Who's Thinking? A Push for Human-Centered Evaluation of LLMs using the
XAI Playbook
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.06223v1
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 22:15:49 GMT
- Title: Who's Thinking? A Push for Human-Centered Evaluation of LLMs using the
XAI Playbook
- Authors: Teresa Datta and John P. Dickerson
- Abstract summary: We draw parallels between the relatively mature field of XAI and the rapidly evolving research boom around large language models.
We argue that humans' tendencies should rest front and center when evaluating deployed large language models.
- Score: 30.985555463848264
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Deployed artificial intelligence (AI) often impacts humans, and there is no
one-size-fits-all metric to evaluate these tools. Human-centered evaluation of
AI-based systems combines quantitative and qualitative analysis and human
input. It has been explored to some depth in the explainable AI (XAI) and
human-computer interaction (HCI) communities. Gaps remain, but the basic
understanding that humans interact with AI and accompanying explanations, and
that humans' needs -- complete with their cognitive biases and quirks -- should
be held front and center, is accepted by the community. In this paper, we draw
parallels between the relatively mature field of XAI and the rapidly evolving
research boom around large language models (LLMs). Accepted evaluative metrics
for LLMs are not human-centered. We argue that many of the same paths tread by
the XAI community over the past decade will be retread when discussing LLMs.
Specifically, we argue that humans' tendencies -- again, complete with their
cognitive biases and quirks -- should rest front and center when evaluating
deployed LLMs. We outline three developed focus areas of human-centered
evaluation of XAI: mental models, use case utility, and cognitive engagement,
and we highlight the importance of exploring each of these concepts for LLMs.
Our goal is to jumpstart human-centered LLM evaluation.
Related papers
- Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment.
The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z) - Explainable Human-AI Interaction: A Planning Perspective [32.477369282996385]
AI systems need to be explainable to the humans in the loop.
We will discuss how the AI agent can use mental models to either conform to human expectations, or change those expectations through explanatory communication.
While the main focus of the book is on cooperative scenarios, we will point out how the same mental models can be used for obfuscation and deception.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-19T22:22:21Z) - Human-Modeling in Sequential Decision-Making: An Analysis through the Lens of Human-Aware AI [20.21053807133341]
We try to provide an account of what constitutes a human-aware AI system.
We see that human-aware AI is a design oriented paradigm, one that focuses on the need for modeling the humans it may interact with.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-13T14:17:52Z) - Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch.
Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs.
We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z) - Beyond Static Evaluation: A Dynamic Approach to Assessing AI Assistants' API Invocation Capabilities [48.922660354417204]
We propose Automated Dynamic Evaluation (AutoDE) to assess an assistant's API call capability without human involvement.
In our framework, we endeavor to closely mirror genuine human conversation patterns in human-machine interactions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-17T07:34:12Z) - Exploration with Principles for Diverse AI Supervision [88.61687950039662]
Training large transformers using next-token prediction has given rise to groundbreaking advancements in AI.
While this generative AI approach has produced impressive results, it heavily leans on human supervision.
This strong reliance on human oversight poses a significant hurdle to the advancement of AI innovation.
We propose a novel paradigm termed Exploratory AI (EAI) aimed at autonomously generating high-quality training data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-13T07:03:39Z) - Exploring Qualitative Research Using LLMs [8.545798128849091]
This study aimed to compare and contrast the comprehension capabilities of humans and AI driven large language models.
We conducted an experiment with small sample of Alexa app reviews, initially classified by a human analyst.
LLMs were then asked to classify these reviews and provide the reasoning behind each classification.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-23T05:21:36Z) - On the Effect of Information Asymmetry in Human-AI Teams [0.0]
We focus on the existence of complementarity potential between humans and AI.
Specifically, we identify information asymmetry as an essential source of complementarity potential.
By conducting an online experiment, we demonstrate that humans can use such contextual information to adjust the AI's decision.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-03T13:02:50Z) - Best-Response Bayesian Reinforcement Learning with Bayes-adaptive POMDPs
for Centaurs [22.52332536886295]
We present a novel formulation of the interaction between the human and the AI as a sequential game.
We show that in this case the AI's problem of helping bounded-rational humans make better decisions reduces to a Bayes-adaptive POMDP.
We discuss ways in which the machine can learn to improve upon its own limitations as well with the help of the human.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-03T21:00:51Z) - On some Foundational Aspects of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [52.03866242565846]
There is no clear definition of what is meant by Human Centered Artificial Intelligence.
This paper introduces the term HCAI agent to refer to any physical or software computational agent equipped with AI components.
We see the notion of HCAI agent, together with its components and functions, as a way to bridge the technical and non-technical discussions on human-centered AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-12-29T09:58:59Z) - A User-Centred Framework for Explainable Artificial Intelligence in
Human-Robot Interaction [70.11080854486953]
We propose a user-centred framework for XAI that focuses on its social-interactive aspect.
The framework aims to provide a structure for interactive XAI solutions thought for non-expert users.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-27T09:56:23Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.