Poor-Supervised Evaluation for SuperLLM via Mutual Consistency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13738v1
• Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 06:49:03 GMT
• Title: Poor-Supervised Evaluation for SuperLLM via Mutual Consistency
• Authors: Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, Yiwei Li, Xinglin Wang, Boyuan Pan, Heda Wang, Yao Hu, Kan Li,
• Abstract summary: We propose the PoEM framework to conduct evaluation without accurate labels. We first prove that the capability of a model can be equivalently assessed by the consistency between it and certain reference model. To alleviate the insufficiencies of the conditions in reality, we introduce an algorithm that treats humans (when available) and the models under evaluation as reference models.
• Score: 20.138831477848615
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The guidance from capability evaluations has greatly propelled the progress of both human society and Artificial Intelligence. However, as LLMs evolve, it becomes challenging to construct evaluation benchmarks for them with accurate labels on hard tasks that approach the boundaries of human capabilities. To credibly conduct evaluation without accurate labels (denoted as poor-supervised evaluation), we propose the PoEM framework. We first prove that the capability of a model can be equivalently assessed by the consistency between it and certain reference model, when their prediction distributions are independent and the sample size is infinite. To alleviate the insufficiencies of the conditions in reality, we further introduce an algorithm that treats humans (when available) and the models under evaluation as reference models, alternately conducting model weights calibration and filtering during E-step and M-step. Comprehensive experiments across 3 types of tasks with 16 mainstream LLMs have shown that PoEM under poor supervision can achieve an average of 0.98 Pearson correlation coefficient with supervised evaluation results, demonstrating good effectiveness, efficiency and generalizability. More generally, PoEM has advanced the evaluation paradigm evolution from human-centric to human&model-centric by treating both of them as reference models, mitigating the limitations of human evaluation in the era of LLMs.

Related papers

• The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning [62.165534879284735]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to identify and mitigate intermediate errors in the reasoning processes. We develop a consensus filtering mechanism that effectively integrates Monte Carlo (MC) estimation with Large Language Models (LLMs) We release a new state-of-the-art PRM that outperforms existing open-source alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T13:10:16Z)
• Self-Taught Evaluators [77.92610887220594]
  We present an approach that aims to im-proves without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM from 75.4 to 88.3 on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T17:57:02Z)
• Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments [2.1370543868467275]
  This follow-up paper explores methods to align Large Language Models evaluator preferences with human evaluations. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T09:26:40Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data. We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Models [34.068368860882586]
  We present a novel framework for generating evaluations with Large Language Models (LLMs) by populating causal templates. We create a new social reasoning benchmark (BigToM) for LLMs which consists of 25 controls and 5,000 model-written evaluations. We find that human participants rate the quality of our benchmark higher than previous crowd-sourced evaluations and comparable to expert-written evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T16:42:15Z)
• 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)

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.