In the field of natural language processing (NLP), Large Language Models (LLMs) have precipitated a paradigm shift, markedly enhancing performance in natural language generation tasks. Despite these advancements, the comprehensive evaluation of LLMs remains an inevitable challenge for the community. Recently, the utilization of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as a benchmark for LLMs has gained considerable traction. This study investigates the rationality of MCQA as an evaluation method for LLMs. If LLMs genuinely understand the semantics of questions, their performance should exhibit consistency across the varied configurations derived from the same questions. Contrary to this expectation, our empirical findings suggest a notable disparity in the consistency of LLM responses, which we define as REsponse VAriability Syndrome (REVAS) of the LLMs, indicating that current MCQA-based benchmarks may not adequately capture the true capabilities of LLMs, which underscores the need for more robust evaluation mechanisms in assessing the performance of LLMs.

大语言模型在自然语言处理领域中具有重要意义，然而现有的以多项选择问答作为评估方法的基准测试并未能充分捕捉到大语言模型的真实能力，需要更加健全的评估机制来衡量其性能。

超越答案：评估大型语言模型的多项选择题答题合理性审查