Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gap

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03100v4
• Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 14:59:17 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gap
• Authors: Q. Vera Liao, Ziang Xiao,
• Abstract summary: We argue that model evaluation practices must take on a critical task to cope with the challenges and responsibilities brought by this homogenization. We urge the community to develop evaluation methods based on real-world contexts and human requirements.
• Score: 47.632123167141245
• License:
• Abstract: The recent development of generative large language models (LLMs) poses new challenges for model evaluation that the research community and industry have been grappling with. While the versatile capabilities of these models ignite much excitement, they also inevitably make a leap toward homogenization: powering a wide range of applications with a single, often referred to as ``general-purpose'', model. In this position paper, we argue that model evaluation practices must take on a critical task to cope with the challenges and responsibilities brought by this homogenization: providing valid assessments for whether and how much human needs in diverse downstream use cases can be satisfied by the given model (\textit{socio-technical gap}). By drawing on lessons about improving research realism from the social sciences, human-computer interaction (HCI), and the interdisciplinary field of explainable AI (XAI), we urge the community to develop evaluation methods based on real-world contexts and human requirements, and embrace diverse evaluation methods with an acknowledgment of trade-offs between realisms and pragmatic costs to conduct the evaluation. By mapping HCI and current NLG evaluation methods, we identify opportunities for evaluation methods for LLMs to narrow the socio-technical gap and pose open questions.

Related papers

• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models [28.743404185915697]
  This paper provides a comprehensive overview of recent works on the evaluation of Attitudes, Opinions, Values (AOVs) in Large Language Models (LLMs) By doing so, we address the potential and challenges with respect to understanding the model, human-AI alignment, and downstream application in social sciences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T22:59:18Z)
• Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Input [20.95333081841239]
  There is growing consensus that language model (LM) developers should not be the sole deciders of LM behavior. We present Collective Constitutional AI (CCAI): a multi-stage process for sourcing and integrating public input into LMs. We demonstrate the real-world practicality of this approach by creating what is, to our knowledge, the first LM fine-tuned with collectively sourced public input.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T02:20:46Z)
• Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence [5.147767778946168]
  We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T11:08:10Z)
• Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation [22.517544562890663]
  This paper traces the historical trajectory of Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluations, from the foundational questions posed by Alan Turing to the modern era of AI research. We emphasize the pressing need for a unified evaluation system, given the broader societal implications of these models. This work serves as a call for the AI community to collaboratively address the challenges of LLM evaluation, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and societal benefit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T17:24:50Z)
• Survey of Social Bias in Vision-Language Models [65.44579542312489]
  Survey aims to provide researchers with a high-level insight into the similarities and differences of social bias studies in pre-trained models across NLP, CV, and VL. The findings and recommendations presented here can benefit the ML community, fostering the development of fairer and non-biased AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-24T15:34:56Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)
• Training Socially Aligned Language Models on Simulated Social Interactions [99.39979111807388]
  Social alignment in AI systems aims to ensure that these models behave according to established societal values. Current language models (LMs) are trained to rigidly replicate their training corpus in isolation. This work presents a novel training paradigm that permits LMs to learn from simulated social interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T14:17:36Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• Human Factors in Model Interpretability: Industry Practices, Challenges, and Needs [28.645803845464915]
  We conduct interviews with industry practitioners to understand how they conceive of and design for interpretability while they plan, build, and use their models. Based on our results, we differentiate interpretability roles, processes, goals and strategies as they exist within organizations making heavy use of ML models. The characterization of interpretability work that emerges from our analysis suggests that model interpretability frequently involves cooperation and mental model comparison between people in different roles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-23T19:54:39Z)

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.