Featured image of post LLM Evaluation
LLM

LLM Evaluation

A structured approach to assess LLM capabilities comprehensively, including defining evaluation objectives, selecting tasks and benchmarks, choosing metrics, designing an evaluation protocol, collecting and preparing data, executing the evaluation, analyzing results, iterating and refining, and considering key considerations such as bias and fairness.

A methodology framework to evaluate a Large Language Model (LLM) involves a structured approach that combines well-defined tasks, metrics, datasets, and evaluation protocols to assess the model’s capabilities comprehensively. Below is a general framework, adaptable based on the specific goals (e.g., research, deployment, or domain-specific use):

1. Evaluation Objectives

  • Purpose: Clarify what the evaluation aims to measure (e.g., general intelligence, task-specific performance, safety).
  • Aspects: Identify key dimensions to assess, such as:
    • General Knowledge
    • Reasoning (logical, mathematical, causal) 1
    • Language Proficiency (fluency, coherence, grammar)
    • Task-Specific Skills (e.g., translation, summarization)
    • Robustness (handling edge cases or biases)
    • Truthfulness and Ethics (factual accuracy, fairness)

2. Evaluation Tasks and Benchmarks

  • Standardized Benchmarks: Use established datasets or tasks to enable comparison with other models.
    • GLUE/SuperGLUE (GLUE): Linguistic understanding and reasoning. 2
    • [[MMLU]]: Broad knowledge across subjects.
    • BIG-bench (BigBench): Diverse, challenging tasks for general capabilities.
    • HellaSwag: Commonsense reasoning.
    • TruthfulQA: Factual accuracy and avoidance of hallucinations.
  • Custom Tasks: Design domain-specific tasks if needed (e.g., medical Q&A, legal text generation).
  • Human Interaction: Include open-ended conversational tasks to test adaptability.

3. LLM Metrics

Below is a summary table comparing common LLM evaluation metrics across key aspects relevant to objectives like summarization, translation, or general text generation. The aspects include n-gram overlap, semantic overlap, fluency, coherence, grammar, and informativeness, which are critical for assessing LLM output quality. Each metric is rated qualitatively (Yes, Partial, No) based on its primary design and capability.

Metric N-Gram Overlap Semantic Overlap Fluency Coherence Grammar Informativeness Notes
BLEU Yes No No No No Partial Precision-based n-gram overlap; brevity penalty; no meaning or fluency.
ROUGE Yes No No No No Partial Recall-based n-gram overlap (ROUGE-N, -L); no semantics or structure.
BERTScore Partial Yes No No No Yes Semantic similarity via embeddings; some truth if reference is factual.
MoverScore Partial Yes No No No Yes Word Mover’s Distance; semantic focus, indirect truth via reference.
BLEURT Partial Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Learned metric; trained on human ratings; some truth via training data.
METEOR Yes Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Synonym/stem matching + order; limited semantic/truth focus.
SARI Yes No No No No Yes N-gram adds/keeps/deletes; truth tied to source/reference fidelity.
QuestEval No Yes No Partial No Yes Q&A-based; strong on informativeness and truth via source consistency.
SummaQA No Yes No Yes No Yes QA consistency; coherence and truth via source alignment.
Perplexity No No Yes Partial Yes No Predictive fluency; no meaning or truth; grammar implicit.
Elo Rating No Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Human-driven ranking; reflects truth/quality if humans prioritize it.
Human Eval Scores No Yes (if guided) Yes Yes Yes Yes Direct human judgment; customizable to any aspect (e.g., truth, fluency).
Truthfulness Metrics No Partial No No No Yes Fact-checking or consistency; depends on external data or human input.
Latency/Throughput No No No No No No Efficiency metrics; no quality assessment, but critical for deployment.

Aspects Explained

  1. [[n-gram]] Overlap: Does it measure exact word/phrase matches between generated and reference text?
  2. Semantic Overlap: Does it capture meaning similarity, beyond surface words (e.g., paraphrases)?
  3. Fluency: Does it assess how natural or readable the text is?
  4. Coherence: Does it evaluate logical flow and structure?
  5. Grammar: Does it check grammatical correctness?
  6. Informativeness: Does it ensure key content is preserved?

