CriticEval: Evaluating Large Language Model as Critic

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13764v5
• Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 05:32:25 GMT
• Title: CriticEval: Evaluating Large Language Model as Critic
• Authors: Tian Lan, Wenwei Zhang, Chen Xu, Heyan Huang, Dahua Lin, Kai Chen, Xian-ling Mao,
• Abstract summary: CriticEval is a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively and reliably evaluate critique ability of Large Language Models. To ensure the comprehensiveness, CriticEval evaluates critique ability from four dimensions across nine diverse task scenarios. To ensure the reliability, a large number of critiques are annotated to serve as references.
• Score: 110.29766259843453
• License:
• Abstract: Critique ability, i.e., the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and rectify flaws in responses, is crucial for their applications in self-improvement and scalable oversight. While numerous studies have been proposed to evaluate critique ability of LLMs, their comprehensiveness and reliability are still limited. To overcome this problem, we introduce CriticEval, a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively and reliably evaluate critique ability of LLMs. Specifically, to ensure the comprehensiveness, CriticEval evaluates critique ability from four dimensions across nine diverse task scenarios. It evaluates both scalar-valued and textual critiques, targeting responses of varying quality. To ensure the reliability, a large number of critiques are annotated to serve as references, enabling GPT-4 to evaluate textual critiques reliably. Extensive evaluations of open-source and closed-source LLMs first validate the reliability of evaluation in CriticEval. Then, experimental results demonstrate the promising potential of open-source LLMs, the effectiveness of critique datasets and several intriguing relationships between the critique ability and some critical factors, including task types, response qualities and critique dimensions.

Related papers

• RealCritic: Towards Effectiveness-Driven Evaluation of Language Model Critiques [59.861013614500024]
  We introduce a new benchmark designed to assess the critique capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike existing benchmarks, which typically function in an open-loop fashion, our approach employs a closed-loop methodology that evaluates the quality of corrections generated from critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:48:10Z)
• Enabling Scalable Oversight via Self-Evolving Critic [59.861013614500024]
  SCRIT (Self-evolving CRITic) is a framework that enables genuine self-evolution of critique abilities. It self-improves by training on synthetic data, generated by a contrastive-based self-critic. It achieves up to a 10.3% improvement on critique-correction and error identification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• VISCO: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Critique and Correction Towards Self-Improvement in Visual Reasoning [112.35483894933904]
  We propose VISCO, the first benchmark to extensively analyze the fine-grained critique and correction capabilities of LVLMs. VISCO features dense and fine-grained critique, requiring LVLMs to evaluate the correctness of each step in the chain-of-thought. LookBack significantly improves critique and correction performance by up to 13.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T05:04:49Z)
• Critic-CoT: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via Chain-of-thoughts Critic [48.94340387130627]
  Critic-CoT is a framework that pushes LLMs toward System-2-like critic capability. CoT reasoning paradigm and the automatic construction of distant-supervision data without human annotation. Experiments on GSM8K and MATH demonstrate that our enhanced model significantly boosts task-solving performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T08:02:09Z)
• A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendations [35.12731651234186]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained significant attention due to their remarkable capabilities. We systematically review the primary challenges and limitations causing these inconsistencies and unreliable evaluations. Based on our critical review, we present our perspectives and recommendations to ensure LLM evaluations are reproducible, reliable, and robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T17:15:37Z)
• CriticBench: Benchmarking LLMs for Critique-Correct Reasoning [26.45110574463893]
  CriticBench is a benchmark designed to assess Large Language Models' abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning. We evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T18:59:02Z)
• The Critique of Critique [45.40025444461465]
  We pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which builds specific quantification criteria. We construct a meta-evaluation dataset covering 4 tasks involving human-written and LLM-generated critiques. Experiments demonstrate that MetaCritique can achieve near-human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T12:20:41Z)
• Critique Ability of Large Language Models [38.34144195927209]
  This study explores the ability of large language models (LLMs) to deliver accurate critiques across various tasks. We develop a benchmark called CriticBench, which comprises 3K high-quality natural language queries and corresponding model responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T14:12:15Z)

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.