FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets
Seonghyeon Ye, Doyoung Kim, Sungdong Kim, Hyeonbin Hwang, Seungone Kim, Yongrae Jo, James Thorne, Juho Kim, Minjoon Seo
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — We introduce fine-grained language model evaluation based on alignment skill sets to measure the performance of various LLMs.
Abstract
Evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) is challenging because instruction-following necessitates alignment with human values and the required set of skills varies depending on the instruction. However, previous studies have mainly focused on coarse-grained evaluation (i.e. overall preference-based evaluation), which limits interpretability since it does not consider the nature of user instructions that require instance-wise skill composition. In this paper, we introduce FLASK (Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets), a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation which decomposes coarse-level scoring to a skill set-level scoring for each instruction. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance and increasing the reliability of the evaluation. Using FLASK, we compare multiple open-source and proprietary LLMs and observe a high correlation between model-based and human-based evaluations.
Author context
Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).
No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 36 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 46% of matchups.
- ▲ beat Instance Needs More Care: Rewriting Prompt… ×6
- ▲ beat MIND: Masked and Inverse Dynamics Modeling… ×6
- ▼ lost to SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Rea… ×4
- ▲ beat LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation … ×4
- ▼ lost to Learning Latent Structural Causal Models ×4
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)