An ideal model evaluation should achieve two goals: identifying where the model fails and providing actionable improvement guidance. Toward these goals for Language Model (LM) evaluations, we formulate the problem of generating a weakness profile, a set of weaknesses expressed in natural language, given an LM's performance on every individual instance in a benchmark. We introduce a suite of quantitative assessments to compare different weakness profiling methods. We also propose a weakness profiling method EvalTree. It constructs a capability tree where each node represents a capability described in natural language and is linked to a subset of benchmark instances that specifically evaluate this capability; it then extracts nodes where the LM performs poorly to generate a weakness profile. On the MATH and WildChat benchmarks, we show that EvalTree outperforms baseline weakness profiling methods by identifying weaknesses more precisely and comprehensively. Weakness profiling further enables weakness-guided data collection, and training data collection guided by EvalTree-identified weaknesses improves LM performance more than other data collection strategies. We also show how EvalTree exposes flaws in Chatbot Arena's human-voter-based evaluation practice. To facilitate future work, we release our code and an interface that allows practitioners to interactively explore the capability trees built by EvalTree.
EvalTree: Profiling Language Model Weaknesses via Hierarchical Capability Trees
An ideal model evaluation should achieve two goals: identifying where the model fails and providing actionable improvement guidance.
- Year
- 2025
- Venue
- arXiv 2025
- Authors
- 4
- Hosting
- Abstract onlyARXIV-DEFAULT
Cite
Notes
Only stored in your browser.
Attribution
- Abstract & full text
- arxiv.org/abs/2503.08893ARXIV-DEFAULT
- TL;DR
- Semantic Scholar