Language Models can Evaluate Themselves via Probability Discrepancy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10516v2
• Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:56:14 GMT
• Title: Language Models can Evaluate Themselves via Probability Discrepancy
• Authors: Tingyu Xia, Bowen Yu, Yuan Wu, Yi Chang, Chang Zhou,
• Abstract summary: We propose a new self-evaluation method ProbDiff for assessing the efficacy of various Large Language Models (LLMs) It uniquely utilizes the LLMs being tested to compute the probability discrepancy between the initial response and its revised versions. Our findings reveal that ProbDiff achieves results on par with those obtained from evaluations based on GPT-4.
• Score: 38.54454263880133
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we initiate our discussion by demonstrating how Large Language Models (LLMs), when tasked with responding to queries, display a more even probability distribution in their answers if they are more adept, as opposed to their less skilled counterparts. Expanding on this foundational insight, we propose a new self-evaluation method ProbDiff for assessing the efficacy of various LLMs. This approach obviates the necessity for an additional evaluation model or the dependence on external, proprietary models like GPT-4 for judgment. It uniquely utilizes the LLMs being tested to compute the probability discrepancy between the initial response and its revised versions. A higher discrepancy for a given query between two LLMs indicates a relatively weaker capability. Our findings reveal that ProbDiff achieves results on par with those obtained from evaluations based on GPT-4, spanning a range of scenarios that include natural language generation (NLG) tasks such as translation, summarization, and our proposed Xiaohongshu blog writing task, and benchmarks for LLM evaluation like AlignBench, MT-Bench, and AlpacaEval, across LLMs of varying magnitudes.

Related papers

• Do Large Language Models Exhibit Cognitive Dissonance? Studying the Difference Between Revealed Beliefs and Stated Answers [13.644277507363036]
  We investigate whether these abilities are measurable outside of tailored prompting and MCQ. Our findings suggest that the Revealed Belief of LLMs significantly differs from their Stated Answer. As text completion is at the core of LLMs, these results suggest that common evaluation methods may only provide a partial picture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T08:56:35Z)
• UBENCH: Benchmarking Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Multiple Choice Questions [10.28688988951815]
  UBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating large language models. It includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. We also evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:50:38Z)
• Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help LLMs as Evaluators? A Preliminary Empirical Study [14.906150451947443]
  We study two many-shot ICL prompts for helping evaluators to mitigate the potential biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) Based on the designed prompts, we investigate the impact of scaling the number of in-context examples on the consistency and quality of the evaluation results. Experimental results show that advanced LLMs, such as GPT-4o, perform better in the many-shot regime than in the zero-shot regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T15:11:58Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• 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)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)

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.