Evaluating Research Quality with Large Language Models: An Analysis of ChatGPT's Effectiveness with Different Settings and Inputs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06752v1
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:19:21 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Research Quality with Large Language Models: An Analysis of ChatGPT's Effectiveness with Different Settings and Inputs
• Authors: Mike Thelwall,
• Abstract summary: This article assesses which ChatGPT inputs produce better quality score estimates. The optimal input is the article title and abstract, with average ChatGPT scores based on these correlating at 0.67 with human scores.
• Score: 3.9627148816681284
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the quality of academic journal articles is a time consuming but critical task for national research evaluation exercises, appointments and promotion. It is therefore important to investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can play a role in this process. This article assesses which ChatGPT inputs (full text without tables, figures and references; title and abstract; title only) produce better quality score estimates, and the extent to which scores are affected by ChatGPT models and system prompts. The results show that the optimal input is the article title and abstract, with average ChatGPT scores based on these (30 iterations on a dataset of 51 papers) correlating at 0.67 with human scores, the highest ever reported. ChatGPT 4o is slightly better than 3.5-turbo (0.66), and 4o-mini (0.66). The results suggest that article full texts might confuse LLM research quality evaluations, even though complex system instructions for the task are more effective than simple ones. Thus, whilst abstracts contain insufficient information for a thorough assessment of rigour, they may contain strong pointers about originality and significance. Finally, linear regression can be used to convert the model scores into the human scale scores, which is 31% more accurate than guessing.

Related papers

• Information-Theoretic Distillation for Reference-less Summarization [67.51150817011617]
  We present a novel framework to distill a powerful summarizer based on the information-theoretic objective for summarization. We start off from Pythia-2.8B as the teacher model, which is not yet capable of summarization. We arrive at a compact but powerful summarizer with only 568M parameters that performs competitively against ChatGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T17:42:08Z)
• Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality? [3.9627148816681284]
  ChatGPT-4 can produce plausible document summaries and quality evaluation rationales that match REF criteria. Overall, ChatGPT does not yet seem to be accurate enough to be trusted for any formal or informal research quality evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-08T10:00:40Z)
• 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)
• A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets [19.521390684403293]
  We present a thorough evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on diverse academic datasets. Specifically, we evaluate ChatGPT across 140 tasks and analyze 255K responses it generates in these datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T12:37:21Z)
• SEAHORSE: A Multilingual, Multifaceted Dataset for Summarization Evaluation [52.186343500576214]
  We introduce SEAHORSE, a dataset for multilingual, multifaceted summarization evaluation. SEAHORSE consists of 96K summaries with human ratings along 6 dimensions of text quality. We show that metrics trained with SEAHORSE achieve strong performance on the out-of-domain meta-evaluation benchmarks TRUE and mFACE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T16:25:07Z)
• Exploring the Use of Large Language Models for Reference-Free Text Quality Evaluation: An Empirical Study [63.27346930921658]
  ChatGPT is capable of evaluating text quality effectively from various perspectives without reference. The Explicit Score, which utilizes ChatGPT to generate a numeric score measuring text quality, is the most effective and reliable method among the three exploited approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-03T05:29:58Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study [121.77986688862302]
  We provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric. Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments. We hope our preliminary study could prompt the emergence of a general-purposed reliable NLG metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-07T16:57:20Z)
• SummScore: A Comprehensive Evaluation Metric for Summary Quality Based on Cross-Encoder [12.913447457411317]
  SummScore is a comprehensive metric for summary quality evaluation based on CrossEncoder. To improve the comprehensiveness and interpretability, SummScore consists of four fine-grained submodels. Extensive experiments show that SummScore significantly outperforms existing evaluation metrics in the above four dimensions in correlation with human scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-11T06:47:29Z)

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.