Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality
Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00681v1
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 17:42:45 GMT
- Title: Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality
Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs
- Authors: Xue-Yong Fu, Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Cheng Chen, Shashi Bhushan TN
- Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities.
This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
- Score: 8.526956860672698
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention
due to their notable emergent capabilities, surpassing those seen in earlier
language models. A particularly intriguing application of LLMs is their role as
evaluators for texts produced by various generative models.
In this study, we delve into the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of
factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
Initially, we introduce an innovative approach for factuality assessment using
LLMs. This entails employing a singular LLM for the entirety of the
question-answering-based factuality scoring process. Following this, we examine
the efficacy of various LLMs in direct factuality scoring, benchmarking them
against traditional measures and human annotations.
Contrary to initial expectations, our results indicate a lack of significant
correlations between factuality metrics and human evaluations, specifically for
GPT-4 and PaLM-2. Notable correlations were only observed with GPT-3.5 across
two factuality subcategories. These consistent findings across various factual
error categories suggest a fundamental limitation in the current LLMs'
capability to accurately gauge factuality.
This version presents the information more concisely while maintaining the
main points and findings of the original text.
Related papers
- Truth or Mirage? Towards End-to-End Factuality Evaluation with LLM-Oasis [78.07225438556203]
We introduce LLM-Oasis, the largest resource for training end-to-end factuality evaluators.
It is constructed by extracting claims from Wikipedia, falsifying a subset of these claims, and generating pairs of factual and unfactual texts.
We then rely on human annotators to both validate the quality of our dataset and to create a gold standard test set for factuality evaluation systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-29T12:21:15Z) - 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) - Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings.
We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z) - MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark [41.68821233828375]
This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities.
Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-07T12:28:32Z) - PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs.
We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z) - 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) - Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and
Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)
As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z) - FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm.
We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner.
Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z) - Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools.
Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions.
Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z) - On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets.
We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)
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.