In the realm of modern Large Language Models (LLMs), facilitating high-quality, multi-turn dialogues with humans represents a cornerstone feature. However, human-based evaluation of such a capability involves substantial manual effort. This study offers a formative assessment of current LLMs’ proficiency in emulating human-like, multi-turn conversations using an LLM-centric approach. The evaluation encompasses three key elements in the evaluation pipeline: utterance generation, evaluation protocol, and judgement, and we delve deeply into each aspect. GPT-4, both as an utterance generator and as a judge, exhibits exceptional performance. As a generator, GPT-4 crafts dialogues indistinguishable from human interactions in terms of style and flow. When judging, it shows a heightened alignment with human evaluative standards and consistency. Conversely, other LLMs face challenges in producing quality multi-turn dialogues, hindered by inadequate instruction-following abilities, a propensity for prolix utterances, and overall limited capabilities. Notably, generating extensive dialogues (e.g., spanning tens of turns) remains a formidable task for most LLMs, particularly in Chinese contexts. We hope that our work can serve as a valuable resource for evaluating the multi-turn chatting capabilities of LLMs. Related resources are available at https://github.com/open-compass/BotChat.

Recently, the large language model (LLM) community has shown increasing interest in enhancing LLMs’ capability to handle extremely long documents. As various long-text techniques and model architectures emerge, the precise and detailed evaluation of models’ long-text capabilities has become increasingly important. Existing long-text evaluation benchmarks, such as L-Eval and LongBench, construct long-text test sets based on open-source datasets, focusing mainly on QA and summarization tasks. These datasets include test samples of varying lengths (from 2k to 32k+) entangled together, making it challenging to assess model capabilities across different length ranges. Moreover, they do not cover the ultralong settings (100k+ tokens) that the latest LLMs claim to achieve. In this paper, we introduce Ada-LEval, a length-adaptable benchmark for evaluating the long-context understanding of LLMs. Ada-LEval includes two challenging subsets, TSort and BestAnswer, which enable a more reliable evaluation of LLMs’ long context capabilities. These benchmarks support intricate manipulation of the length of test cases, and can easily produce text samples up to 128k tokens. We evaluate 4 state-of-the-art closed-source API models and 6 open-source models with Ada-LEval. The evaluation results demonstrate the limitations of current LLMs, especially in ultra-long-context settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/open-compass/Ada-LEval.

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) across various regions underscores the urgent need to evaluate their alignment with human values. Current benchmarks, however, fall short of effectively uncovering safety vulnerabilities in LLMs. Despite numerous models achieving high scores and ‘topping the chart’ in these evaluations, there is still a significant gap in LLMs’ deeper alignment with human values and achieving genuine harmlessness. To this end, this paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames, which encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values such as harmony. Accordingly, we carefully design adversarial prompts that incorporate complex scenarios and jailbreaking methods, mostly with implicit malice. By prompting 17 mainstream LLMs, we obtain model responses and rigorously annotate them for detailed evaluation. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames, particularly in the safety and fairness dimensions. We also develop a lightweight specified scorer capable of scoring LLMs across multiple dimensions to efficiently evaluate new models on the benchmark. The complexity of Flames has far exceeded existing benchmarks, setting a new challenge for contemporary LLMs and highlighting the need for further alignment of LLMs. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/AIFlames/Flames.

With the continuous emergence of Chinese Large Language Models (LLMs), how to evaluate a model’s capabilities has become an increasingly significant issue. The absence of a comprehensive Chinese benchmark that thoroughly assesses a model’s performance, the unstandardized and incomparable prompting procedure, and the prevalent risk of contamination pose major challenges in the current evaluation of Chinese LLMs. We present CLEVA, a user-friendly platform crafted to holistically evaluate Chinese LLMs. Our platform employs a standardized workflow to assess LLMs’ performance across various dimensions, regularly updating a competitive leaderboard. To alleviate contamination, CLEVA curates a significant proportion of new data and develops a sampling strategy that guarantees a unique subset for each leaderboard round. Empowered by an easy-to-use interface that requires just a few mouse clicks and a model API, users can conduct a thorough evaluation with minimal coding. Large-scale experiments featuring 23 Chinese LLMs have validated CLEVA’s efficacy.