Exploring Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Tetun

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07299v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 14:28:24 GMT
• Title: Exploring Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Tetun
• Authors: Gabriel de Jesus, Sérgio Nunes,
• Abstract summary: This paper explores the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs) to automate relevance assessments. LLMs are employed to automate relevance judgment tasks, by providing a series of query-document pairs in Tetun as the input text. Our investigation reveals results that align closely with those reported in studies of high-resource languages.
• Score: 0.03683202928838613
• License:
• Abstract: The Cranfield paradigm has served as a foundational approach for developing test collections, with relevance judgments typically conducted by human assessors. However, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has introduced new possibilities for automating these tasks. This paper explores the feasibility of using LLMs to automate relevance assessments, particularly within the context of low-resource languages. In our study, LLMs are employed to automate relevance judgment tasks, by providing a series of query-document pairs in Tetun as the input text. The models are tasked with assigning relevance scores to each pair, where these scores are then compared to those from human annotators to evaluate the inter-annotator agreement levels. Our investigation reveals results that align closely with those reported in studies of high-resource languages.

Related papers

• P-MMEval: A Parallel Multilingual Multitask Benchmark for Consistent Evaluation of LLMs [84.24644520272835]
  Large language models (LLMs) showcase varied multilingual capabilities across tasks like translation, code generation, and reasoning. Previous assessments often limited their scope to fundamental natural language processing (NLP) or isolated capability-specific tasks. We present a pipeline for selecting available and reasonable benchmarks from massive ones, addressing the oversight in previous work regarding the utility of these benchmarks. We introduce P-MMEval, a large-scale benchmark covering effective fundamental and capability-specialized datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T01:29:36Z)
• Towards More Effective Table-to-Text Generation: Assessing In-Context Learning and Self-Evaluation with Open-Source Models [0.0]
  This study explores the effectiveness of various in-context learning strategies in language models (LMs) across benchmark datasets. We employ a large language model (LLM) self-evaluation approach using chain-of-thought reasoning and assess its correlation with human-aligned metrics like BERTScore. Our findings highlight the significant impact of examples in improving table-to-text generation and suggest that, while LLM self-evaluation has potential, its current alignment with human judgment could be enhanced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T09:19:42Z)
• Disce aut Deficere: Evaluating LLMs Proficiency on the INVALSI Italian Benchmark [12.729687989535359]
  evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in languages other than English is crucial for ensuring their linguistic versatility, cultural relevance, and applicability in diverse global contexts. We tackle this challenge by introducing a structured benchmark using the INVALSI tests, a set of well-established assessments designed to measure educational competencies across Italy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T13:20:08Z)
• MINERS: Multilingual Language Models as Semantic Retrievers [23.686762008696547]
  This paper introduces the MINERS, a benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of multilingual language models in semantic retrieval tasks. We create a comprehensive framework to assess the robustness of LMs in retrieving samples across over 200 diverse languages. Our results demonstrate that by solely retrieving semantically similar embeddings yields performance competitive with state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T16:26:18Z)
• Long-Span Question-Answering: Automatic Question Generation and QA-System Ranking via Side-by-Side Evaluation [65.16137964758612]
  We explore the use of long-context capabilities in large language models to create synthetic reading comprehension data from entire books. Our objective is to test the capabilities of LLMs to analyze, understand, and reason over problems that require a detailed comprehension of long spans of text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T20:15:10Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)
• SLUE: New Benchmark Tasks for Spoken Language Understanding Evaluation on Natural Speech [44.68649535280397]
  We propose a suite of benchmark tasks for Spoken Language Understanding Evaluation (SLUE) SLUE consists of limited-size labeled training sets and corresponding evaluation sets. We present the first phase of the SLUE benchmark suite, consisting of named entity recognition, sentiment analysis, and ASR on the corresponding datasets. We provide new transcriptions and annotations on subsets of the VoxCeleb and VoxPopuli datasets, evaluation metrics and results for baseline models, and an open-source toolkit to reproduce the baselines and evaluate new models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-19T18:59:23Z)

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.