6 accepted papers
Test set contamination, wherein test data from a benchmark ends up in a newer model's training set, is a well-documented obstacle for fair LLM evaluation and can quickly render benchmarks obsolete. To mitigate this, many recent benchmarks crowdsource new prompts and evaluations from human or LLM jud…
Large Language Models (LLMs) can exhibit considerable variation in the quality of their sampled outputs. Reranking and selecting the best generation from the sampled set is a popular way of obtaining strong gains in generation quality. In this paper, we present a novel approach for reranking LLM gen…
A diverse array of reasoning strategies has been proposed to elicit the capabilities of large language models. However, in this paper, we point out that traditional evaluations which focus solely on performance metrics miss a key factor: the increased effectiveness due to additional compute. By over…
We present two new benchmarks, MBXP and Multilingual HumanEval, designed to evaluate code completion models in over 10 programming languages. These datasets are generated using a conversion framework that transpiles prompts and test cases from the original MBPP and HumanEval datasets into the corres…
Image classifiers are typically scored on their test set accuracy, but high accuracy can mask a subtle type of model failure. We find that high scoring convolutional neural networks (CNNs) on popular benchmarks exhibit troubling pathologies that allow them to display high accuracy even in the absenc…
Local explanation frameworks aim to rationalize particular decisions made by a black-box prediction model. Existing techniques are often restricted to a specific type of predictor or based on input saliency, which may be undesirably sensitive to factors unrelated to the model’s decision making proc…