CheckEval: Robust Evaluation Framework using Large Language Model via Checklist

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18771v1
• Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:20:39 GMT
• Title: CheckEval: Robust Evaluation Framework using Large Language Model via Checklist
• Authors: Yukyung Lee, Joonghoon Kim, Jaehee Kim, Hyowon Cho, Pilsung Kang,
• Abstract summary: We introduce CheckEval, a novel evaluation framework using Large Language Models. CheckEval addresses the challenges of ambiguity and inconsistency in current evaluation methods.
• Score: 6.713203569074019
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce CheckEval, a novel evaluation framework using Large Language Models, addressing the challenges of ambiguity and inconsistency in current evaluation methods. CheckEval addresses these challenges by dividing evaluation criteria into detailed sub-aspects and constructing a checklist of Boolean questions for each, simplifying the evaluation. This approach not only renders the process more interpretable but also significantly enhances the robustness and reliability of results by focusing on specific evaluation dimensions. Validated through a focused case study using the SummEval benchmark, CheckEval indicates a strong correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, it demonstrates a highly consistent Inter-Annotator Agreement. These findings highlight the effectiveness of CheckEval for objective, flexible, and precise evaluations. By offering a customizable and interactive framework, CheckEval sets a new standard for the use of LLMs in evaluation, responding to the evolving needs of the field and establishing a clear method for future LLM-based evaluation.

Related papers

• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In particular, we show that pairwise evaluation protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• ContrastScore: Towards Higher Quality, Less Biased, More Efficient Evaluation Metrics with Contrastive Evaluation [38.49478115331574]
  We introduce ContrastScore, a contrastive evaluation metric designed to enable higher-quality, less biased, and more efficient assessment of generated text. Experimental results show that ContrastScore consistently achieves stronger correlation with human judgments than both single-model and ensemble-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T20:11:45Z)
• Judge as A Judge: Improving the Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation through the Judge-Consistency of Large Language Models [68.92020689188887]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven its effectiveness in alleviating hallucinations for Large Language Models (LLMs) Existing automated evaluation metrics cannot fairly evaluate the outputs generated by RAG models during training and evaluation. This paper introduces the Judge-Consistency (ConsJudge) method, which aims to enhance LLMs to generate more accurate evaluations for RAG models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T04:50:43Z)
• Unveiling Context-Aware Criteria in Self-Assessing LLMs [28.156979106994537]
  We propose a novel Self-Assessing LLM framework that integrates Context-Aware Criteria (SALC) with dynamic knowledge tailored to each evaluation instance. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing baseline evaluation frameworks. Our method also exhibits a improvement in LC Win-Rate in AlpacaEval2 leaderboard up to a 12% when employed for preference data generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T21:18:49Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• 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)
• RevisEval: Improving LLM-as-a-Judge via Response-Adapted References [95.29800580588592]
  RevisEval is a novel text generation evaluation paradigm via the response-adapted references. RevisEval is driven by the key observation that an ideal reference should maintain the necessary relevance to the response to be evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T16:50:47Z)
• Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments [2.1370543868467275]
  This follow-up paper explores methods to align Large Language Models evaluator preferences with human evaluations. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T09:26:40Z)
• Improving the Validity and Practical Usefulness of AI/ML Evaluations Using an Estimands Framework [2.4861619769660637]
  We propose an estimands framework adapted from international clinical trials guidelines. This framework provides a systematic structure for inference and reporting in evaluations. We demonstrate how the framework can help uncover underlying issues, their causes, and potential solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T18:47:37Z)
• FreeEval: A Modular Framework for Trustworthy and Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models [36.273451767886726]
  FreeEval is a modular and scalable framework crafted to enable trustworthy and efficient automatic evaluations of large language models. FreeEval's unified abstractions simplify the integration and improve the transparency of diverse evaluation methodologies. The framework integrates meta-evaluation techniques like human evaluation and data contamination detection, which, along with dynamic evaluation modules, enhance the fairness of the evaluation outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T04:17:51Z)
• 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)
• HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition [92.17397504834825]
  HD-Eval is a framework that iteratively aligns large language models evaluators with human preference. HD-Eval inherits the essence from the evaluation mindset of human experts and enhances the alignment of LLM-based evaluators. Extensive experiments on three evaluation domains demonstrate the superiority of HD-Eval in further aligning state-of-the-art evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T08:01:32Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• BatchEval: Towards Human-like Text Evaluation [12.187982795098623]
  BatchEval is a paradigm that conducts batch-wise evaluation iteratively to alleviate the above problems. We show that BatchEval outperforms state-of-the-art methods by 10.5% on Pearson correlations with only 64% API cost on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-31T09:34:51Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• C-PMI: Conditional Pointwise Mutual Information for Turn-level Dialogue Evaluation [68.59356746305255]
  We propose a novel model-agnostic approach to measure the turn-level interaction between the system and the user. Our approach significantly improves the correlation with human judgment compared with existing evaluation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T06:58:03Z)
• Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
  There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models. Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses. There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z)
• Investigating Crowdsourcing Protocols for Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Summaries [59.27273928454995]
  Current pre-trained models applied to summarization are prone to factual inconsistencies which misrepresent the source text or introduce extraneous information. We create a crowdsourcing evaluation framework for factual consistency using the rating-based Likert scale and ranking-based Best-Worst Scaling protocols. We find that ranking-based protocols offer a more reliable measure of summary quality across datasets, while the reliability of Likert ratings depends on the target dataset and the evaluation design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-19T19:05:00Z)

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.