Metric Details

  • [[BLEU]]: Focuses on precision of n-grams (1-4), penalizes short outputs; no semantic or fluency insight.
  • [[ROUGE]]: Recall-oriented n-gram overlap (e.g., ROUGE-1, -L); misses deeper quality aspects.
  • BERTScore: Semantic similarity via BERT embedding (text embedding); strong on meaning, blind to fluency/grammar.
  • MoverScore: Semantic distance using embeddings and Word Mover’s Distance; similar to BERTScore.
  • BLEURT: Trained on human ratings, captures semantics + some fluency/grammar; versatile but model-specific.
  • METEOR: Bridges n-gram and semantics with synonyms + order penalty; partial fluency/coherence.
  • SARI: Compares to source and reference for added/kept info; good for abstractive summaries.
  • QuestEval: Q&A-based informativeness; indirectly checks coherence via answerability.
  • SummaQA: QA consistency for coherence and meaning; no direct fluency/grammar.
  • Perplexity (perplexity): Intrinsic fluency metric (lower = smoother predictions); no semantic or informativeness check.
  • [[Elo Rating]]: Pairwise ranks based on human preference; can reflect any aspect (e.g., semantics) if humans focus there.
  • Human Evaluation Scores: Direct ratings or rankings by human judges on subjective qualities (e.g., fluency, coherence, relevance).
  • Truthfulness Metrics: Measures of factual accuracy or consistency with reality in LLM outputs.
  • Latency/Throughput: Efficiency metrics for real-world deployment.
NOTE
  • N-Gram Overlap: BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, SARI excel here; others prioritize meaning.
  • Semantic Overlap: BERTScore, MoverScore, BLEURT, QuestEval, SummaQA lead; Elo can if guided.
  • Fluency/Grammar: Perplexity and BLEURT directly address this; others rely on human eval or indirect signals.
  • Coherence: SummaQA and QuestEval partially capture it; human eval or BLEURT better for full flow.
  • Informativeness: Most modern metrics (BERTScore, SARI, QuestEval) prioritize this over raw overlap.

Choosing Metrics for Summarization (Example)

  • Full Quality: Human Eval Scores (all aspects) + BLEURT (semantics/fluency) + QuestEval (truth/informativeness).
  • Semantics + Truth: BERTScore + Truthfulness Metrics.
  • Efficiency: Add Latency/Throughput to balance quality with speed.
  • Human Preference: Elo Rating for ranking based on human picks.

4. Evaluation Protocol

  • Automated Testing: Run the model on pre-defined datasets with clear ground truth (e.g., multiple-choice Q&A, labeled text).
  • Human Evaluation: Recruit annotators to judge outputs on subjective criteria (e.g., fluency, appropriateness). Use guidelines and inter-annotator agreement metrics (e.g., Cohen’s Kappa).
  • Adversarial Testing: Probe weaknesses with tricky inputs (e.g., ambiguous questions, rare scenarios).
  • Pairwise Comparison: Pit the LLM against baselines or other models (e.g., LMSYS Chatbot Arena-style) to gauge relative strength.
  • Longitudinal Testing: Assess consistency over multiple interactions or prompts.

5. Collect and Prepare Data

  • Datasets: Use diverse, representative datasets (e.g., Wikipedia, Common Crawl subsets, specialized corpora).
  • Prompt Engineering: Craft prompts to elicit specific behaviors (e.g., few-shot learning (n-shot-learning)).
  • Edge Cases: Include outliers or challenging examples to test robustness.

6. Execute the Evaluation

  • Controlled Environment: Standardize hardware, software, and inference settings (e.g., temperature, top-k sampling).
  • Reproducibility: Document parameters and random seeds for consistency.
  • Scale: Test across small, medium, and large inputs to evaluate scalability.

7. Analyze Results

  • Quantitative Analysis: Aggregate scores across metrics (e.g., average accuracy, median perplexity).
  • Qualitative Insights: Identify patterns in failures (e.g., hallucination in factual queries, bias in sensitive topics).
  • Comparative Analysis: Benchmark against baselines (e.g., GPT-3, LLaMA) or prior versions.
  • Trade-Offs: Highlight strengths vs. weaknesses (e.g., speed vs. accuracy).

8. Iterate and Refine

  • Feedback Loop: Use results to fine-tune the model or adjust evaluation criteria.
  • Continuous Monitoring: For deployed models, track performance over time with real-world data.
  • Community Validation: Submit to leaderboards (e.g., LMSYS Chatbot Arena, Hugging Face Open LLM Leaderboard) for external validation.

Example Frameworks in Practice

  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena: Relies on human pairwise comparisons, using [[Elo Rating]] to rank models based on conversational quality. 3
  • HELM (High-Efficiency Language Model): Focuses on standardized, transparent evaluation across accuracy, robustness, and fairness.
  • EleutherAI’s Evaluation Harness: Open-source toolkit for running LLMs on diverse benchmarks with automated metrics.

Key Considerations

  • Bias and Fairness: Ensure datasets and metrics don’t favor specific demographics or perspectives.
  • Subjectivity: Balance objective scores with human judgment for nuanced tasks.
  • Resource Constraints: Account for compute costs and time, especially for large-scale testing.

  1. Reasoning LLMs aim to mimic human-like reasoning abilities, such as deductive, inductive, or abductive reasoning, and can tackle complex queries like math problems, logical puzzles, or multi-step decision-making processes. They often use techniques like Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting (where the model “thinks” step-by-step) or are fine-tuned to improve their ability to handle abstract or structured reasoning. ↩︎

  2. BERT and similar advanced language models (e.g., RoBERTa, XLNet) achieved such high performance on the GLUE (General Language Understanding Evaluation) benchmark that they effectively reached or exceeded the practical ceiling of what GLUE could measure, leaving little room for meaningful improvement. ↩︎

  3. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating LLMs by human preference. 2024. Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael Jordan, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica ↩︎