Think Together and Work Better: Combining Humans' and LLMs' Think-Aloud Outcomes for Effective Text Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07355v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 15:40:07 GMT
• Title: Think Together and Work Better: Combining Humans' and LLMs' Think-Aloud Outcomes for Effective Text Evaluation
• Authors: SeongYeub Chu, JongWoo Kim, MunYong Yi,
• Abstract summary: This study introduces textbfInteractEval, a framework that integrates human expertise and Large Language Models (LLMs) The framework uses the Think-Aloud (TA) method to generate attributes for checklist-based text evaluation.
• Score: 2.5398014196797605
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This study introduces \textbf{InteractEval}, a framework that integrates human expertise and Large Language Models (LLMs) using the Think-Aloud (TA) method to generate attributes for checklist-based text evaluation. By combining human flexibility and reasoning with LLM consistency, InteractEval outperforms traditional non-LLM-based and LLM-based baselines across four distinct dimensions, consisting of Coherence, Fluency, Consistency, and Relevance. The experiment also investigates the effectiveness of the TA method, showing that it promotes divergent thinking in both humans and LLMs, leading to the generation of a wider range of relevant attributes and enhance text evaluation performance. Comparative analysis reveals that humans excel at identifying attributes related to internal quality (Coherence and Fluency), but LLMs perform better at those attributes related to external alignment (Consistency and Relevance). Consequently, leveraging both humans and LLMs together produces the best evaluation outcomes. In other words, this study emphasizes the necessity of effectively combining humans and LLMs in an automated checklist-based text evaluation framework. The code is available at \textbf{\url{https://github.com/BBeeChu/InteractEval.git}}.

Related papers

• From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management [6.70908766695241]
  This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T20:35:10Z)
• CIBench: Evaluating Your LLMs with a Code Interpreter Plugin [68.95137938214862]
  We propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T07:43:55Z)
• MATEval: A Multi-Agent Discussion Framework for Advancing Open-Ended Text Evaluation [22.19073789961769]
  generative Large Language Models (LLMs) have been remarkable, however, the quality of the text generated by these models often reveals persistent issues. We propose the MATEval: A "Multi-Agent Text Evaluation framework" Our framework incorporates self-reflection and Chain-of-Thought strategies, along with feedback mechanisms, to enhance the depth and breadth of the evaluation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T10:41:47Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities 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 method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• 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)
• ALLURE: Auditing and Improving LLM-based Evaluation of Text using Iterative In-Context-Learning [7.457517083017178]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used for evaluation of text generated by humans and AI alike. Despite their utility, LLMs exhibit distinct failure modes, necessitating a thorough audit and improvement of their text evaluation capabilities. Here we introduce ALLURE, a systematic approach to Auditing Large Language Models Understanding and Reasoning Errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-24T17:15:58Z)
• MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback [78.60644407028022]
  We introduce MINT, a benchmark that evaluates large language models' ability to solve tasks with multi-turn interactions. LLMs generally benefit from tools and language feedback, with performance gains of 1-8% for each turn of tool use. LLMs evaluated, supervised instruction-finetuning (SIFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) generally hurt multi-turn capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-19T15:25:42Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.