LMStyle Benchmark: Evaluating Text Style Transfer for Chatbots

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08943v1
• Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:19:30 GMT
• Title: LMStyle Benchmark: Evaluating Text Style Transfer for Chatbots
• Authors: Jianlin Chen,
• Abstract summary: LMStyle Benchmark is an evaluation framework applicable to chat-style text style transfer (C-TST) In addition to style strength metrics, LMStyle Benchmark considers a novel aspect of metrics called appropriateness. Our experiments demonstrate that the new evaluation methods have a higher correlation with human judgments in terms of appropriateness.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Since the breakthrough of ChatGPT, large language models (LLMs) have garnered significant attention in the research community. With the development of LLMs, the question of text style transfer for conversational models has emerged as a natural extension, where chatbots may possess their own styles or even characters. However, standard evaluation metrics have not yet been established for this new settings. This paper aims to address this issue by proposing the LMStyle Benchmark, a novel evaluation framework applicable to chat-style text style transfer (C-TST), that can measure the quality of style transfer for LLMs in an automated and scalable manner. In addition to conventional style strength metrics, LMStyle Benchmark further considers a novel aspect of metrics called appropriateness, a high-level metrics take account of coherence, fluency and other implicit factors without the aid of reference samples. Our experiments demonstrate that the new evaluation methods introduced by LMStyle Benchmark have a higher correlation with human judgments in terms of appropriateness. Based on LMStyle Benchmark, we present a comprehensive list of evaluation results for popular LLMs, including LLaMA, Alpaca, and Vicuna, reflecting their stylistic properties, such as formality and sentiment strength, along with their appropriateness.

Related papers

• Persona-Augmented Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs Across Diverse Writing Styles [32.121191446326876]
  We identify distinct writing styles that consistently trigger either low or high performance across a range of models and tasks.<n>Our work offers a scalable approach to augment existing benchmarks, improving the external validity of the assessments they provide for measuring LLM performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T18:59:09Z)
• A Meta-Evaluation of Style and Attribute Transfer Metrics [41.052284715017606]
  LLMs make it easy to rewrite text in any style, be it more polite, persuasive, or more positive. We present a large-scale study of evaluation metrics for style and attribute transfer with a focus on content preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T20:16:34Z)
• Evaluating Text Style Transfer Evaluation: Are There Any Reliable Metrics? [9.234136424254261]
  Text style transfer (TST) is the task of transforming a text to reflect a particular style while preserving its original content. Using human evaluation is ideal but costly, as is common in other natural language processing (NLP) tasks. In this paper, we examine both set of existing and novel metrics from broader NLP tasks for TST evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T07:39:17Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Token Prediction as Implicit Classification to Identify LLM-Generated Text [37.89852204279844]
  This paper introduces a novel approach for identifying the possible large language models (LLMs) involved in text generation. Instead of adding an additional classification layer to a base LM, we reframe the classification task as a next-token prediction task. We utilize the Text-to-Text Transfer Transformer (T5) model as the backbone for our experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T06:33:52Z)
• LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Models [71.21409522341482]
  Uncertainty estimation (UE) methods are one path to safer, more responsible, and more effective use of large language models (LLMs) We introduce LM-Polygraph, a framework with implementations of a battery of state-of-the-art UE methods for LLMs in text generation tasks, with unified program interfaces in Python. It introduces an extendable benchmark for consistent evaluation of UE techniques by researchers, and a demo web application that enriches the standard chat dialog with confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T15:08:59Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• Text Style Transfer Evaluation Using Large Language Models [24.64611983641699]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown their capacity to match and even exceed average human performance. We compare the results of different LLMs in TST using multiple input prompts. Our findings highlight a strong correlation between (even zero-shot) prompting and human evaluation, showing that LLMs often outperform traditional automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-25T13:07:33Z)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)

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.