasoning; need for richer, process-sensitive diagnostics that stress compositionality, counterfactuals, and causal inference.
  • Underdeveloped evaluation of multi-hop reasoning that separates retrieval quality from reasoning quality and quantifies error propagation across steps.
  • Structured data reasoning lacks comprehensive metrics beyond exact match (e.g., semantic equivalence of SQL, execution accuracy under schema shift, robustness to partial structures).
  • Sparse assessment of multilingual and non-English reasoning and domain knowledge, including culturally diverse commonsense and legal norms.
  • Limited analysis of the trade-offs between instruction tuning, alignment, and reasoning capabilities (e.g., which tuning regimes help/hurt specific reasoning types).
  • Safety evaluations are scattered across benchmarks with heterogeneous categories, labels, and protocols; need for harmonized taxonomies and standardized scoring schemes.
  • Cross-cultural and jurisdictional validity of safety and ethics evaluations is not established (e.g., how “harm” and “acceptability” vary across contexts and legal frameworks).
  • Privacy-risk measurement remains ad hoc; there is no standardized methodology to quantify memorization, PII leakage, and re-identification risks in closed-source LLMs.
  • Adversarial robustness is evaluated piecemeal; lacking unified stress tests and coverage metrics for prompt injection, tool-integrated attacks, and multi-agent adversaries.
  • Unclear guidance on balancing safety alignment against utility (e.g., how safety interventions affect task performance, coverage, and agent autonomy).
  • Hallucination evaluations focus on detection but less on actionable mitigation protocols and measurable reductions across diverse tasks and modalities.
  • Bias benchmarks span domains but lack cross-domain comparability and standardized fairness metrics (e.g., consistent sensitive attributes, parity definitions, and utility-fairness trade-off reporting).
  • Domain knowledge evaluations (Finance, Law, Psychology, Medicine, Education) rely heavily on static datasets; need for dynamic, real-world, longitudinal studies where knowledge evolves (e.g., markets, laws, clinical practices).
  • Finance evaluations lack rigorous, expert-validated protocols for high-stakes tasks (e.g., risk assessment, portfolio decisions) and do not quantify downstream impacts of errors or disinformation.
  • Legal evaluations target simplified statutory tasks; missing assessments on complex, multi-jurisdictional reasoning, precedent integration, and systematic hallucination auditing in legal advice generation.
  • Psychology evaluations need stronger construct validity checks and harm assessments (e.g., cross-language reliability, bias in emotion/moral inference, effects of generated content on participants).
  • Medicine evaluations remain far from clinical-grade: no prospective trials, EHR-integrated testing, safety case frameworks, or regulatory compliance pathways for agentic decision support.
  • Education evaluations rarely measure real learning outcomes, transfer, and long-term effects; need classroom-scale RCTs, privacy-preserving data collection, and equity analyses.
  • Agent planning evaluations lack standardized metrics for plan optimality, re-planning agility, sample efficiency, resource use (time/cost), and failure recovery in dynamic environments.
  • Web-grounded agent evaluations are mostly in synthetic or sandboxed environments; need robust, real-website benchmarks with policy compliance, citation integrity, and browsing trace audits.
  • Code generation and tool-use evaluations often rely on unit tests; missing measures for security vulnerabilities, maintainability, runtime performance, and multi-step tool orchestration reliability.
  • Database-query agents need evaluations of error handling, schema-generalization, semantic equivalence, and data-quality robustness beyond exact-match SQL.
  • Robotic navigation/manipulation lacks sim-to-real transfer evaluations with safety metrics, standardized scene/task suites, and measurement of generalization across embodiments and environments.
  • Tool creation by agents is under-evaluated: no clear metrics for novelty, correctness, compositionality, maintenance, and security implications of generated tools.
  • Benchmarks for tool-use and agentic systems are fragmented; no unified, cross-scenario benchmark that measures integration, sequencing, and failure modes across APIs, web, code, DB, and robotics.
  • Little attention to cost, energy, and environmental impact of evaluation pipelines and agent deployments; need metrics and reporting standards for efficiency and sustainability.
  • Insufficient meta-evaluation: unclear to what extent benchmark scores predict real-world utility, user trust, and safety outcomes; need external validity studies linking metrics to downstream impacts.
  • Reproducibility concerns persist for closed models (versioning, undocumented training data, changing behaviors); need evaluation protocols robust to model drift and API variability.
  • Lack of governance and reporting standards for evaluations (e.g., datasets’ provenance, annotator demographics, licensing, risk disclosures), especially for high-stakes domains.
  • Open question of how to aggregate multi-metric performance into actionable deployment decisions (e.g., composite scores, thresholds, and risk-adjusted utility functions).
  • Limited exploration of uncertainty quantification and confidence calibration in both core abilities and agent actions; need standardized measures and user-facing uncertainty communication.
  • No guidance on human-in-the-loop evaluation and oversight frameworks (roles, escalation protocols, audit trails) for agentic systems operating in real-world settings.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 2 likes about this paper.