From Test-Taking to Test-Making: Examining LLM Authoring of Commonsense Assessment Items

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14897v1
• Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 22:42:23 GMT
• Title: From Test-Taking to Test-Making: Examining LLM Authoring of Commonsense Assessment Items
• Authors: Melissa Roemmele, Andrew S. Gordon,
• Abstract summary: We consider LLMs as authors of commonsense assessment items. We prompt LLMs to generate items in the style of a prominent benchmark for commonsense reasoning. We find that LLMs that succeed in answering the original COPA benchmark are also more successful in authoring their own items.
• Score: 0.18416014644193068
• License:
• Abstract: LLMs can now perform a variety of complex writing tasks. They also excel in answering questions pertaining to natural language inference and commonsense reasoning. Composing these questions is itself a skilled writing task, so in this paper we consider LLMs as authors of commonsense assessment items. We prompt LLMs to generate items in the style of a prominent benchmark for commonsense reasoning, the Choice of Plausible Alternatives (COPA). We examine the outcome according to analyses facilitated by the LLMs and human annotation. We find that LLMs that succeed in answering the original COPA benchmark are also more successful in authoring their own items.

Related papers

• CUTE: Measuring LLMs' Understanding of Their Tokens [54.70665106141121]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable performance on a wide variety of tasks. This raises the question: To what extent can LLMs learn orthographic information? We propose a new benchmark, which features a collection of tasks designed to test the orthographic knowledge of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T18:27:03Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• SciEx: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Scientific Exams with Human Expert Grading and Automatic Grading [100.02175403852253]
  One common use of Large Language Models (LLMs) is performing tasks on scientific topics. Inspired by the way university students are evaluated on such tasks, we propose SciEx - a benchmark consisting of university computer science exam questions. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs on our new benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T21:52:21Z)
• A Survey of Useful LLM Evaluation [20.048914787813263]
  Two-stage framework: from core ability'' to agent'' In the "core ability" stage, we discussed the reasoning ability, societal impact, and domain knowledge of LLMs. In the agent'' stage, we demonstrated embodied action, planning, and tool learning of LLMs agent applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T02:20:03Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Toward Self-Improvement of LLMs via Imagination, Searching, and Criticizing [56.75702900542643]
  We introduce AlphaLLM for the self-improvements of Large Language Models. It integrates Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with LLMs to establish a self-improving loop. Our experimental results show that AlphaLLM significantly enhances the performance of LLMs without additional annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:21:34Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• Knowing What LLMs DO NOT Know: A Simple Yet Effective Self-Detection Method [36.24876571343749]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Recent literature reveals that LLMs generate nonfactual responses intermittently. We propose a novel self-detection method to detect which questions that a LLM does not know that are prone to generate nonfactual results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:22:14Z)
• 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)
• Through the Lens of Core Competency: Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [27.271533306818732]
  Large language model (LLM) has excellent performance and wide practical uses. Existing evaluation tasks are difficult to keep up with the wide range of applications in real-world scenarios. We summarize 4 core competencies of LLM, including reasoning, knowledge, reliability, and safety. Under this competency architecture, similar tasks are combined to reflect corresponding ability, while new tasks can also be easily added into the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-15T17:40:34Z)

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.