Large Language Models as Evaluators for Recommendation Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03248v2
• Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 04:31:37 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models as Evaluators for Recommendation Explanations
• Authors: Xiaoyu Zhang, Yishan Li, Jiayin Wang, Bowen Sun, Weizhi Ma, Peijie Sun, Min Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether LLMs can serve as evaluators of recommendation explanations. We design and apply a 3-level meta evaluation strategy to measure the correlation between evaluator labels and the ground truth provided by users. Our study verifies that utilizing LLMs as evaluators can be an accurate, reproducible and cost-effective solution for evaluating recommendation explanation texts.
• Score: 23.938202791437337
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The explainability of recommender systems has attracted significant attention in academia and industry. Many efforts have been made for explainable recommendations, yet evaluating the quality of the explanations remains a challenging and unresolved issue. In recent years, leveraging LLMs as evaluators presents a promising avenue in Natural Language Processing tasks (e.g., sentiment classification, information extraction), as they perform strong capabilities in instruction following and common-sense reasoning. However, evaluating recommendation explanatory texts is different from these NLG tasks, as its criteria are related to human perceptions and are usually subjective. In this paper, we investigate whether LLMs can serve as evaluators of recommendation explanations. To answer the question, we utilize real user feedback on explanations given from previous work and additionally collect third-party annotations and LLM evaluations. We design and apply a 3-level meta evaluation strategy to measure the correlation between evaluator labels and the ground truth provided by users. Our experiments reveal that LLMs, such as GPT4, can provide comparable evaluations with appropriate prompts and settings. We also provide further insights into combining human labels with the LLM evaluation process and utilizing ensembles of multiple heterogeneous LLM evaluators to enhance the accuracy and stability of evaluations. Our study verifies that utilizing LLMs as evaluators can be an accurate, reproducible and cost-effective solution for evaluating recommendation explanation texts. Our code is available at https://github.com/Xiaoyu-SZ/LLMasEvaluator.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• Large Language Model as an Assignment Evaluator: Insights, Feedback, and Challenges in a 1000+ Student Course [49.296957552006226]
  Using large language models (LLMs) for automatic evaluation has become an important evaluation method in NLP research. This report shares how we use GPT-4 as an automatic assignment evaluator in a university course with 1,028 students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T00:17:24Z)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
  There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models. Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses. There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z)
• 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.