REVIEW 2 cited by
Improving Model Evaluation using SMART Filtering of Benchmark Datasets
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
One of the most challenging problems facing NLP today is evaluation. Some of the most pressing issues pertain to benchmark saturation, data contamination, and diversity in the quality of test examples. To address these concerns, we propose Selection Methodology for Accurate, Reduced, and Targeted (SMART) filtering, a novel approach to select a high-quality subset of examples from existing benchmark datasets by systematically removing less informative and less challenging examples. Our approach applies three filtering criteria, removing (i) easy examples, (ii) data-contaminated examples, and (iii) examples that are similar to each other based on distance in an embedding space. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SMART on three multiple choice QA datasets, where our methodology increases efficiency by reducing dataset size by 48\% on average, while increasing Pearson correlation with rankings from ChatBot Arena, a more open-ended human evaluation setting. Our method enables us to be more efficient, whether using SMART to make new benchmarks more challenging or to revitalize older datasets, while still preserving the relative model rankings.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Fluid Language Model Benchmarking
Fluid Benchmarking, combining IRT-based ability estimation with Fisher-information-based adaptive item selection, improves LM evaluation across efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation in pretraining settings.
-
Pretraining on the Test Set Is No Longer All You Need: A Debate-Driven Approach to QA Benchmarks
A debate-based evaluation protocol on 50 MMLU-Pro questions: fine-tuning on the test set boosts standard accuracy from 50% to 82% but not debate win rates.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.