Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2024 / MT-Bench-101: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Dialogues

MT-Bench-101: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Dialogues

Summary

Existing LLM benchmarks mostly test single-turn instructions. Multi-turn ones such as MT-Bench cover only two turns and broad skill categories, so they miss much of what happens in real chatbot conversations. MT-Bench-101 fills this gap with a fine-grained multi-turn benchmark. The authors studied real user–chatbot logs from ShareGPT and RealChat alongside teaching taxonomies from educational psychology. From this, they built a three-level ability hierarchy:

  • three top-level abilities: perceptivity, adaptability and interactivity;
  • seven mid-level abilities;
  • 13 concrete tasks.

They used GPT-4 with task-specific prompts to generate the dialogues. For scoring, GPT-4 acts as the judge, applying per-task guidelines. Models answer with golden context as dialogue history, and each dialogue receives its weakest turn's score. With this setup, 21 LLMs were evaluated. GPT-4 performed best overall. Adaptability and interactivity emerged as the main weaknesses across models. Larger models scored higher, but alignment methods such as RLHF and chat-oriented designs gave no clear multi-turn gains. The benchmark thus offers a validated, diagnostic tool for analysing conversational LLM behaviour.

Key points

  • The dataset contains 4208 turns in 1388 multi-turn dialogues across 13 tasks. Examples include anaphora resolution, topic shift, self-correction, self-affirmation and proactive interaction.
  • 21 models were tested: 2 closed-source and 19 open-source.
  • GPT-4's judgments matched human experts 87% of the time, higher than the 80% agreement among the experts themselves. Removing the scoring guidelines lowered agreement to 77%. Averaging turn scores instead of taking the minimum lowered it to 75%.
  • Feeding models their own earlier answers as history let errors pile up over turns, while golden context raised scores. This motivated the choice of golden context in the evaluation protocol.
  • Data and code are released at github.com/mtbench101/mt-bench-101.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Machine translation · Natural language processing

Cited by

111 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 2 of them have a page here, 109 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.401

@inproceedings{bai2024mt,
  title = {{MT-Bench-101: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Dialogues}},
  author = {Bai, Ge and Liu, Jie and Bu, Xingyuan and He, Yancheng and Liu, Jiaheng and Zhou, Zhanhui and Lin, Zhuoran and Su, Wenbo and Ge, Tiezheng and Zheng, Bo and Ouyang, Wanli},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.401},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.401}
}

References

1 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Robin Alexander. 2018. Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research papers in education, 33(5):561–598. ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bai-2024-mt-bench-101-fine-grained/