CLAVE: An Adaptive Framework for Evaluating Values of LLM Generated Responses
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10725v1
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 13:51:37 GMT
- Title: CLAVE: An Adaptive Framework for Evaluating Values of LLM Generated Responses
- Authors: Jing Yao, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xing Xie,
- Abstract summary: We introduce CLAVE, a novel framework which integrates two complementary Large Language Models (LLMs)
This dual-model approach enables calibration with any value systems using 100 human-labeled samples per value type.
We present ValEval, a comprehensive dataset comprising 13k+ (text,value,label) 12+s across diverse domains, covering three major value systems.
- Score: 34.77031649891843
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: The rapid progress in Large Language Models (LLMs) poses potential risks such as generating unethical content. Assessing LLMs' values can help expose their misalignment, but relies on reference-free evaluators, e.g., fine-tuned LLMs or close-source ones like GPT-4, to identify values reflected in generated responses. Nevertheless, these evaluators face two challenges in open-ended value evaluation: they should align with changing human value definitions with minimal annotation, against their own bias (adaptability), and detect varying value expressions and scenarios robustly (generalizability). To handle these challenges, we introduce CLAVE, a novel framework which integrates two complementary LLMs, a large one to extract high-level value concepts from a few human labels, leveraging its extensive knowledge and generalizability, and a smaller one fine-tuned on such concepts to better align with human value understanding. This dual-model approach enables calibration with any value systems using <100 human-labeled samples per value type. Then we present ValEval, a comprehensive dataset comprising 13k+ (text,value,label) tuples across diverse domains, covering three major value systems. We benchmark the capabilities of 12+ popular LLM evaluators and analyze their strengths and weaknesses. Our findings reveal that combining fine-tuned small models and prompt-based large ones serves as a superior balance in value evaluation.
Related papers
- SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal Behaviors [64.9938658716425]
Existing evaluations of large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests face three limitations.
First, existing methods often use coarse-grained of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.
Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs for evaluation, which can be expensive.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z) - ValueBench: Towards Comprehensively Evaluating Value Orientations and Understanding of Large Language Models [14.268555410234804]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming diverse fields and gaining increasing influence as human proxies.
This work introduces ValueBench, the first comprehensive psychometric benchmark for evaluating value orientations and value understanding in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-06T16:14:16Z) - Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch.
Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs.
We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z) - Assessment of Multimodal Large Language Models in Alignment with Human Values [43.023052912326314]
We introduce Ch3Ef, a Compreh3ensive Evaluation dataset and strategy for assessing alignment with human expectations.
Ch3Ef dataset contains 1002 human-annotated data samples, covering 12 domains and 46 tasks based on the hhh principle.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-26T16:10:21Z) - 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) - Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames.
It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values.
Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z) - ValueDCG: Measuring Comprehensive Human Value Understanding Ability of Language Models [10.989615390700113]
We argue that truly understanding values in Large Language Models (LLMs) requires both "know what" and "know why"
We present a comprehensive evaluation metric, ValueDCG, to quantitatively assess the two aspects with an engineering implementation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-30T13:47:55Z) - 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) - Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation for Large Language Models [91.96728871418]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it crucial to align their values with those of humans.
We propose a Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation (HVAE) system to assess the success of aligning LLMs with heterogeneous values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-26T02:34:20Z)
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.