Behavioral Testing: Can Large Language Models Implicitly Resolve Ambiguous Entities?
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17125v2
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:39:44 GMT
- Title: Behavioral Testing: Can Large Language Models Implicitly Resolve Ambiguous Entities?
- Authors: Anastasiia Sedova, Robert Litschko, Diego Frassinelli, Benjamin Roth, Barbara Plank,
- Abstract summary: We analyze current state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) for their proficiency and consistency in applying their factual knowledge when prompted for entities under ambiguity.
Experiments reveal that LLMs perform poorly with ambiguous prompts, achieving only 80% accuracy.
- Score: 27.10502683001428
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: One of the major aspects contributing to the striking performance of large language models (LLMs) is the vast amount of factual knowledge accumulated during pre-training. Yet, many LLMs suffer from self-inconsistency, which raises doubts about their trustworthiness and reliability. In this paper, we focus on entity type ambiguity and analyze current state-of-the-art LLMs for their proficiency and consistency in applying their factual knowledge when prompted for entities under ambiguity. To do so, we propose an evaluation protocol that disentangles knowing from applying knowledge, and test state-of-the-art LLMs on 49 entities. Our experiments reveal that LLMs perform poorly with ambiguous prompts, achieving only 80% accuracy. Our results further demonstrate systematic discrepancies in LLM behavior and their failure to consistently apply information, indicating that the models can exhibit knowledge without being able to utilize it, significant biases for preferred readings, as well as self inconsistencies. Our study highlights the importance of handling entity ambiguity in future for more trustworthy LLMs
Related papers
- Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Model Generation: A Token Probability Approach [0.0]
Large Language Models (LLMs) produce inaccurate outputs, also known as hallucinations.
This paper introduces a supervised learning approach employing only four numerical features derived from tokens and vocabulary probabilities obtained from other evaluators.
The method yields promising results, surpassing state-of-the-art outcomes in multiple tasks across three different benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-30T03:00:47Z) - CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs)
Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs.
Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z) - FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by
Dissociating Language and Cognition [57.747888532651]
Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks.
We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z) - Supervised Knowledge Makes Large Language Models Better In-context Learners [94.89301696512776]
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit emerging in-context learning abilities through prompt engineering.
The challenge of improving the generalizability and factuality of LLMs in natural language understanding and question answering remains under-explored.
We propose a framework that enhances the reliability of LLMs as it: 1) generalizes out-of-distribution data, 2) elucidates how LLMs benefit from discriminative models, and 3) minimizes hallucinations in generative tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-26T07:24:46Z) - Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality
Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities.
This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z) - Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks.
How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers?
We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z) - Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and
Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)
As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z) - FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm.
We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner.
Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z) - Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools.
Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions.
Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
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.