GRAMMAR: Grounded and Modular Methodology for Assessment of Closed-Domain Retrieval-Augmented Language Model
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19232v5
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:16:30 GMT
- Title: GRAMMAR: Grounded and Modular Methodology for Assessment of Closed-Domain Retrieval-Augmented Language Model
- Authors: Xinzhe Li, Ming Liu, Shang Gao,
- Abstract summary: Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG) systems have been actively studied and deployed across various industries to query on domain-specific knowledge base.
evaluating these systems presents unique challenges due to the scarcity of domain-specific queries and corresponding ground truths.
We introduce GRAMMAR, an evaluation framework comprising two key elements: 1) a data generation process that leverages relational databases and LLMs to efficiently produce scalable query-answer pairs for evaluation; and 2) an evaluation framework that differentiates knowledge gaps from robustness and enables the identification of defective modules.
- Score: 6.106667677504318
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Retrieval-augmented Generation (RAG) systems have been actively studied and deployed across various industries to query on domain-specific knowledge base. However, evaluating these systems presents unique challenges due to the scarcity of domain-specific queries and corresponding ground truths, as well as a lack of systematic approaches to diagnosing the cause of failure cases -- whether they stem from knowledge deficits or issues related to system robustness. To address these challenges, we introduce GRAMMAR (GRounded And Modular Methodology for Assessment of RAG), an evaluation framework comprising two key elements: 1) a data generation process that leverages relational databases and LLMs to efficiently produce scalable query-answer pairs for evaluation. This method facilitates the separation of query logic from linguistic variations, enabling the testing of hypotheses related to non-robust textual forms; and 2) an evaluation framework that differentiates knowledge gaps from robustness and enables the identification of defective modules. Our empirical results underscore the limitations of current reference-free evaluation approaches and the reliability of GRAMMAR to accurately identify model vulnerabilities. For implementation details, refer to our GitHub repository: https://github.com/xinzhel/grammar.
Related papers
- 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) - DEE: Dual-stage Explainable Evaluation Method for Text Generation [21.37963672432829]
We introduce DEE, a Dual-stage Explainable Evaluation method for estimating the quality of text generation.
Built upon Llama 2, DEE follows a dual-stage principle guided by stage-specific instructions to perform efficient identification of errors in generated texts.
The dataset concerns newly emerged issues like hallucination and toxicity, thereby broadening the scope of DEE's evaluation criteria.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-18T06:30:41Z) - KIEval: A Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models [53.84677081899392]
KIEval is a Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation framework for large language models.
It incorporates an LLM-powered "interactor" role for the first time to accomplish a dynamic contamination-resilient evaluation.
Extensive experiments on seven leading LLMs across five datasets validate KIEval's effectiveness and generalization.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-23T01:30:39Z) - HGOT: Hierarchical Graph of Thoughts for Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning in Factuality Evaluation [20.178644251662316]
We introduce the hierarchical graph of thoughts (HGOT) to enhance the retrieval of pertinent passages during in-context learning.
The framework employs the divide-and-conquer strategy to break down complex queries into manageable sub-queries.
It refines self-consistency majority voting for answer selection, which incorporates the recently proposed citation recall and precision metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-14T18:41:19Z) - Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language
Models [52.15056231665816]
We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs)
We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence.
We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z) - GLUECons: A Generic Benchmark for Learning Under Constraints [102.78051169725455]
In this work, we create a benchmark that is a collection of nine tasks in the domains of natural language processing and computer vision.
We model external knowledge as constraints, specify the sources of the constraints for each task, and implement various models that use these constraints.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-16T16:45:36Z) - The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable
Estimators with MetaQuantus [10.135749005469686]
One of the unsolved challenges in the field of Explainable AI (XAI) is determining how to most reliably estimate the quality of an explanation method.
We address this issue through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI.
Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-14T18:59:02Z) - A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image
Classification [0.491574468325115]
We present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions.
The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-28T12:25:27Z) - Shortcomings of Question Answering Based Factuality Frameworks for Error
Localization [51.01957350348377]
We show that question answering (QA)-based factuality metrics fail to correctly identify error spans in generated summaries.
Our analysis reveals a major reason for such poor localization: questions generated by the QG module often inherit errors from non-factual summaries which are then propagated further into downstream modules.
Our experiments conclusively show that there exist fundamental issues with localization using the QA framework which cannot be fixed solely by stronger QA and QG models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-13T05:23:38Z) - GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics.
Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation.
It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
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.