The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11096v2
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:04:09 GMT
- Title: The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models
- Authors: Bolei Ma, Xinpeng Wang, Tiancheng Hu, Anna-Carolina Haensch, Michael A. Hedderich, Barbara Plank, Frauke Kreuter,
- Abstract summary: This paper provides an overview of recent works on the evaluation of Attitudes, Opinions, Values (AOV) in Large Language Models (LLMs)
By doing so, we address the potential and challenges with respect to understanding the model, human-AI alignment, and downstream application in social sciences.
- Score: 28.743404185915697
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked wide interest in validating and comprehending the human-like cognitive-behavioral traits LLMs may have. These cognitive-behavioral traits include typically Attitudes, Opinions, Values (AOV). However, measuring AOV embedded within LLMs remains opaque, and different evaluation methods may yield different results. This has led to a lack of clarity on how different studies are related to each other and how they can be interpreted. This paper aims to bridge this gap by providing an overview of recent works on the evaluation of AOV in LLMs. Moreover, we survey related approaches in different stages of the evaluation pipeline in these works. By doing so, we address the potential and challenges with respect to understanding the model, human-AI alignment, and downstream application in social sciences. Finally, we provide practical insights into evaluation methods, model enhancement, and interdisciplinary collaboration, thereby contributing to the evolving landscape of evaluating AOV in LLMs.
Related papers
- 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) - Comprehensive Reassessment of Large-Scale Evaluation Outcomes in LLMs: A Multifaceted Statistical Approach [64.42462708687921]
Evaluations have revealed that factors such as scaling, training types, architectures and other factors profoundly impact the performance of LLMs.
Our study embarks on a thorough re-examination of these LLMs, targeting the inadequacies in current evaluation methods.
This includes the application of ANOVA, Tukey HSD tests, GAMM, and clustering technique.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-22T14:47:35Z) - The Generative AI Paradox on Evaluation: What It Can Solve, It May Not
Evaluate [17.77014177096838]
This paper explores the assumption that Large Language Models (LLMs) skilled in generation tasks are equally adept as evaluators.
We assess the performance of three LLMs and one open-source LM in Question-Answering (QA) and evaluation tasks using the TriviaQA dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-09T06:16:08Z) - F-Eval: Asssessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [111.46455901113976]
We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic.
For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z) - 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) - Survey of Social Bias in Vision-Language Models [65.44579542312489]
Survey aims to provide researchers with a high-level insight into the similarities and differences of social bias studies in pre-trained models across NLP, CV, and VL.
The findings and recommendations presented here can benefit the ML community, fostering the development of fairer and non-biased AI models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-24T15:34:56Z) - A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry.
This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z) - Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gap [34.08410116336628]
We argue that model evaluation practices must take on a critical task to cope with the challenges and responsibilities brought by this homogenization.
We urge the community to develop evaluation methods based on real-world socio-requirements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-01T00:01:43Z)
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.