Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16877v2
• Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:52:18 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answering
• Authors: Vaibhav Adlakha, Parishad BehnamGhader, Xing Han Lu, Nicholas Meade, Siva Reddy,
• Abstract summary: Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for question answering (QA) While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness) and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness)
• Score: 26.34649731975005
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa

Related papers

• Reasoning and Tools for Human-Level Forecasting [0.4261908132550109]
  We present Reasoning and Tools for Forecasting (RTF), a framework of reasoning-and-acting (ReAct) agents that can retrieve updated information and run numerical simulation with equipped tools. We evaluate our model with questions from competitive forecasting platforms and demonstrate that our method is competitive with and can outperform human predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T23:42:06Z)
• Estimating Knowledge in Large Language Models Without Generating a Single Token [12.913172023910203]
  Current methods to evaluate knowledge in large language models (LLMs) query the model and then evaluate its generated responses. In this work, we ask whether evaluation can be done before the model has generated any text. Experiments with a variety of LLMs show that KEEN, a simple probe trained over internal subject representations, succeeds at both tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T14:45:50Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• StreamingQA: A Benchmark for Adaptation to New Knowledge over Time in Question Answering Models [31.43391633383255]
  We construct a new large-scale dataset, StreamingQA, with human written and generated questions asked on a given date. We evaluate our models quarterly as they read new articles not seen in pre-training. We show that parametric models can be updated without full retraining, while avoiding catastrophic forgetting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T15:33:41Z)
• Learning to Perturb Word Embeddings for Out-of-distribution QA [55.103586220757464]
  We propose a simple yet effective DA method based on a noise generator, which learns to perturb the word embedding of the input questions and context without changing their semantics. We validate the performance of the QA models trained with our word embedding on a single source dataset, on five different target domains. Notably, the model trained with ours outperforms the model trained with more than 240K artificially generated QA pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-06T14:12:26Z)
• When Can Models Learn From Explanations? A Formal Framework for Understanding the Roles of Explanation Data [84.87772675171412]
  We study the circumstances under which explanations of individual data points can improve modeling performance. We make use of three existing datasets with explanations: e-SNLI, TACRED, SemEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-03T18:57:08Z)
• What do we expect from Multiple-choice QA Systems? [70.86513724662302]
  We consider a top performing model on several Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) datasets. We evaluate it against a set of expectations one might have from such a model, using a series of zero-information perturbations of the model's inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-20T21:27:10Z)
• Template-Based Question Generation from Retrieved Sentences for Improved Unsupervised Question Answering [98.48363619128108]
  We propose an unsupervised approach to training QA models with generated pseudo-training data. We show that generating questions for QA training by applying a simple template on a related, retrieved sentence rather than the original context sentence improves downstream QA performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-24T17:57:45Z)

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.