EvalLM: Interactive Evaluation of Large Language Model Prompts on User-Defined Criteria

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13633v2
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:10:30 GMT
• Title: EvalLM: Interactive Evaluation of Large Language Model Prompts on User-Defined Criteria
• Authors: Tae Soo Kim, Yoonjoo Lee, Jamin Shin, Young-Ho Kim, Juho Kim
• Abstract summary: We present EvalLM, an interactive system for iteratively refining prompts by evaluating multiple outputs on user-defined criteria. By describing criteria in natural language, users can employ the system's LLM-based evaluator to get an overview of where prompts excel or fail. A comparative study showed that EvalLM, when compared to manual evaluation, helped participants compose more diverse criteria, examine twice as many outputs, and reach satisfactory prompts with 59% fewer revisions.
• Score: 43.944632774725484
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: By simply composing prompts, developers can prototype novel generative applications with Large Language Models (LLMs). To refine prototypes into products, however, developers must iteratively revise prompts by evaluating outputs to diagnose weaknesses. Formative interviews (N=8) revealed that developers invest significant effort in manually evaluating outputs as they assess context-specific and subjective criteria. We present EvalLM, an interactive system for iteratively refining prompts by evaluating multiple outputs on user-defined criteria. By describing criteria in natural language, users can employ the system's LLM-based evaluator to get an overview of where prompts excel or fail, and improve these based on the evaluator's feedback. A comparative study (N=12) showed that EvalLM, when compared to manual evaluation, helped participants compose more diverse criteria, examine twice as many outputs, and reach satisfactory prompts with 59% fewer revisions. Beyond prompts, our work can be extended to augment model evaluation and alignment in specific application contexts.

Related papers

• TALEC: Teach Your LLM to Evaluate in Specific Domain with In-house Criteria by Criteria Division and Zero-shot Plus Few-shot [2.186726107112913]
  We propose a model-based evaluation method: TALEC. It allows users to flexibly set their own evaluation criteria, and uses in-context learning (ICL) to teach judge model these in-house criteria. TALEC demonstrates a strong capability to accurately reflect human preferences and achieves a correlation of over 80% with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T10:02:42Z)
• Evaluation of Instruction-Following Ability for Large Language Models on Story-Ending Generation [2.4889060833127665]
  In this paper, we focus on evaluating the instruction-following ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of story-ending generation. We propose an automatic evaluation pipeline that utilizes a machine reading comprehension (MRC) model to determine whether the generated story-ending reflects instruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T06:53:36Z)
• Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences [11.23629471911503]
  EvalGen provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. We identify a phenomenon we dub emphcriteria drift: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:45:27Z)
• 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)
• SemScore: Automated Evaluation of Instruction-Tuned LLMs based on Semantic Textual Similarity [3.3162484539136416]
  We propose a simple but remarkably effective evaluation metric called SemScore. We compare model outputs to gold target responses using semantic textual similarity (STS) We find that our proposed SemScore metric outperforms all other, in many cases more complex, evaluation metrics in terms of correlation to human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T14:52:50Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
  There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models. Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses. There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation for Conversational Recommendation in the Era of Large Language Models [115.7508325840751]
  The recent success of large language models (LLMs) has shown great potential to develop more powerful conversational recommender systems (CRSs) In this paper, we embark on an investigation into the utilization of ChatGPT for conversational recommendation, revealing the inadequacy of the existing evaluation protocol. We propose an interactive Evaluation approach based on LLMs named iEvaLM that harnesses LLM-based user simulators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:12:43Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)

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.