Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.09138v1
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 18:11:33 GMT
- Title: Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models
- Authors: Harsh Raj, Vipul Gupta, Domenic Rosati, Subhabrata Majumdar
- Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks.
We introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs.
We propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency.
- Score: 9.876355290198639
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across
various natural language tasks. However, recent research has highlighted their
sensitivity to variations in input prompts. To deploy LLMs in a safe and
reliable manner, it is crucial for their outputs to be consistent when prompted
with expressions that carry the same meaning or intent. While some existing
work has explored how state-of-the-art LLMs address this issue, their
evaluations have been confined to assessing lexical equality of single- or
multi-word answers, overlooking the consistency of generative text sequences.
For a more comprehensive understanding of the consistency of LLMs in open-ended
text generation scenarios, we introduce a general measure of semantic
consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the
performance of various LLMs. Our proposal demonstrates significantly higher
consistency and stronger correlation with human evaluations of output
consistency than traditional metrics based on lexical consistency. Finally, we
propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance
semantic consistency. When evaluated for closed-book question answering based
on answer variations from the TruthfulQA benchmark, A2C increases accuracy
metrics for pretrained and finetuned LLMs by up to 47%, and semantic
consistency metrics for instruction-tuned models by up to 7-fold.
Related papers
- What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineering [8.019873464066308]
We introduce two metrics for classification tasks, namely sensitivity and consistency.
First, sensitivity measures changes of predictions across rephrasings of the prompt.
Second, consistency measures how predictions vary across rephrasings for elements of the same class.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-18T06:59:24Z) - 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) - RankPrompt: Step-by-Step Comparisons Make Language Models Better Reasoners [38.30539869264287]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various reasoning tasks.
However, even state-of-the-art LLMs such as ChatGPT are prone to logical errors during their reasoning processes.
We introduce RankPrompt, a new prompting method that enables LLMs to self-rank their responses without additional resources.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-19T02:34:18Z) - PPTC-R benchmark: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language
Models for PowerPoint Task Completion [96.47420221442397]
We construct adversarial user instructions by attacking user instructions at sentence, semantic, and multi-language levels.
We test 3 closed-source and 4 open-source LLMs using a benchmark that incorporates robustness settings.
We find that GPT-4 exhibits the highest performance and strong robustness in our benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-06T15:33:32Z) - CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark.
In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship.
We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z) - An Investigation of LLMs' Inefficacy in Understanding Converse Relations [30.94718664430869]
We introduce a new benchmark ConvRe focusing on converse relations, which contains 17 relations and 1240 triples extracted from knowledge graph completion datasets.
Our ConvRE features two tasks, Re2Text and Text2Re, which are formulated as multi-choice question answering to evaluate LLMs' ability to determine the matching between relations and associated text.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-08T13:45:05Z) - Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A
Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text.
Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z) - Evaluation of Faithfulness Using the Longest Supported Subsequence [52.27522262537075]
We introduce a novel approach to evaluate faithfulness of machine-generated text by computing the longest noncontinuous of the claim that is supported by the context.
Using a new human-annotated dataset, we finetune a model to generate Longest Supported Subsequence (LSS)
Our proposed metric demonstrates an 18% enhancement over the prevailing state-of-the-art metric for faithfulness on our dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-23T14:18:44Z) - Evaluating Factual Consistency of Summaries with Large Language Models [24.416837319515896]
We explore evaluating factual consistency of summaries by directly prompting large language models (LLMs)
Our experiments demonstrate that prompting LLMs is able to outperform the previous best factuality systems in all settings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T13:48:32Z) - Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive
Summarization [66.08074487429477]
We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization.
We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z) - Measuring Reliability of Large Language Models through Semantic
Consistency [3.4990427823966828]
We develop a measure of semantic consistency that allows the comparison of open-ended text outputs.
We implement several versions of this consistency metric to evaluate the performance of a number of PLMs on paraphrased versions of questions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-10T20:21:07Z)
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.