An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12265v1
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 06:06:06 GMT
- Title: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation
- Authors: Junjie Chen, Weihang Su, Zhumin Chu, Haitao Li, Qinyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, Shaoping Ma,
- Abstract summary: Existing evaluation methods often suffer from high costs, limited test formats, the need of human references, and systematic evaluation biases.
In contrast to previous studies that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE selects evaluators automatically based on their inherent traits.
Experimental results indicate our Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance at a lower cost.
- Score: 29.81362106367831
- License:
- Abstract: With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), how to efficiently evaluate them has become an important research question. Existing evaluation methods often suffer from high costs, limited test formats, the need of human references, and systematic evaluation biases. To address these limitations, our study introduces the Auto-PRE, an automatic LLM evaluation framework based on peer review. In contrast to previous studies that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE selects evaluator LLMs automatically based on their inherent traits including consistency, self-confidence, and pertinence. We conduct extensive experiments on three tasks: summary generation, non-factoid question-answering, and dialogue generation. Experimental results indicate our Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance at a lower cost. Moreover, our study highlights the impact of prompt strategies and evaluation formats on evaluation performance, offering guidance for method optimization in the future.
Related papers
- Automated Feedback in Math Education: A Comparative Analysis of LLMs for Open-Ended Responses [0.0]
This study aims to explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in facilitating automated feedback in math education.
We employ Mistral, a version of Llama catered to math, and fine-tune this model for evaluating student responses by leveraging a dataset of student responses and teacher-written feedback for middle-school math problems.
We evaluate the model's performance in scoring accuracy and the quality of feedback by utilizing judgments from 2 teachers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-29T16:57:45Z) - Optimizing the role of human evaluation in LLM-based spoken document summarization systems [0.0]
We propose an evaluation paradigm for spoken document summarization explicitly tailored for generative AI content.
We provide detailed evaluation criteria and best practices guidelines to ensure robustness in the experimental design, replicability, and trustworthiness of human evaluations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-23T18:37:14Z) - AERA Chat: An Interactive Platform for Automated Explainable Student Answer Assessment [12.970776782360366]
AERA Chat is an interactive platform to provide visually explained assessment of student answers.
Users can input questions and student answers to obtain automated, explainable assessment results from large language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-12T11:57:53Z) - 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) - LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks.
Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries.
These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z) - Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference.
Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels.
Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z) - ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models.
Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z) - From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing.
This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time.
We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z) - Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples.
With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot.
We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z) - Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy
Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning.
ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation.
Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
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.