Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Above
원문 초록
Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing-where LLMs construct and explain answers-better capturing user needs and knowledge while remaining easy to score. We then show even when MCQA is a useful format, its datasets suffer from: leakage; unanswerability; shortcuts; and saturation. In each issue, we give fixes from education, like rubrics to guide MCQ writing; scoring methods to bridle guessing; and Item Response Theory to build harder MCQs. Lastly, we discuss LLM errors in MCQA-robustness, biases, and unfaithful explanations-showing how our prior solutions better measure or address these issues. While we do not need to desert MCQA, we encourage more efforts in refining the task based on educational testing, advancing evaluations.
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
Training-free LLM Merging for Multi-task Learning
VAU-R1: Advancing Video Anomaly Understanding via Reinforcement Fine-Tuning
How Far Can Off-the-Shelf Multimodal Large Language Models Go in Online Episodic Memory Question Answering?
WikiMixQA: A Multimodal Benchmark for Question Answering over Tables and Charts
Instruction Tuning and CoT Prompting for Contextual Medical QA with LLMs
Different Questions, Different Models: Fine-Grained Evaluation of Uncertainty and Calibration in Clinical QA with LLMs
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.