Defining and Detecting Vulnerability in Human Evaluation Guidelines: A Preliminary Study Towards Reliable NLG Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07935v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 06:59:31 GMT
• Title: Defining and Detecting Vulnerability in Human Evaluation Guidelines: A Preliminary Study Towards Reliable NLG Evaluation
• Authors: Jie Ruan, Wenqing Wang, Xiaojun Wan,
• Abstract summary: Only 29.84% of recent papers involving human evaluation at top conferences release their evaluation guidelines. We collect annotations of guidelines extracted from existing papers as well as generated via Large Language Models. We introduce a taxonomy of eight vulnerabilities and formulate a principle for composing evaluation guidelines.
• Score: 43.21663407946184
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Human evaluation serves as the gold standard for assessing the quality of Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems. Nevertheless, the evaluation guideline, as a pivotal element ensuring reliable and reproducible human assessment, has received limited attention.Our investigation revealed that only 29.84% of recent papers involving human evaluation at top conferences release their evaluation guidelines, with vulnerabilities identified in 77.09% of these guidelines. Unreliable evaluation guidelines can yield inaccurate assessment outcomes, potentially impeding the advancement of NLG in the right direction. To address these challenges, we take an initial step towards reliable evaluation guidelines and propose the first human evaluation guideline dataset by collecting annotations of guidelines extracted from existing papers as well as generated via Large Language Models (LLMs). We then introduce a taxonomy of eight vulnerabilities and formulate a principle for composing evaluation guidelines. Furthermore, a method for detecting guideline vulnerabilities has been explored using LLMs, and we offer a set of recommendations to enhance reliability in human evaluation. The annotated human evaluation guideline dataset and code for the vulnerability detection method are publicly available online.

Related papers

• Themis: A Reference-free NLG Evaluation Language Model with Flexibility and Interpretability [39.12792986841385]
  In this paper, we construct a large-scale NLG evaluation corpus NLG-Eval with annotations from both human and GPT-4. We also propose an LLM dedicated to NLG evaluation, which has been trained with our designed multi-perspective consistency verification and rating-oriented preference alignment methods. Themis exhibits superior evaluation performance on various NLG tasks, simultaneously generalizing well to unseen tasks and surpassing other evaluation models, including GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:04:29Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• Unveiling the Achilles' Heel of NLG Evaluators: A Unified Adversarial Framework Driven by Large Language Models [52.368110271614285]
  We introduce AdvEval, a novel black-box adversarial framework against NLG evaluators. AdvEval is specially tailored to generate data that yield strong disagreements between human and victim evaluators. We conduct experiments on 12 victim evaluators and 11 NLG datasets, spanning tasks including dialogue, summarization, and question evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T14:48:15Z)
• A Framework for Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Healthcare Derived from Literature Review [11.28580626017631]
  We highlight a notable need for a standardized and consistent human evaluation approach. We propose a comprehensive and practical framework for human evaluation of large language models (LLMs) This framework aims to improve the reliability, generalizability, and applicability of human evaluation of LLMs in different healthcare applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-04T04:16:07Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• Human-in-the-loop Evaluation for Early Misinformation Detection: A Case Study of COVID-19 Treatments [19.954539961446496]
  We present a human-in-the-loop evaluation framework for fact-checking novel misinformation claims and identifying social media messages that support them. Our approach extracts check-worthy claims, which are aggregated and ranked for review. Stance classifiers are then used to identify tweets supporting novel misinformation claims, which are further reviewed to determine whether they violate relevant policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T18:11:10Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
• Interpretable Off-Policy Evaluation in Reinforcement Learning by Highlighting Influential Transitions [48.91284724066349]
  Off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning offers the chance of using observational data to improve future outcomes in domains such as healthcare and education. Traditional measures such as confidence intervals may be insufficient due to noise, limited data and confounding. We develop a method that could serve as a hybrid human-AI system, to enable human experts to analyze the validity of policy evaluation estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T00:26:43Z)

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.