REBUS: A Robust Evaluation Benchmark of Understanding Symbols
Authors:
Andrew Gritsevskiy,
Arjun Panickssery,
Aaron Kirtland,
Derik Kauffman,
Hans Gundlach,
Irina Gritsevskaya,
Joe Cavanagh,
Jonathan Chiang,
Lydia La Roux,
Michelle Hung
Abstract:
We propose a new benchmark evaluating the performance of multimodal large language models on rebus puzzles. The dataset covers 333 original examples of image-based wordplay, cluing 13 categories such as movies, composers, major cities, and food. To achieve good performance on the benchmark of identifying the clued word or phrase, models must combine image recognition and string manipulation with h…
▽ More
We propose a new benchmark evaluating the performance of multimodal large language models on rebus puzzles. The dataset covers 333 original examples of image-based wordplay, cluing 13 categories such as movies, composers, major cities, and food. To achieve good performance on the benchmark of identifying the clued word or phrase, models must combine image recognition and string manipulation with hypothesis testing, multi-step reasoning, and an understanding of human cognition, making for a complex, multimodal evaluation of capabilities. We find that GPT-4o significantly outperforms all other models, followed by proprietary models outperforming all other evaluated models. However, even the best model has a final accuracy of only 42\%, which goes down to just 7\% on hard puzzles, highlighting the need for substantial improvements in reasoning. Further, models rarely understand all parts of a puzzle, and are almost always incapable of retroactively explaining the correct answer. Our benchmark can therefore be used to identify major shortcomings in the knowledge and reasoning of multimodal large language models.
△ Less
Submitted 3 June, 2024; v1 submitted 10 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better
Authors:
Ian R. McKenzie,
Alexander Lyzhov,
Michael Pieler,
Alicia Parrish,
Aaron Mueller,
Ameya Prabhu,
Euan McLean,
Aaron Kirtland,
Alexis Ross,
Alisa Liu,
Andrew Gritsevskiy,
Daniel Wurgaft,
Derik Kauffman,
Gabriel Recchia,
Jiacheng Liu,
Joe Cavanagh,
Max Weiss,
Sicong Huang,
The Floating Droid,
Tom Tseng,
Tomasz Korbak,
Xudong Shen,
Yuhui Zhang,
Zheng** Zhou,
Najoung Kim
, et al. (2 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Work on scaling laws has found that large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale (model size, training data, and compute). Here, we present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale, e.g., due to flaws in the training objective and data. We present empirical evidence of inverse scaling…
▽ More
Work on scaling laws has found that large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale (model size, training data, and compute). Here, we present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale, e.g., due to flaws in the training objective and data. We present empirical evidence of inverse scaling on 11 datasets collected by running a public contest, the Inverse Scaling Prize, with a substantial prize pool. Through analysis of the datasets, along with other examples found in the literature, we identify four potential causes of inverse scaling: (i) preference to repeat memorized sequences over following in-context instructions, (ii) imitation of undesirable patterns in the training data, (iii) tasks containing an easy distractor task which LMs could focus on, rather than the harder real task, and (iv) correct but misleading few-shot demonstrations of the task. We release the winning datasets at https://inversescaling.com/data to allow for further investigation of inverse scaling. Our tasks have helped drive the discovery of U-shaped and inverted-U scaling trends, where an initial trend reverses, suggesting that scaling trends are less reliable at predicting the behavior of larger-scale models than previously understood. Overall, our results suggest that there are tasks for which increased model scale alone may not lead to progress, and that more careful thought needs to go into the data and objectives for training language models.
△ Less
Submitted 12 May, 2024; v1 submitted 15 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
