Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19740v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 17:04:35 GMT
• Title: Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation
• Authors: Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Lingpeng Kong, Wei Bi
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations. We propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts.
• Score: 71.76872586182981
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Humans are widely involved in the evaluation of open-ended natural language generation tasks (NLG) that demand creativity, as automatic metrics often exhibit weak correlations with human judgments. Large language models (LLMs) recently have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations. However, both humans and LLMs have limitations, i.e., inherent subjectivity and unreliable judgments, particularly for open-ended tasks that require adaptable metrics tailored to diverse task requirements. To explore the synergy between humans and LLM-based evaluators and address the challenges of existing inconsistent evaluation criteria in open-ended NLG tasks, we propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts, in which LLM generates initial ideation, and then humans engage in scrutiny. We conducted a series of experiments to investigate the mutual effects between LLMs and humans in CoEval. Results show that, by utilizing LLMs, CoEval effectively evaluates lengthy texts, saving significant time and reducing human evaluation outliers. Human scrutiny still plays a role, revising around 20% of LLM evaluation scores for ultimate reliability.

Related papers

• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks. We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• Large Language Models Are Active Critics in NLG Evaluation [9.932334723464129]
  Active-Critic is a novel evaluator that transforms large language models (LLMs) into "active critics" Our experiments show that Active-Critic can generate nuanced, context-aware evaluation criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:04:41Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• 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)
• HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition [92.17397504834825]
  HD-Eval is a framework that iteratively aligns large language models evaluators with human preference. HD-Eval inherits the essence from the evaluation mindset of human experts and enhances the alignment of LLM-based evaluators. Extensive experiments on three evaluation domains demonstrate the superiority of HD-Eval in further aligning state-of-the-art evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T08:01:32Z)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)
• Through the Lens of Core Competency: Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [27.271533306818732]
  Large language model (LLM) has excellent performance and wide practical uses. Existing evaluation tasks are difficult to keep up with the wide range of applications in real-world scenarios. We summarize 4 core competencies of LLM, including reasoning, knowledge, reliability, and safety. Under this competency architecture, similar tasks are combined to reflect corresponding ability, while new tasks can also be easily added into the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-15T17:40:34Z)
• A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry. This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.