Slava Ukraine
Chatbot Evaluation Benchmarks
Intro
As large language models (LLMs) become central to chatbots and virtual assistants, it’s essential to evaluate their ability to reason, respond coherently, follow instructions, and avoid misinformation. This article explores key benchmarks designed for assessing conversational and generative capabilities in LLMs. Unlike embedding-focused benchmarks that measure similarity or clustering, these benchmarks evaluate output quality, factual correctness, commonsense reasoning, and multi-turn dialogue flow. We’ll cover a range of benchmarks such as MT-Bench, MMLU, ARC, and TruthfulQA, each tailored to test different dimensions of chatbot intelligence and behavior.
MT-Bench
MT-Bench (Multi-Turn Benchmark) is a benchmark designed to evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in multi-turn dialogue settings, such as those found in chatbot applications. Unlike embedding benchmarks that test semantic similarity or retrieval, MT-Bench assesses how well a model handles conversation flow, coherence, helpfulness, and instruction-following across multiple exchanges. It uses a set of human-written questions and compares model outputs with scoring guided by another LLM, such as GPT-4. Since MT-Bench is focused on the quality of generated responses rather than vector embeddings, it is not suitable for evaluating embedding models directly.
MMLU
MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) is a benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning and general knowledge capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across a wide range of academic and professional subjects. It consists of multiple-choice questions spanning 57 subjects such as mathematics, history, law, computer science, and more. MMLU tests a model’s ability to perform complex reasoning and recall factual knowledge rather than measure similarity or embedding quality. As such, it is commonly used to benchmark the zero-shot or few-shot performance of LLMs, but is not suitable for evaluating embedding models.
ARC
ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) is a benchmark designed to test a model’s ability to perform complex reasoning and answer science-based multiple-choice questions, typically at the grade-school level. The dataset includes questions that require logical deduction, common-sense reasoning, and understanding of scientific principles, rather than simple pattern matching or memorization. ARC is often used to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in zero-shot or few-shot settings. Since it focuses on problem-solving and question answering using full-text generation or selection, it is not designed for evaluating embedding models.
HellaSwag
HellaSwag is a benchmark designed to evaluate a model’s ability to perform commonsense inference by selecting the most plausible continuation of a given sentence or scenario. Each example presents a context followed by multiple possible endings, and the model must choose the most coherent and logical one. HellaSwag challenges models to go beyond surface-level understanding and use everyday reasoning. While it involves semantic understanding, it is primarily used to evaluate generative or discriminative language models through multiple-choice accuracy. It is not typically used for embedding evaluation, unless repurposed into a similarity task, which is non-standard.
TruthfulQA
TruthfulQA is a benchmark designed to evaluate how accurately large language models (LLMs) can answer questions without generating false or misleading information. It focuses on detecting whether a model produces factually correct responses or repeats common misconceptions, falsehoods, or biased assumptions. The benchmark includes both multiple-choice and open-ended questions covering various domains, such as health, politics, and science. TruthfulQA is primarily used to assess the factuality and reliability of generated outputs, not the quality of embeddings. As such, it is not suitable for benchmarking embedding models.
Winogrande
Winogrande is a benchmark designed to evaluate a model’s ability to perform commonsense reasoning through pronoun resolution tasks. It builds on the Winograd Schema Challenge by introducing a larger and more diverse set of sentence pairs where the model must choose the correct referent for an ambiguous pronoun. This requires deep language understanding and contextual reasoning. Winogrande is primarily used to benchmark large language models' comprehension capabilities. It does not involve vector embeddings or similarity comparisons, making it unsuitable for evaluating embedding models directly.
GSM8K
GSM8K (Grade School Math 8K) is a benchmark designed to evaluate a model’s ability to solve grade-school-level math word problems using step-by-step reasoning. It contains 8,500 high-quality questions that require arithmetic, logic, and multi-step thinking. GSM8K is used primarily to assess the chain-of-thought and problem-solving capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in zero-shot or few-shot settings. Since the task involves generating or selecting numerical answers based on reasoning rather than comparing text embeddings, GSM8K is not suitable for evaluating embedding models.
CLUE
CLUE (Chinese Language Understanding Evaluation) is a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the performance of natural language processing models on a variety of Chinese-language tasks. Inspired by the GLUE and SuperGLUE benchmarks for English, CLUE includes tasks such as text classification, machine reading comprehension, natural language inference, and semantic similarity — all in Chinese. It provides a standardized way to measure both general-purpose language models and embedding-based systems. While some tasks in CLUE are suitable for evaluating embedding models (e.g., semantic similarity), many others focus on full-model performance, making it a mixed benchmark depending on the task.
Summary
Evaluating chatbot performance requires more than just measuring accuracy — it involves testing a model’s reasoning ability, conversational coherence, factuality, and commonsense understanding. Benchmarks like MT-Bench and Winogrande help assess these capabilities by simulating real-world tasks and dialogue scenarios. Others like MMLU and GSM8K probe a model’s depth of knowledge and logical thinking. While these benchmarks are not designed for embedding evaluation, they are critical for measuring how well generative LLMs perform in the contexts that matter most: conversation, reasoning, and trustworthiness.