Automatic Evaluation of Generative Models with Instruction Tuning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.20072v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 23:00:52 GMT
• Title: Automatic Evaluation of Generative Models with Instruction Tuning
• Authors: Shuhaib Mehri and Vered Shwartz
• Abstract summary: Recent paradigm fine-tunes pre-trained language models to emulate human judgements for a particular task and evaluation criterion. Inspired by the generalization ability of instruction-tuned models, we propose a learned metric based on instruction tuning.
• Score: 14.369719297698694
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automatic evaluation of natural language generation has long been an elusive goal in NLP.A recent paradigm fine-tunes pre-trained language models to emulate human judgements for a particular task and evaluation criterion. Inspired by the generalization ability of instruction-tuned models, we propose a learned metric based on instruction tuning. To test our approach, we collected HEAP, a dataset of human judgements across various NLG tasks and evaluation criteria. Our findings demonstrate that instruction tuning language models on HEAP yields good performance on many evaluation tasks, though some criteria are less trivial to learn than others. Further, jointly training on multiple tasks can yield additional performance improvements, which can be beneficial for future tasks with little to no human annotated data.

Related papers

• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics. SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric. We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF) In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• 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)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• 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)
• DecompEval: Evaluating Generated Texts as Unsupervised Decomposed Question Answering [95.89707479748161]
  Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. We propose a metric called DecompEval that formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task. We decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T16:16:51Z)
• Pre-Trained Language-Meaning Models for Multilingual Parsing and Generation [14.309869321407522]
  We introduce multilingual pre-trained language-meaning models based on Discourse Representation Structures (DRSs) Since DRSs are language neutral, cross-lingual transfer learning is adopted to further improve the performance of non-English tasks. automatic evaluation results show that our approach achieves the best performance on both the multilingual DRS parsing and DRS-to-text generation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T19:00:33Z)
• Task Ambiguity in Humans and Language Models [7.033374427612259]
  We propose AmbiBench, a new benchmark of ambiguously-specified classification tasks. We evaluate humans and models on AmbiBench by seeing how well they identify the intended task. We show how to dramatically improve the accuracy of language models trained without large-scale human feedback training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T18:35:33Z)
• SUPERB-SG: Enhanced Speech processing Universal PERformance Benchmark for Semantic and Generative Capabilities [76.97949110580703]
  We introduce SUPERB-SG, a new benchmark to evaluate pre-trained models across various speech tasks. We use a lightweight methodology to test the robustness of representations learned by pre-trained models under shifts in data domain. We also show that the task diversity of SUPERB-SG coupled with limited task supervision is an effective recipe for evaluating the generalizability of model representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T04:26:40Z)
• Skill Induction and Planning with Latent Language [94.55783888325165]
  We formulate a generative model of action sequences in which goals generate sequences of high-level subtask descriptions. We describe how to train this model using primarily unannotated demonstrations by parsing demonstrations into sequences of named high-level subtasks. In trained models, the space of natural language commands indexes a library of skills; agents can use these skills to plan by generating high-level instruction sequences tailored to novel goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-04T15:36:32Z)
• Learning to Compare for Better Training and Evaluation of Open Domain Natural Language Generation Models [23.62054164511058]
  We propose to evaluate natural language generation models by learning to compare a pair of generated sentences by fine-tuning BERT. While able to be trained in a fully self-supervised fashion, our model can be further fine-tuned with a little amount of human preference annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-12T15:52:21Z)

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.