  Despite their sophisticated capabilities, large language models (LLMs)
encounter a major hurdle in effective assessment. This paper first revisits the
prevalent evaluation method-multiple choice question answering (MCQA), which
allows for straightforward accuracy measurement. Through a comprehensive
evaluation of 24 models across 11 benchmarks, we highlight several potential
drawbacks of MCQA, for instance, the inconsistency between the MCQA evaluation
and the generation of open-ended responses in practical scenarios. In response,
we introduce an RWQ-Elo rating system, engaging 24 LLMs such as GPT-4, GPT-3.5,
Google-Gemini-Pro and LLaMA-1/-2, in a two-player competitive format, with
GPT-4 serving as the judge. Each LLM receives an Elo rating thereafter. This
system is designed to mirror real-world usage, and for this purpose, we have
compiled a new benchmark called ``Real-world questions'' (RWQ), comprising
20,772 authentic user inquiries. Additionally, we thoroughly analyze the
characteristics of our system and compare it with prior leaderboards like
AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. Our analysis reveals the stability of our RWQ-Elo
system, the feasibility of registering new models, and its potential to reshape
LLM leaderboards.
