Alfredo Gomez

Nishant Subramani, Alfredo Gomez, Mona Diab · cmu

Modern language models are evaluated on large benchmarks, which are difficult to make sense of, especially for model selection. Looking at the raw evaluation numbers themselves using a model-centric lens, we propose SimBA, a three phase framework to Simplify Benchmark Analysis. The three phases of SimBA are: stalk, where we conduct dataset & model comparisons, prowl, where we discover a representative subset, and pounce, where we use the representative subset to predict performance on a held-out set of models. Applying SimBA to three popular LM benchmarks: HELM, MMLU, and BigBenchLite reveals that across all three benchmarks, datasets and models relate strongly to one another (stalk). We develop an representative set discovery algorithm which covers a benchmark using raw evaluation scores alone. Using our algorithm, we find that with 6.25% (1/16), 1.7% (1/58), and 28.4% (21/74) of the datasets for HELM, MMLU, and BigBenchLite respectively, we achieve coverage levels of at least 95% (prowl). Additionally, using just these representative subsets, we can both preserve model ranks and predict performance on a held-out set of models with near zero mean-squared error (pounce). Taken together, SimBA can help model developers improve efficiency during model training and dataset creators validate whether their newly created dataset differs from existing datasets in a benchmark. Our code is open source, available at https://github.com/nishantsubramani/simba.

Jessica Huynh, Alfredo Gomez, Athiya Deviyani et al.

Autoraters, also referred to as LLM-as-judges, are increasingly used for evaluation and automated content moderation. However, there is limited statistical analysis of how modifications in a rubric presented to both humans and autoraters affect their score agreement. Rubrics that ask for an overall or \emph{holistic} judgment - for example, rating the ``quality'' of an essay - may be inconsistently interpreted due to the complexity or subjectivity of the criteria. Conversely, rubrics can ask for \emph{analytic} judgments, which decompose assessment criteria - for example, ``quality'' into ``fluency'' and ``organization''. While these rubrics can be edited to improve the individual accuracy of both human and automated scoring, this approach may result in disagreement between the two scores, or with the associated holistic judgment. Designing and deploying reliable autoraters requires understanding not just the relationship between human and autorater annotations but how that relationship changes as holistic or analytic judgments are elicited. The results indicate that rubric edits providing representative examples and additional context, and reducing positional bias in the rubric increased human-autorater agreement, while higher rubric complexity and conservative aggregation methods tended to decrease it. The findings from the automatic essay scoring and instruction-following evaluation domains suggest that practitioners should carefully analyze domain- and rubric-specific performance to move towards higher human-autorater agreement.