From Model-centered to Human-Centered: Revision Distance as a Metric for Text Evaluation in LLMs-based Applications

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07108v2
• Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:36:27 GMT
• Title: From Model-centered to Human-Centered: Revision Distance as a Metric for Text Evaluation in LLMs-based Applications
• Authors: Yongqiang Ma, Lizhi Qing, Jiawei Liu, Yangyang Kang, Yue Zhang, Wei Lu, Xiaozhong Liu, Qikai Cheng,
• Abstract summary: evaluating large language models (LLMs) is fundamental, particularly in the context of practical applications. Our study shifts the focus from model-centered to human-centered evaluation in the context of AI-powered writing assistance applications.
• Score: 26.857056013032263
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is fundamental, particularly in the context of practical applications. Conventional evaluation methods, typically designed primarily for LLM development, yield numerical scores that ignore the user experience. Therefore, our study shifts the focus from model-centered to human-centered evaluation in the context of AI-powered writing assistance applications. Our proposed metric, termed ``Revision Distance,'' utilizes LLMs to suggest revision edits that mimic the human writing process. It is determined by counting the revision edits generated by LLMs. Benefiting from the generated revision edit details, our metric can provide a self-explained text evaluation result in a human-understandable manner beyond the context-independent score. Our results show that for the easy-writing task, ``Revision Distance'' is consistent with established metrics (ROUGE, Bert-score, and GPT-score), but offers more insightful, detailed feedback and better distinguishes between texts. Moreover, in the context of challenging academic writing tasks, our metric still delivers reliable evaluations where other metrics tend to struggle. Furthermore, our metric also holds significant potential for scenarios lacking reference texts.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluator for Grammatical Error Correction [14.822205658480813]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been reported to outperform existing automatic evaluation metrics in some tasks. This study investigates the performance of LLMs in grammatical error correction (GEC) evaluation by employing prompts inspired by previous research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T09:43:15Z)
• FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction [85.26780391682894]
  We propose Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction (FENICE) FENICE leverages an NLI-based alignment between information in the source document and a set of atomic facts, referred to as claims, extracted from the summary. Our metric sets a new state of the art on AGGREFACT, the de-facto benchmark for factuality evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T17:57:18Z)
• SemScore: Automated Evaluation of Instruction-Tuned LLMs based on Semantic Textual Similarity [3.3162484539136416]
  We propose a simple but remarkably effective evaluation metric called SemScore. We compare model outputs to gold target responses using semantic textual similarity (STS) We find that our proposed SemScore metric outperforms all other, in many cases more complex, evaluation metrics in terms of correlation to human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T14:52:50Z)
• 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)
• ALLURE: Auditing and Improving LLM-based Evaluation of Text using Iterative In-Context-Learning [7.457517083017178]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used for evaluation of text generated by humans and AI alike. Despite their utility, LLMs exhibit distinct failure modes, necessitating a thorough audit and improvement of their text evaluation capabilities. Here we introduce ALLURE, a systematic approach to Auditing Large Language Models Understanding and Reasoning Errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-24T17:15:58Z)
• DecompEval: Evaluating Generated Texts as Unsupervised Decomposed Question Answering [95.89707479748161]
  Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. We propose a metric called DecompEval that formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task. We decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T16:16:51Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)

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.