Featured

Decoding LLM Benchmarks: What The Tests Really Mean

As I’ve been researching autonomous agents and the LLMs that power them, I’ve been intrigued by all these benchmark tests we see referenced in articles and technical papers. While I immediately understand the importance of model openness (something I’m adamant about), I still need to get a clearer picture of what the benchmarks actually measure and how to interpret their results.

I figured if I’m trying to make sense of these benchmarks, maybe others are too. Let me share what I’ve learned so far about the LLM benchmarking landscape and why, ultimately, openness might matter more than any performance score.

Why do you care, Jason? Well, this matters because choosing an LLM is effectively selecting the “brain” that powers our AI agencies. We need these models to be functional, cost-effective, and above all, trustworthy.

Photo by on

What The Benchmark Tests Actually Measure

When you look at any LLM leaderboard, you’ll see a variety of acronyms and scores. Here’s what I’ve figured out about what each test actually evaluates:

MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding)

This is basically a comprehensive multiple-choice exam spanning 57 subjects from elementary mathematics to professional medicine and law. A score of 90% means the model correctly answered 9 out of 10 questions across these diverse domains.

Now MMLU tests a breadth of knowledge rather than depth in any specific area. It gives us a good sense of a model’s general knowledge but doesn’t tell us how deeply it understands any particular domain. Feels like the California Achievement Test to me.

This breadth-over-depth approach makes sense when you consider that most implementations will involve fine-tuning with domain-specific knowledge anyway, making general knowledge depth less critical from the outset. Again, a college freshman yet to declare a major.

HumanEval

This benchmark focuses purely on coding ability. It presents the model with function descriptions and checks whether the generated code actually works by running it against test cases. A score of 70% means the model wrote functioning code for 70% of the programming challenges. Simply put, this is how well they can write code.

However, this test only evaluates whether the code works, not its efficiency, readability, or security — factors that matter tremendously in real-world development.

GSM8K

This focuses specifically on grade-school math word problems requiring multi-step reasoning. It tests whether models can break down problems logically and solve them step-by-step.

What’s interesting here is that the score represents raw accuracy but doesn’t differentiate between different types of errors — a complete misunderstanding versus a minor calculation mistake counts exactly the same.

TruthfulQA

This measures how often models give accurate versus inaccurate information, specifically targeting areas where AI systems might repeat common misconceptions.

This hits home–this directly tests a model’s tendency toward hallucination — a critical factor for trustworthy AI applications. The hallucination metrics from this test are particularly interesting and I wonder if this ties to the alignment-faking behaviors I explored in my previous research.

BIG-Bench

This massive collection of 204 diverse tasks evaluates everything from logical reasoning to social understanding. It’s like a decathlon for AI models. The aggregate scores can mask significant variation across individual tasks. A model might excel at logical reasoning but struggle with cultural nuance.

Photo by on

How to Interpret Benchmark Scores

When I’m comparing models on leaderboards, I try to keep these considerations in mind:

Relative Performance. When GPT-4 scores 86.4% on MMLU while Llama 2 scores 68.9%, that represents a wide capability gap. However, the difference between 86% and 88% may not mean much in practice.

Context Matters. On many benchmarks, human experts score around 90%. So as models approach this range, small differences become much less significant.

Benchmark Design Influence. Models can be specifically optimized for popular benchmarks without necessarily improving on real-world tasks — similar to teaching to the test.

Performance Distribution. Average scores hide variation. A model with 85% average accuracy might fail completely on certain problem types while excelling at others. Again, a C student across all subjects illustrates this.

Temporal Context. Benchmarks represent a point-in-time assessment. Models evolve through updates, and a benchmark from six months ago might not reflect current capabilities.

For example, when I see Claude 3 Opus scoring 90.5% on MMLU versus GPT-4’s 86.4%, I now interpret this as both models demonstrating strong general knowledge capabilities, with Claude showing a slight edge in this particular test format — this isn’t necessarily an indicator of superior performance across all possible tasks.

The Value of the Performance Leaderboard

The provides a helpful aggregation of various benchmark results in one place. I’ve found it valuable as:

• A standardized comparison across models
• A tracker of progress in the field over time
• A quick reference for baseline capabilities

Just remember, leaderboards don’t capture:

• Performance in specific domains or use cases
• Practical considerations like cost and speed
• Reliability and consistency over time
• Ease of implementation and integration

I view leaderboards as a single input in my evaluation process, not as the definitive ranking of which model is absolutely the “best.”

Photo by on

Why Openness Trumps Performance Numbers

The aspect of LLM evaluation that has become increasingly clear to me is the paramount importance of model openness. The Linux Foundation’s offers a structured way to assess this, evaluating seven dimensions:

1. Model Weights: Can you access the actual parameters?
2. Architecture: Is the model’s structure documented?
3. Training Methodology: Do you know how it was trained?
4. Training Data: Is the training dataset available or described?
5. Inference Code: Can you run the model independently?
6. Documentation: Is the model well-documented?
7. License: What are the legal terms for using and modifying it?

The framework categorizes models into four levels of openness:

• Opaque Models: Minimal transparency
• Described Models: Documented but limited inspection capability
• Inspectable Models: Greater transparency but limited modification
• Open Models: Fully transparent and modifiable

Here’s why I’ve come to value openness over benchmark scores:

Adaptability. Open models can be fine-tuned for specific domains, potentially achieving better results than a higher-scoring but closed model.

Verification. With open models, claims about performance and capabilities can be independently verified rather than taken on faith.

Understanding. Transparency provides insights into how the model works, its strengths, and its limitations.

Longevity. Open models aren’t dependent on a single company’s business decisions. If a provider changes direction, the model can still be maintained by the community.

Collaborative Improvement. Open models benefit from the collective expertise of the entire field, often advancing more rapidly than closed alternatives.

My Practical Evaluation Approach

Based on what I’ve learned, here’s how I approach LLM evaluation:

1. Assess openness requirements. What level of transparency and control do I need for this particular application?
2. Check baseline capabilities. Does the model meet minimum performance thresholds across relevant benchmarks?
3. Test domain-specific scenarios. How does the model perform on tasks similar to my actual use cases?
4. Evaluate practical factors. What are the cost implications, latency requirements, and integration complexities?

This approach has led me to prefer “lower-ranked” but more open models for certain projects, with better long-term results than simply going with the benchmark leaders.

What I’m Exploring Next

As my understanding clears on this topic, here are the areas I’m most interested in exploring:

• Benchmark Evolution: How newer evaluation frameworks like HELM (Holistic Evaluation of Language Models) are moving beyond simple accuracy metrics to assess fairness, robustness, and potential harms.
• Task-Specific Evaluation: Developing better ways to evaluate models on specific tasks rather than general capabilities.
• Agent Performance Metrics: How to evaluate models not just on static responses but on their ability to complete multi-step tasks when functioning as agents.
• Long-Term Reliability Assessment: Methods for evaluating how consistently models perform over extended periods and varied inputs.

The Bottom Line

Benchmark scores provide useful data points about model capabilities, but they’re just the beginning of proper evaluation. Understanding what these tests actually measure helps interpret their results more accurately.

While performance metrics grab headlines, model openness often proves more valuable in practice — especially for mission-critical applications where adaptability, verification, and control matter.

When evaluating models for your projects, look beyond the leaderboard rankings. Consider what specific capabilities you need, how you’ll verify performance in your domain, and how much transparency and control you require. The right model might not be the one with the highest benchmark scores, but the one that best fits your specific needs and openness requirements.