Leaving the barn door open for Clever Hans: Simple features predict LLM benchmark answers
This work highlights a critical issue in AI evaluation, revealing that benchmark results may be inflated by spurious cues, which is a problem for researchers and practitioners relying on accurate assessments of LLM capabilities.
The paper investigates whether simple n-gram features can predict correct answers in modern multiple-choice benchmarks for LLMs, showing that classifiers using these features achieve high scores without the intended capabilities, and provides evidence that LLMs might exploit such patterns, compromising benchmark validity.
The integrity of AI benchmarks is fundamental to accurately assess the capabilities of AI systems. The internal validity of these benchmarks - i.e., making sure they are free from confounding factors - is crucial for ensuring that they are measuring what they are designed to measure. In this paper, we explore a key issue related to internal validity: the possibility that AI systems can solve benchmarks in unintended ways, bypassing the capability being tested. This phenomenon, widely known in human and animal experiments, is often referred to as the 'Clever Hans' effect, where tasks are solved using spurious cues, often involving much simpler processes than those putatively assessed. Previous research suggests that language models can exhibit this behaviour as well. In several older Natural Language Processing (NLP) benchmarks, individual $n$-grams like "not" have been found to be highly predictive of the correct labels, and supervised NLP models have been shown to exploit these patterns. In this work, we investigate the extent to which simple $n$-grams extracted from benchmark instances can be combined to predict labels in modern multiple-choice benchmarks designed for LLMs, and whether LLMs might be using such $n$-gram patterns to solve these benchmarks. We show how simple classifiers trained on these $n$-grams can achieve high scores on several benchmarks, despite lacking the capabilities being tested. Additionally, we provide evidence that modern LLMs might be using these superficial patterns to solve benchmarks. This suggests that the internal validity of these benchmarks may be compromised and caution should be exercised when interpreting LLM performance results on them.