Manual curation of evaluation datasets is struggling to keep up with the rapidly expanding capabilities and deployment scenarios of language models. Towards scalable model profiling, we introduce and validate a framework for evaluating LLMs, called Adaptive Evaluations. Adaptive evaluations use scaffolded language models (evaluator agents) to search through a target model's behavior on a domain dataset and create difficult questions (tasks) that can discover and probe the model's failure modes. We find that frontier models lack consistency when adaptively probed with our framework on a diverse suite of datasets and tasks, including but not limited to legal reasoning, forecasting, and online harassment. Generated questions pass human validity checks and often transfer to other models with different capability profiles, demonstrating that adaptive evaluations can also be used to create difficult domain-specific datasets.

Feature-based methods are commonly used to explain model predictions, but these methods often implicitly assume that interpretable features are readily available. However, this is often not the case for high-dimensional data, and it can be hard even for domain experts to mathematically specify which features are important. Can we instead automatically extract collections or groups of features that are aligned with expert knowledge? To address this gap, we present FIX (Features Interpretable to eXperts), a benchmark for measuring how well a collection of features aligns with expert knowledge. In collaboration with domain experts, we propose FIXScore, a unified expert alignment measure applicable to diverse real-world settings across cosmology, psychology, and medicine domains in vision, language, and time series data modalities. With FIXScore, we find that popular feature-based explanation methods have poor alignment with expert-specified knowledge, highlighting the need for new methods that can better identify features interpretable to experts.

We investigate the phenomenon of an LLM's untruthful response using a large set of 220 handcrafted linguistic features. We focus on GPT-3 models and find that the linguistic profiles of responses are similar across model sizes. That is, how varying-sized LLMs respond to given prompts stays similar on the linguistic properties level. We expand upon this finding by training support vector machines that rely only upon the stylistic components of model responses to classify the truthfulness of statements. Though the dataset size limits our current findings, we show the possibility that truthfulness detection is possible without evaluating the content itself. But at the same time, the limited scope of our experiments must be taken into account in interpreting the results.

Temporal reasoning is the task of predicting temporal relations of event pairs. While temporal reasoning models can perform reasonably well on in-domain benchmarks, we have little idea of these systems' generalizability due to existing datasets' limitations. In this work, we introduce a novel task named TODAY that bridges this gap with temporal differential analysis, which as the name suggests, evaluates whether systems can correctly understand the effect of incremental changes. Specifically, TODAY introduces slight contextual changes for given event pairs, and systems are asked to tell how this subtle contextual change would affect relevant temporal relation distributions. To facilitate learning, TODAY also annotates human explanations. We show that existing models, including GPT-3.5, drop to random guessing on TODAY, suggesting that they heavily rely on spurious information rather than proper reasoning for temporal predictions. On the other hand, we show that TODAY's supervision style and explanation annotations can be used in joint learning, encouraging models to use more appropriate signals during training and thus outperform across several benchmarks. TODAY can also be used to train models to solicit incidental supervision from noisy sources such as GPT-3.5, thus moving us more toward the goal of generic temporal reasoning systems.