Beyond the Hype: How To Measure the Smarts of AI-Language Models

Did you know there’s currently no standardized test to gauge the “intelligence” of large language models (LLM)?

The lack of standardization makes it challenging to compare the performance of different artificial intelligence (AI) systems available in the market today, in turn, making it difficult for clients to identify the solution best suited for their needs.

The burgeoning field of LLMs presents a unique challenge in assessment. AI has become ubiquitous in various industries, from healthcare to finance, but there are no standardized metrics to measure its success.

Researchers and experts are struggling to develop a common language and framework to evaluate the performance of AI systems. If and till that day arrives, you simply have to take the word of the LLM developer/company on the model’s efficacy and other performance parameters as the gospel truth.

This lack of standardization also makes it challenging to compare the performance of different AI systems, making it difficult to identify the best solutions.

In humans, for example, there exist traditional metrics employed for measuring human intelligence, such as IQ tests. But these (obviously) are not well-suited to evaluate the complex machine learning systems that we are building.

In fact, the recently released AI Index Report 2024 by Stanford University Human Centered Artificial Intelligence has pointed this out, too.

There are alternative methodologies for appraising the cognitive capabilities of LLMs, and one of them is the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark.However, experts are of the view that current tests like the MMLU or the Turing Test are becoming inadequate as AI systems become more advanced.

Limitations of Legacy Assessments

Standardized IQ assessments primarily focus on human cognitive domains like logic and verbal reasoning.While LLMs can excel in these areas due to their ability to process vast swathes of data, such tests fail to capture the intricacies of machine cognition. A well-trained LLM might achieve a high score on a vocabulary section by simply memorizing massive datasets but lack true comprehension of the nuances of language.

So What’s The Alternative?

For now at least, to effectively evaluate LLMs, testers must employ a multifaceted approach.

Here are some promising alternative assessment strategies:

• Benchmarking and Targeted Datasets: We can design specialized problem sets that target specific skills we wish to assess within the LLM. These problem sets, often referred to as benchmarks or datasets, can encompass question-answering tasks, story continuation exercises, or other exercises designed to evaluate the LLM’s proficiency in specific domains. By systematically tracking performance across a diverse range of such datasets, we gain valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the LLM under evaluation.
• MMLU: A Comprehensive Benchmark: As mentioned earlier in this article, one noteworthy benchmark in this area is the MMLU test. Introduced in 2020, MMLU presents a comprehensive assessment suite encompassing over 57 distinct tasks across various academic disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, law, and medicine. This multifaceted approach, exceeding the scope of prior benchmarks like GLUE (2018), pushes LLMs to demonstrate not just factual recall but also problem-solving abilities across a wider range of subjects.
• Adaptive Testing Paradigms: Inspired by advancements in human psychometrics, we can develop adaptive testing paradigms specifically tailored for LLMs. These paradigms dynamically adjust the difficulty level of the tasks presented based on the LLM’s responses. This approach helps mitigate rote memorization and allows for a more nuanced evaluation of the LLM’s cognitive abilities.
• Human Evaluation: In certain situations, human judgment remains an invaluable tool for LLM evaluation. We can design tasks that require reasoning, creativity, or social awareness — areas where LLMs are still under development. Trained evaluators then assess the quality and effectiveness of the LLM’s output in these tasks.

Which Factors Should Clients Consider While Choosing an LLM

The first step is for the client to define their specific needs clearly. What tasks do they want the LLM to perform? Is it for question-answering in a specific domain, generating creative text formats, or summarizing factual topics? Understanding these requirements allows for a more targeted evaluation process.

Performance on Relevant Benchmarks:

As discussed earlier, benchmarks like MMLU provide a standardized testing ground for LLMs. Clients can assess how different LLM models perform on tasks relevant to their needs within these benchmarks. This allows for an initial comparison of accuracy, fluency, and overall effectiveness.

Focus on Specific Metrics:

Depending on the desired application, clients will prioritize specific performance metrics.For a customer service chatbot, fluency and natural language understanding might be paramount.Conversely, an LLM for scientific research summarization might require high accuracy in factual recall.

Case Studies and Demonstrations:

Many LLM developers offer case studies or live demonstrations showcasing their models’ capabilities in real-world scenarios. This allows potential clients to see how the LLM performs on tasks similar to their own and assess its suitability.

Cost and Scalability:

LLM training and deployment can be resource-intensive.Clients need to consider the cost of the LLM itself, as well as the computational resources required to run it effectively. Scalability is also a factor, as some LLMs may not be well-suited for handling large volumes of data or complex tasks.

Transparency and Explainability:

Clients are increasingly interested in understanding how LLMs arrive at their outputs. Some LLM vendors offer models with a degree of explainability, allowing clients to see the reasoning behind the model’s responses. This can be particularly important for tasks where trust and transparency are crucial.

Free Trials and Custom Tuning:

Many LLM providers offer free trials or limited access options, allowing clients to experiment with the model before committing. Additionally, some vendors offer customization options, where the LLM can be fine-tuned on client-specific data to improve performance for their particular use case.

By considering all these factors, clients can embark on a more comprehensive evaluation process and select the LLM that best meets their specific needs and goals.

Comparative Analysis Frameworks

Once we have employed these various assessment strategies, the question of comparing the performance of different LLMs can be tackled.

Here are some established frameworks for achieving this:

• Performance Metrics: We can establish standardized performance metrics such as accuracy, fluency, or coherence to compare LLM performance on specific tasks within a benchmark like MMLU.
• Ranking Systems: Based on the results obtained from benchmark performance and human evaluation, we can create ranking systems that allow for a comparative analysis of different LLM architectures or training methodologies.
• Qualitative Analysis: Beyond quantitative metrics, qualitative analysis plays a crucial role in comprehensive LLM evaluation. This analysis delves into the “how” of an LLM’s performance. Does it exhibit logical reasoning patterns? Is its output demonstrably creative, or simply a regurgitation of memorized facts?

The field of LLM evaluation is constantly evolving.As these machines become increasingly sophisticated, the methodologies we employ to assess their capabilities will continue to adapt and improve. This ongoing pursuit requires not only expertise in artificial intelligence but also a keen understanding of the nuances of language. It’s a fascinating journey, and one where both AI innovation and the power of language will play a pivotal role.

Like what you just read? Then, why don’t you sign up to join our community “AI For Real”. Do it, here.