At a time when both the number of artificial intelligence (AI) models and their capabilities are expanding rapidly, enterprises face an increasingly complex challenge: how to effectively evaluate and select the right large language models (LLMs) for their needs.
With the recent release of Meta’s Llama 3.2 and the proliferation of models like Google’s Gemma and Microsoft’s Phi, the landscape has become more diverse—and more complicated—than ever before. As organizations seek to leverage these tools, they must navigate a maze of considerations to find the solutions that best fit their unique requirements.
Beyond traditional metrics
Publicly available metrics and rankings often fail to reflect a model’s effectiveness in real-world applications, particularly for enterprises seeking to capitalize on deep knowledge locked within their repositories of unstructured data. Traditional evaluation metrics, while scientifically rigorous, can be misleading or irrelevant for business use cases.
Consider Perplexity, a common metric that measures how well a model predicts sample text. Despite its widespread use in academic settings, Perplexity often correlates poorly with actual usefulness in business scenarios, where the true value lies in a model’s ability to understand, contextualize and surface actionable insights from complex, domain-specific content.
Enterprises need models that can navigate industry jargon, understand nuanced relationships between concepts, and extract meaningful patterns from their unique data landscape—capabilities that conventional metrics fail to capture. A model might achieve excellent Perplexity scores while failing to generate practical, business-appropriate responses.
Similarly, BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) scores, originally developed for machine translation, are sometimes used to evaluate language models’ outputs against reference texts. However, in business contexts where creativity and problem-solving are valued, adhering strictly to reference texts may be counterproductive. A customer service chatbot that can only respond with pre-approved scripts (which would score well on BLEU) might perform poorly in real customer interactions where flexibility and understanding context are crucial.
The data quality dilemma
Another challenge of model evaluation stems from training data sources. Most open source models are heavily trained on synthetic data, often generated by advanced models like GPT-4. While this approach enables rapid development and iteration, it presents several potential issues. Synthetic data may not fully capture the complexities of real-world scenarios, and its generic nature often fails to align with specialized business needs.
Furthermore, when models are evaluated using synthetic data, especially data generated by other language models, there’s a risk of creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop that can mask significant limitations. Models trained on synthetic data may learn to replicate artefacts and patterns specific to the generating model rather than developing a genuine understanding of the underlying concepts. This creates a particularly challenging situation where evaluation metrics might show strong performance simply because the model has learned to mimic the stylistic quirks and biases of the synthetic data generator rather than demonstrating true capability. When training and evaluation rely on synthetic data, these biases can become amplified and harder to detect.
For many business cases, models need to be fine-tuned on both industry and domain-specific data to achieve optimal performance. This offers several advantages, including improved performance on specialized tasks and better alignment with company-specific requirements. However, fine-tuning is not without its challenges. The process requires high-quality, domain-specific data and can be both resource-intensive and technically challenging.
Understanding context sensitivity
Different language models exhibit varying performance levels across different types of tasks, and these differences significantly impact their applicability across various business scenarios. A critical factor in context sensitivity evaluation is understanding how models perform on synthetic versus real-world data. Models demonstrating strong performance in controlled, synthetic environments may struggle when faced with the messier, more ambiguous nature of actual business communications. This disparity becomes particularly apparent in specialized domains where synthetic training data may not fully capture the complexity and nuance of professional interactions.
Llama models have gained recognition for their strong context maintenance, excelling in tasks that require coherent, extended reasoning. This makes them particularly effective for applications needing consistent context across long interactions, such as complex customer support scenarios or detailed technical discussions.
In contrast, Gemma models, while reliable for many general-purpose applications, may struggle with deep knowledge tasks that require specialized expertise. This limitation can be particularly problematic for businesses in fields like legal, medical, or technical domains where deep, nuanced understanding is essential. Phi models present yet another consideration, as they can sometimes deviate from given instructions. While this characteristic might make them excellent candidates for creative tasks, it requires careful consideration for applications where strict adherence to guidelines is essential, such as in regulated industries or safety-critical applications.
Developing a comprehensive evaluation framework
Given these challenges, businesses must develop evaluation frameworks that go beyond simple performance metrics. Task-specific performance should be assessed based on scenarios directly relevant to the business’s needs. Operational considerations, including technical requirements, infrastructure needs, and scalability, play a crucial role. Additionally, compliance and risk management cannot be overlooked, particularly in regulated industries where adherence to specific guidelines is mandatory.
Enterprises should also consider implementing continuous monitoring to detect when model performance deviates from expected norms in production environments. This is often more valuable than initial benchmark scores. Creating tests that reflect actual business scenarios and user interactions, rather than relying solely on standardized academic datasets, can provide more meaningful insights into a model’s potential value.
As AI tools continue to iterate and proliferate, business strategies regarding their valuation and adoption must become increasingly nuanced. While no single approach to model evaluation will suit all needs, understanding the limitations of current metrics, the importance of data quality and the varying context sensitivity of different models can guide organizations toward selecting the most appropriate solutions for them. When designing evaluation frameworks, organizations should be mindful of the data sources used for testing. Relying too heavily on synthetic data for evaluation can create a false sense of model capability. Best practices include maintaining a diverse test set that combines both synthetic and real-world examples, with special attention to identifying and controlling for any artificial patterns or biases that might be present in synthetic data.
Successful model evaluation lies in recognizing that publicly available benchmarks and metrics are just the beginning. Real-world testing, domain-specific evaluation, and a clear understanding of business requirements are essential to any effective model selection process. By taking a thoughtful, systematic approach to evaluation, businesses can navigate AI choices and identify the models that best serve their needs.
We list the best Large Language Models (LLMs) for coding.
This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro’s Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro
