HumanRankEval: Automatic Evaluation of LMs as Conversational Assistants

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.09186v1
• Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:47:26 GMT
• Title: HumanRankEval: Automatic Evaluation of LMs as Conversational Assistants
• Authors: Milan Gritta, Gerasimos Lampouras, Ignacio Iacobacci,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel automatic evaluation task: HumanRankEval. It consists of a large-scale, diverse and high-quality set of questions, each with several answers authored and scored by humans. We show that HRE correlates well with human judgements and is particularly responsive to model changes following instruction-tuning.
• Score: 16.932009464531742
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language models (LMs) as conversational assistants recently became popular tools that help people accomplish a variety of tasks. These typically result from adapting LMs pretrained on general domain text sequences through further instruction-tuning and possibly preference optimisation methods. The evaluation of such LMs would ideally be performed using human judgement, however, this is not scalable. On the other hand, automatic evaluation featuring auxiliary LMs as judges and/or knowledge-based tasks is scalable but struggles with assessing conversational ability and adherence to instructions. To help accelerate the development of LMs as conversational assistants, we propose a novel automatic evaluation task: HumanRankEval (HRE). It consists of a large-scale, diverse and high-quality set of questions, each with several answers authored and scored by humans. To perform evaluation, HRE ranks these answers based on their log-likelihood under the LM's distribution, and subsequently calculates their correlation with the corresponding human rankings. We support HRE's efficacy by investigating how efficiently it separates pretrained and instruction-tuned LMs of various sizes. We show that HRE correlates well with human judgements and is particularly responsive to model changes following instruction-tuning.

Related papers

• 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)
• MIRROR: A Novel Approach for the Automated Evaluation of Open-Ended Question Generation [0.4857223913212445]
  We propose a novel system, MIRROR, to automate the evaluation process for questions generated by automated question generation systems. We observed that the scores of human evaluation metrics, namely relevance, appropriateness, novelty, complexity, and grammaticality, improved when using the feedback-based approach called MIRROR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T12:24:42Z)
• The Future of Learning in the Age of Generative AI: Automated Question Generation and Assessment with Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) This chapter explores the transformative potential of LLMs in automated question generation and answer assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T15:54:53Z)
• Psychometric Alignment: Capturing Human Knowledge Distributions via Language Models [41.324679754114165]
  Language models (LMs) are increasingly used to simulate human-like responses in scenarios where accurately mimicking a population's behavior can guide decision-making. We introduce "psychometric alignment," a metric that measures the extent to which LMs reflect human knowledge distribution. We find significant misalignment between LMs and human populations, though using persona-based prompts can improve alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T14:02:59Z)
• 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)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in assessing the quality of generated natural language. LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Beyond Static Evaluation: A Dynamic Approach to Assessing AI Assistants' API Invocation Capabilities [48.922660354417204]
  We propose Automated Dynamic Evaluation (AutoDE) to assess an assistant's API call capability without human involvement. In our framework, we endeavor to closely mirror genuine human conversation patterns in human-machine interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:34:12Z)
• How Reliable Are Automatic Evaluation Methods for Instruction-Tuned LLMs? [3.1706553206969925]
  We perform a meta-evaluation of such methods and assess their reliability across a broad range of tasks. We observe that while automatic evaluation methods can approximate human ratings under specific conditions, their validity is highly context-dependent. Our findings enhance the understanding of how automatic methods should be applied and interpreted when developing and evaluating instruction-tuned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T15:48:33Z)
• Towards LLM-based Autograding for Short Textual Answers [4.853810201626855]
  This manuscript is an evaluation of a large language model for the purpose of autograding. Our findings suggest that while "out-of-the-box" LLMs provide a valuable tool, their readiness for independent automated grading remains a work in progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-09T22:25:56Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.