LLMs for Generating and Evaluating Counterfactuals: A Comprehensive Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00722v2
• Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:49:33 GMT
• Title: LLMs for Generating and Evaluating Counterfactuals: A Comprehensive Study
• Authors: Van Bach Nguyen, Paul Youssef, Christin Seifert, Jörg Schlötterer,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in NLP tasks, but their efficacy in generating high-quality Counterfactuals (CFs) remains uncertain. We compare several common LLMs and evaluate their CFs, assessing both intrinsic metrics, and the impact of these CFs on data augmentation. Our results show that LLMs generate fluent CFs, but struggle to keep the induced changes minimal.
• Score: 2.7731115923558143
• License:
• Abstract: As NLP models become more complex, understanding their decisions becomes more crucial. Counterfactuals (CFs), where minimal changes to inputs flip a model's prediction, offer a way to explain these models. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in NLP tasks, their efficacy in generating high-quality CFs remains uncertain. This work fills this gap by investigating how well LLMs generate CFs for two NLU tasks. We conduct a comprehensive comparison of several common LLMs, and evaluate their CFs, assessing both intrinsic metrics, and the impact of these CFs on data augmentation. Moreover, we analyze differences between human and LLM-generated CFs, providing insights for future research directions. Our results show that LLMs generate fluent CFs, but struggle to keep the induced changes minimal. Generating CFs for Sentiment Analysis (SA) is less challenging than NLI where LLMs show weaknesses in generating CFs that flip the original label. This also reflects on the data augmentation performance, where we observe a large gap between augmenting with human and LLMs CFs. Furthermore, we evaluate LLMs' ability to assess CFs in a mislabelled data setting, and show that they have a strong bias towards agreeing with the provided labels. GPT4 is more robust against this bias and its scores correlate well with automatic metrics. Our findings reveal several limitations and point to potential future work directions.

Related papers

• Training Language Models to Critique With Multi-agent Feedback [102.42751835338233]
  MultiCritique pipeline improves critique ability of LLMs by utilizing multi-agent feedback. pipeline aggregates high-quality critiques from multiple agents instead of a single model. Our fine-tuned 7B model significantly surpasses other advanced 7B-13B open-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T04:57:45Z)
• FacLens: Transferable Probe for Foreseeing Non-Factuality in Large Language Models [34.985758097434946]
  This work studies non-factuality prediction (NFP), aiming to predict whether an LLM will generate a non-factual response to a question. We propose a lightweight NFP model named Factuality Lens (FacLens), which effectively probes hidden representations of questions for the NFP task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-08T02:59:52Z)
• Revisiting Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Model Tuning [79.70722658190097]
  Catastrophic Forgetting (CF) means models forgetting previously acquired knowledge when learning new data. This paper takes the first step to reveal the direct link between the flatness of the model loss landscape and the extent of CF in the field of large language models. Experiments on three widely-used fine-tuning datasets, spanning different model scales, demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in alleviating CF.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T11:09:13Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• Comprehensive Reassessment of Large-Scale Evaluation Outcomes in LLMs: A Multifaceted Statistical Approach [64.42462708687921]
  Evaluations have revealed that factors such as scaling, training types, architectures and other factors profoundly impact the performance of LLMs. Our study embarks on a thorough re-examination of these LLMs, targeting the inadequacies in current evaluation methods. This includes the application of ANOVA, Tukey HSD tests, GAMM, and clustering technique.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T14:47:35Z)
• CogBench: a large language model walks into a psychology lab [12.981407327149679]
  This paper introduces CogBench, a benchmark that includes ten behavioral metrics derived from seven cognitive psychology experiments. We apply CogBench to 35 large language models (LLMs) and analyze this data using statistical multilevel modeling techniques. We find that open-source models are less risk-prone than proprietary models and that fine-tuning on code does not necessarily enhance LLMs' behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T10:43:54Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Interpreting Learned Feedback Patterns in Large Language Models [11.601799960959214]
  We train probes to estimate the feedback signal implicit in the activations of a fine-tuned language model. We compare these estimates to the true feedback, measuring how accurate the LFPs are to the fine-tuning feedback. We validate our probes by comparing the neural features they correlate with positive feedback inputs against the features GPT-4 describes and classifies as related to LFPs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T09:36:03Z)
• Faithful Explanations of Black-box NLP Models Using LLM-generated Counterfactuals [67.64770842323966]
  Causal explanations of predictions of NLP systems are essential to ensure safety and establish trust. Existing methods often fall short of explaining model predictions effectively or efficiently. We propose two approaches for counterfactual (CF) approximation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T07:31:04Z)
• Do LLMs Understand User Preferences? Evaluating LLMs On User Rating Prediction [15.793007223588672]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generalizing to new tasks in a zero-shot or few-shot manner. We investigate various LLMs in different sizes, ranging from 250M to 540B parameters and evaluate their performance in zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T21:43:42Z)

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.