Exploring ChatGPT's Ability to Rank Content: A Preliminary Study on Consistency with Human Preferences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07610v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 03:13:02 GMT
• Title: Exploring ChatGPT's Ability to Rank Content: A Preliminary Study on Consistency with Human Preferences
• Authors: Yunjie Ji, Yan Gong, Yiping Peng, Chao Ni, Peiyan Sun, Dongyu Pan, Baochang Ma, Xiangang Li
• Abstract summary: ChatGPT has consistently demonstrated a remarkable level of accuracy and reliability in terms of content evaluation. A test set consisting of prompts is created, covering a wide range of use cases, and five models are utilized to generate corresponding responses. Results on the test set show that ChatGPT's ranking preferences are consistent with human to a certain extent.
• Score: 6.821378903525802
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As a natural language assistant, ChatGPT is capable of performing various tasks, including but not limited to article generation, code completion, and data analysis. Furthermore, ChatGPT has consistently demonstrated a remarkable level of accuracy and reliability in terms of content evaluation, exhibiting the capability of mimicking human preferences. To further explore ChatGPT's potential in this regard, a study is conducted to assess its ability to rank content. In order to do so, a test set consisting of prompts is created, covering a wide range of use cases, and five models are utilized to generate corresponding responses. ChatGPT is then instructed to rank the responses generated by these models. The results on the test set show that ChatGPT's ranking preferences are consistent with human to a certain extent. This preliminary experimental finding implies that ChatGPT's zero-shot ranking capability could be used to reduce annotation pressure in a number of ranking tasks.

Related papers

• ChatLog: Carefully Evaluating the Evolution of ChatGPT Across Time [54.18651663847874]
  ChatGPT has achieved great success and can be considered to have acquired an infrastructural status. Existing benchmarks encounter two challenges: (1) Disregard for periodical evaluation and (2) Lack of fine-grained features. We construct ChatLog, an ever-updating dataset with large-scale records of diverse long-form ChatGPT responses for 21 NLP benchmarks from March, 2023 to now.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T11:33:48Z)
• Evaluating ChatGPT's Information Extraction Capabilities: An Assessment of Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulness [18.945934162722466]
  We focus on assessing the overall ability of ChatGPT using 7 fine-grained information extraction (IE) tasks. ChatGPT's performance in Standard-IE setting is poor, but it surprisingly exhibits excellent performance in the OpenIE setting. ChatGPT provides high-quality and trustworthy explanations for its decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-23T12:33:18Z)
• Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remark [0.0]
  This study investigates the consistency of ChatGPT's zero-shot capabilities for text annotation and classification. Results show consistency in ChatGPT's classification output can fall short of scientific thresholds for reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-17T00:41:19Z)
• To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
  This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
• Is ChatGPT A Good Keyphrase Generator? A Preliminary Study [51.863368917344864]
  ChatGPT has recently garnered significant attention from the computational linguistics community. We evaluate its performance in various aspects, including keyphrase generation prompts, keyphrase generation diversity, and long document understanding. We find that ChatGPT performs exceptionally well on all six candidate prompts, with minor performance differences observed across the datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T02:50:38Z)
• Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study [121.77986688862302]
  We provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric. Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments. We hope our preliminary study could prompt the emergence of a general-purposed reliable NLG metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-07T16:57:20Z)
• Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
  ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
• Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)

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.