LLM Comparator: Visual Analytics for Side-by-Side Evaluation of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10524v1
• Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:14:49 GMT
• Title: LLM Comparator: Visual Analytics for Side-by-Side Evaluation of Large Language Models
• Authors: Minsuk Kahng, Ian Tenney, Mahima Pushkarna, Michael Xieyang Liu, James Wexler, Emily Reif, Krystal Kallarackal, Minsuk Chang, Michael Terry, Lucas Dixon
• Abstract summary: We present Comparator, a novel visual analytics tool for interactively analyzing results from automatic side-by-side evaluation. The tool supports interactive for users to understand when and why a model performs better or worse than a baseline model.
• Score: 31.426274932333264
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automatic side-by-side evaluation has emerged as a promising approach to evaluating the quality of responses from large language models (LLMs). However, analyzing the results from this evaluation approach raises scalability and interpretability challenges. In this paper, we present LLM Comparator, a novel visual analytics tool for interactively analyzing results from automatic side-by-side evaluation. The tool supports interactive workflows for users to understand when and why a model performs better or worse than a baseline model, and how the responses from two models are qualitatively different. We iteratively designed and developed the tool by closely working with researchers and engineers at a large technology company. This paper details the user challenges we identified, the design and development of the tool, and an observational study with participants who regularly evaluate their models.

Related papers

• Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates [0.0]
  We propose a framework that interprets large language models (LLMs) as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• Data Analysis in the Era of Generative AI [56.44807642944589]
  This paper explores the potential of AI-powered tools to reshape data analysis, focusing on design considerations and challenges. We explore how the emergence of large language and multimodal models offers new opportunities to enhance various stages of data analysis workflow. We then examine human-centered design principles that facilitate intuitive interactions, build user trust, and streamline the AI-assisted analysis workflow across multiple apps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-27T06:31:03Z)
• PUB: Plot Understanding Benchmark and Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models on Synthetic Visual Data Interpretation [2.1184929769291294]
  This paper presents a novel synthetic dataset designed to evaluate the proficiency of large language models in interpreting data visualizations. Our dataset is generated using controlled parameters to ensure comprehensive coverage of potential real-world scenarios. We employ multimodal text prompts with questions related to visual data in images to benchmark several state-of-the-art models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T11:19:17Z)
• Long-Span Question-Answering: Automatic Question Generation and QA-System Ranking via Side-by-Side Evaluation [65.16137964758612]
  We explore the use of long-context capabilities in large language models to create synthetic reading comprehension data from entire books. Our objective is to test the capabilities of LLMs to analyze, understand, and reason over problems that require a detailed comprehension of long spans of text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T20:15:10Z)
• Vi(E)va LLM! A Conceptual Stack for Evaluating and Interpreting Generative AI-based Visualizations [1.709620026135923]
  Large language models (LLM) have become an interesting option for supporting generative tasks related to visualization. This paper copes with the problem of modeling the evaluation of a generated visualization through an LLM. We propose a theoretical evaluation stack, EvaLLM, that decomposes the evaluation effort in its atomic components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T14:28:55Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• Unlocking the Potential of User Feedback: Leveraging Large Language Model as User Simulator to Enhance Dialogue System [65.93577256431125]
  We propose an alternative approach called User-Guided Response Optimization (UGRO) to combine it with a smaller task-oriented dialogue model. This approach uses LLM as annotation-free user simulator to assess dialogue responses, combining them with smaller fine-tuned end-to-end TOD models. Our approach outperforms previous state-of-the-art (SOTA) results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T13:04:56Z)
• Visual Auditor: Interactive Visualization for Detection and Summarization of Model Biases [18.434430375939755]
  As machine learning (ML) systems become increasingly widespread, it is necessary to audit these systems for biases prior to their deployment. Recent research has developed algorithms for effectively identifying intersectional bias in the form of interpretable, underperforming subsets (or slices) of the data. We propose Visual Auditor, an interactive visualization tool for auditing and summarizing model biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-25T02:48:27Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)

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.