The Generative AI Paradox on Evaluation: What It Can Solve, It May Not Evaluate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06204v1
• Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:16:08 GMT
• Title: The Generative AI Paradox on Evaluation: What It Can Solve, It May Not Evaluate
• Authors: Juhyun Oh, Eunsu Kim, Inha Cha, Alice Oh
• Abstract summary: This paper explores the assumption that Large Language Models (LLMs) skilled in generation tasks are equally adept as evaluators. We assess the performance of three LLMs and one open-source LM in Question-Answering (QA) and evaluation tasks using the TriviaQA dataset.
• Score: 17.77014177096838
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper explores the assumption that Large Language Models (LLMs) skilled in generation tasks are equally adept as evaluators. We assess the performance of three LLMs and one open-source LM in Question-Answering (QA) and evaluation tasks using the TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017) dataset. Results indicate a significant disparity, with LLMs exhibiting lower performance in evaluation tasks compared to generation tasks. Intriguingly, we discover instances of unfaithful evaluation where models accurately evaluate answers in areas where they lack competence, underscoring the need to examine the faithfulness and trustworthiness of LLMs as evaluators. This study contributes to the understanding of "the Generative AI Paradox" (West et al., 2023), highlighting a need to explore the correlation between generative excellence and evaluation proficiency, and the necessity to scrutinize the faithfulness aspect in model evaluations.

Related papers

• Weak-eval-Strong: Evaluating and Eliciting Lateral Thinking of LLMs with Situation Puzzles [20.18736445118689]
  We introduce SPLAT, a benchmark leveraging Situation Puzzles to evaluate and elicit lateral thinking of Large Language Models (LLMs) This benchmark, containing 975 graded situation puzzles across three difficulty levels, employs a new multi-turn player-judge framework instead of the traditional model-based evaluation. Experiments demonstrate that a robust evaluation model, such as WizardLM-2, closely matches human judgements in both intermediate question-answering and final scenario accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T10:09:11Z)
• From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management [6.70908766695241]
  This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T20:35:10Z)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [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)
• LOVA3: Learning to Visual Question Answering, Asking and Assessment [61.51687164769517]
  Question answering, asking, and assessment are three innate human traits crucial for understanding the world and acquiring knowledge. Current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) primarily focus on question answering, often neglecting the full potential of questioning and assessment skills. We introduce LOVA3, an innovative framework named "Learning tO Visual question Answering, Asking and Assessment"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T18:21:59Z)
• 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)
• LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
  We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation [71.76872586182981]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• 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)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)

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.