Cited by 219Topic ModelingArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models

Open access
Zhong, Wanjun, Cui, Ruixiang, Guo, Yiduo, Liang, Yaobo, Lu, Shuai, Wang, Yanlin, Saied, Amin, Chen, Weizhu +1 more·2024·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024

Abstract

Assessing foundation models' abilities for human-level tasks is crucial for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) development.Traditional benchmarks, which rely on artificial datasets, may not accurately represent these capabilities.In this paper, we introduce AGIEval, a novel bilingual benchmark designed to assess foundation models in the context of humancentric standardized exams, such as college entrance exams, law school admission tests, math competitions, and lawyer qualification tests.We evaluate several state-of-the-art foundation models on our benchmark.Impressively, we show that GPT-4 exceeds the average human performance in SAT, LSAT, and math contests, with 95% accuracy on SAT Math and 92.5% on the Chinese college entrance English exam.This demonstrates the exceptional performance of contemporary foundation models.In contrast, we also find that GPT-4 is less proficient in tasks requiring complex reasoning or specific domain knowledge.Our comprehensive analyses of model capabilities (understanding, knowledge, reasoning, and calculation) reveal their strengths and limitations, providing valuable insights into future directions for enhancing general capabilities.By concentrating on tasks pertinent to human cognition and decision-making, our benchmark delivers a meaningful and robust evaluation of foundation models' performance in real-world scenarios 1 .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.149

Cites

0 citation errors · 5 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The aforementioned factors require a multidisciplinary approach to LLM benchmarking, integrating insights from linguistics, ethics, and social sciences to create robust evaluation frameworks.

    “The aforementioned factors require a multidisciplinary approach to LLM benchmarking, integrating insights from linguistics, ethics, and social sciences to create robust evaluation frameworks [3], [13], [30].”
  • Unlike traditional benchmarks with clear numerical metrics, LLM benchmarking often involves subjective judgments and complex evaluation criteria.

    “Unlike traditional benchmarks with clear numerical metrics, LLM benchmarking often involves subjective judgments and complex evaluation criteria [13], [25].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
  2. Alexis Conneau and Douwe Kiela. 2018. SentEval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representa- tions. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
  3. Jwala Dhamala, Tony Sun, Varun Kumar, Satyapriya Krishna, Yada Pruksachatkun, Kai-Wei Chang, and Rahul Gupta. 2021. Bold: Dataset and metrics for measuring biases in open-ended language genera- tion. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 862-872.
  4. Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022. Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09509. · arXiv
  5. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. Sort, 2(4):0-6.
  6. Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blun- som. 2017. Program induction by rationale genera- tion: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 158-167.
  7. Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2021. Logiqa: a challenge dataset for machine reading comprehen- sion with logical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on Interna- tional Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3622-3628.
  8. Denis Paperno, Germán Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazari- dou, Quan Ngoc Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, and Raquel Fernández. 2016. The lambada dataset: Word pre- diction requiring a broad discourse context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06031. · arXiv
  9. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 2383-2392.
  10. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Aman- preet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stick- ier benchmark for general-purpose language under- standing systems. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
  11. Siyuan Wang, Zhongkun Liu, Wanjun Zhong, Ming Zhou, Zhongyu Wei, Zhumin Chen, and Nan Duan. 2022. From lsat: The progress and challenges of com- plex reasoning. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:2201-2216.
  12. Haoxi Zhong, Chaojun Xiao, Cunchao Tu, Tianyang Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Jec- qa: A legal-domain question answering dataset. In Proceedings of AAAI.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhong, W., Cui, R., Guo, Y., Liang, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Saied, A., Chen, W., & Duan, N.
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024
Published
2024
Pages
2299-2314
OpenAlex
W4401042689
Cited by
211
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 18
FWCI
56.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
standardized testing, college entrance examination, LSAT, GPT-4, artificial general intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review