Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09300v1
• Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 19:09:22 GMT
• Title: Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models
• Authors: Jie Ren, Yao Zhao, Tu Vu, Peter J. Liu, Balaji Lakshminarayanan
• Abstract summary: We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
• Score: 54.003992911447696
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Safe deployment of large language models (LLMs) may benefit from a reliable method for assessing their generated content to determine when to abstain or to selectively generate. While likelihood-based metrics such as perplexity are widely employed, recent research has demonstrated the limitations of using sequence-level probability estimates given by LLMs as reliable indicators of generation quality. Conversely, LLMs have demonstrated strong calibration at the token level, particularly when it comes to choosing correct answers in multiple-choice questions or evaluating true/false statements. In this work, we reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks, and leverage LLMs' superior calibration at the token level. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers, employing either a multi-way comparison or a point-wise evaluation approach, with the option to include a ``None of the above'' option to express the model's uncertainty explicitly. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation and evaluate their performance in selective generation using TruthfulQA and TL;DR. Through experiments with PaLM-2 and GPT-3, we demonstrate that self-evaluation based scores not only improve accuracy, but also correlate better with the overall quality of generated content.

Related papers

• Bayesian Calibration of Win Rate Estimation with LLM Evaluators [20.588104799661014]
  We propose two methods to improve the accuracy of win rate estimation using large language models (LLMs) as evaluators. We empirically validate our methods on six datasets covering story generation, summarization, and instruction following tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T04:32:40Z)
• Evaluating language models as risk scores [23.779329697527054]
  We introduce folktexts, a software package to generate risk scores using question-answering LLMs. We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks. We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T18:13:37Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• CSS: Contrastive Semantic Similarity for Uncertainty Quantification of LLMs [1.515687944002438]
  We propose Contrastive Semantic Similarity, a module to obtain similarity features for measuring uncertainty for text pairs. We conduct extensive experiments with three large language models (LLMs) on several benchmark question-answering datasets. Results show that our proposed method performs better in estimating reliable responses of LLMs than comparable baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T11:35:44Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• 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)
• Adaptation with Self-Evaluation to Improve Selective Prediction in LLMs [56.526095828316386]
  We propose a novel framework for adaptation with self-evaluation to improve the selective prediction performance of large language models (LLMs) We evaluate our method on a variety of question-answering (QA) datasets and show that it outperforms state-of-the-art selective prediction methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T03:34:59Z)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)

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.