Re:Mistral 7B, the most powerful language model for its size...
by londons_explore on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @04:19PM
(#37680688)
One solution is to come up with a new benchmark yourself.
Manually benchmarking it by coming up with 20 questions and feeding it to a pair of models and blindly choosing the best result can give you a pretty good figure.
And that can probably be done in under 20 mins of human time.
Re:Mistral 7B, the most powerful language model for its size...
by poser-boy on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @09:18PM
(#37683953)
This is frankly the best benchmark you can use on an LLM.
Re:Mistral 7B, the most powerful language model for its size...
by avereveard on Thursday September 28, 2023 @01:49AM
(#37685731)
You can ask gpt4 or other high value model to rate two chat logs for coherency etc, not as accurate as human evaluation, but you don't have to read thousand lines of text if comparing many models.
Re:Mistral 7B, the most powerful language model for its size...
by brucethemoose2 on Thursday September 28, 2023 @10:22AM
(#37690001)
This is problematic if you are comparing a model in the same base family as the evaluator, as it will probably favor itself because it literally has the sequences it would naturally emit.
Re:Mistral 7B, the most powerful language model for its size...
by Breza on Monday October 09, 2023 @07:26PM
(#37826749)
Especially since most devs have a specific use case in mind. Coming up with tests that are tailored to your needs will always be more informative than off the shelf metrics.
Re:Mistral 7B, the most powerful language model for its size...
by mufasachan on Thursday September 28, 2023 @12:56AM
(#37685391)
One explaination https://x.com/yampeleg/status/1707127722743325106?s=46&t=Cxa...
I would be curious what does he mean by "semi-automated system for detecting benchmark leaks. " though.
Re:Mistral 7B, the most powerful language model for its size...
by brucethemoose2 on Thursday September 28, 2023 @10:25AM
(#37690051)
AFAIK, such tests just feed the model chopped up bits of the evaluation data as raw strings with zero temperature. If it completes them verbatim, its probably in the training dataset.
At this point, it should be standard practice to address this concern. Any model which fails provide good evidence they don't have benchmark leaks, should not be trusted until its datasets can be verified, the methodology can be replicated, or a good, independent, private benchmark can be made and can be used to evaluate the model.