ACORN: Aspect-wise Commonsense Reasoning Explanation Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04818v2
• Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 02:44:11 GMT
• Title: ACORN: Aspect-wise Commonsense Reasoning Explanation Evaluation
• Authors: Ana Brassard, Benjamin Heinzerling, Keito Kudo, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Kentaro Inui,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) present an appealing alternative due to their potential for consistency, scalability, and cost-efficiency. We present ACORN, a new dataset of 3,500 free-text explanations and aspect-wise quality ratings.
• Score: 29.718851249656172
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the quality of free-text explanations is a multifaceted, subjective, and labor-intensive task. Large language models (LLMs) present an appealing alternative due to their potential for consistency, scalability, and cost-efficiency. In this work, we present ACORN, a new dataset of 3,500 free-text explanations and aspect-wise quality ratings, and use it to evaluate how LLMs rate explanations. We observed that larger models outputted labels that maintained or increased the inter-annotator agreement, suggesting that they are within the expected variance between human raters. However, their correlation with majority-voted human ratings varied across different quality aspects, indicating that they are not a complete replacement. In turn, using LLMs as a supplement to a smaller group of human raters in some cases improved the correlation with the original majority labels. However, the effect was limited to cases where human raters were scarce, and an additional human rater had a more pronounced effect in all cases. Overall, we recommend against using LLMs as a complete replacement for human raters but encourage using them in configurations that end with targeted human involvement. Data available here: https://github.com/a-brassard/ACORN

Related papers

• Rel-A.I.: An Interaction-Centered Approach To Measuring Human-LM Reliance [73.19687314438133]
  We study how reliance is affected by contextual features of an interaction. We find that contextual characteristics significantly affect human reliance behavior. Our results show that calibration and language quality alone are insufficient in evaluating the risks of human-LM interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T18:00:05Z)
• Scaling Data Diversity for Fine-Tuning Language Models in Human Alignment [84.32768080422349]
  Alignment with human preference prevents large language models from generating misleading or toxic content. We propose a new formulation of prompt diversity, implying a linear correlation with the final performance of LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:08:55Z)
• Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences [80.55271307662365]
  We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. We show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T14:34:31Z)
• CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
  We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z)
• Peering Through Preferences: Unraveling Feedback Acquisition for Aligning Large Language Models [32.843361525236965]
  We analyze the effect of sparse feedback on the alignment and evaluation of large language models. We find that preferences from ratings and rankings significantly disagree 60% for both human and AI annotators. Our findings shed light on critical gaps in methods for evaluating the real-world utility of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T07:35:32Z)
• Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training [108.25635150124539]
  Language models (LMs) often exhibit undesirable text generation behaviors, including generating false, toxic, or irrelevant outputs. We introduce Fine-Grained RLHF, a framework that enables training and learning from reward functions that are fine-grained in two respects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T17:11:37Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• DecipherPref: Analyzing Influential Factors in Human Preference Judgments via GPT-4 [28.661237196238996]
  We conduct an in-depth examination of a collection of pairwise human judgments released by OpenAI. We find that the most favored factors vary across tasks and genres, whereas the least favored factors tend to be consistent. Our findings have implications on the construction of balanced datasets in human preference evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:13:15Z)

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.