In the realm of modern Large Language Models (LLMs), facilitating high-quality, multi-turn dialogues with humans represents a cornerstone feature. However, human-based evaluation of such a capability involves substantial manual effort. This study offers a formative assessment of current LLMs’ proficiency in emulating human-like, multi-turn conversations using an LLM-centric approach. The evaluation encompasses three key elements in the evaluation pipeline: utterance generation, evaluation protocol, and judgement, and we delve deeply into each aspect. GPT-4, both as an utterance generator and as a judge, exhibits exceptional performance. As a generator, GPT-4 crafts dialogues indistinguishable from human interactions in terms of style and flow. When judging, it shows a heightened alignment with human evaluative standards and consistency. Conversely, other LLMs face challenges in producing quality multi-turn dialogues, hindered by inadequate instruction-following abilities, a propensity for prolix utterances, and overall limited capabilities. Notably, generating extensive dialogues (e.g., spanning tens of turns) remains a formidable task for most LLMs, particularly in Chinese contexts. We hope that our work can serve as a valuable resource for evaluating the multi-turn chatting capabilities of LLMs. Related resources are available at https://github.com/open-compass/BotChat.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have showcased significant improvements in mathematics. However, traditional math benchmarks like GSM8k offer a unidimensional perspective, which fall short in providing a holistic assessment of the LLMs’ math capabilities. To address this gap, we introduce MathBench, a new benchmark that rigorously assesses the mathematical capabilities of large language models. MathBench spans a wide range of mathematical disciplines, offering a detailed evaluation of both theoretical understanding and practical problem-solving skills. The benchmark progresses through five distinct stages, from basic arithmetic to college mathematics, and is structured to evaluate models at various depths of knowledge. Each stage includes theoretical questions and application problems, allowing us to measure a model’s mathematical proficiency and its ability to apply concepts in practical scenarios. MathBench aims to enhance the evaluation of LLMs’ mathematical abilities, providing a nuanced view of their knowledge understanding levels and problem solving skills in a bilingual context.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the prompts utilized. This variability poses challenges for accurate assessment and user satisfaction. Current research frequently overlooks instance-level prompt variations and their implications on subjective evaluations. To address these shortcomings, we introduce ProSA, a framework designed to evaluate and comprehend prompt sensitivity in LLMs. ProSA incorporates a novel sensitivity metric, PromptSensiScore, and leverages decoding confidence to elucidate underlying mechanisms. Our extensive study, spanning multiple tasks, uncovers that prompt sensitivity fluctuates across datasets and models, with larger models exhibiting enhanced robustness. We observe that few-shot examples can alleviate this sensitivity issue, and subjective evaluations are also susceptible to prompt sensitivities, particularly in complex, reasoning-oriented tasks. Furthermore, our findings indicate that higher model confidence correlates with increased prompt robustness. We believe this work will serve as a helpful tool in studying prompt sensitivity of LLMs. The project is released at: https://github.com/open-compass/ProSA.

Recently, the large language model (LLM) community has shown increasing interest in enhancing LLMs’ capability to handle extremely long documents. As various long-text techniques and model architectures emerge, the precise and detailed evaluation of models’ long-text capabilities has become increasingly important. Existing long-text evaluation benchmarks, such as L-Eval and LongBench, construct long-text test sets based on open-source datasets, focusing mainly on QA and summarization tasks. These datasets include test samples of varying lengths (from 2k to 32k+) entangled together, making it challenging to assess model capabilities across different length ranges. Moreover, they do not cover the ultralong settings (100k+ tokens) that the latest LLMs claim to achieve. In this paper, we introduce Ada-LEval, a length-adaptable benchmark for evaluating the long-context understanding of LLMs. Ada-LEval includes two challenging subsets, TSort and BestAnswer, which enable a more reliable evaluation of LLMs’ long context capabilities. These benchmarks support intricate manipulation of the length of test cases, and can easily produce text samples up to 128k tokens. We evaluate 4 state-of-the-art closed-source API models and 6 open-source models with Ada-LEval. The evaluation results demonstrate the limitations of current LLMs, especially in ultra-long-context settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/open-compass/Ada-LEval.