A Statistical Analysis of LLMs' Self-Evaluation Using Proverbs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16640v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:38:48 GMT
• Title: A Statistical Analysis of LLMs' Self-Evaluation Using Proverbs
• Authors: Ryosuke Sonoda, Ramya Srinivasan,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a novel proverb database consisting of 300 proverb pairs that are similar in intent but different in wording. We propose tests to evaluate textual consistencies as well as numerical consistencies across similar proverbs.
• Score: 1.9073729452914245
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude-3, and Llama are being integrated across a variety of industries. Despite this rapid proliferation, experts are calling for caution in the interpretation and adoption of LLMs, owing to numerous associated ethical concerns. Research has also uncovered shortcomings in LLMs' reasoning and logical abilities, raising questions on the potential of LLMs as evaluation tools. In this paper, we investigate LLMs' self-evaluation capabilities on a novel proverb reasoning task. We introduce a novel proverb database consisting of 300 proverb pairs that are similar in intent but different in wordings, across topics spanning gender, wisdom, and society. We propose tests to evaluate textual consistencies as well as numerical consistencies across similar proverbs, and demonstrate the effectiveness of our method and dataset in identifying failures in LLMs' self-evaluation which in turn can highlight issues related to gender stereotypes and lack of cultural understanding in LLMs.

Related papers

• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• 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)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• Beware of Words: Evaluating the Lexical Diversity of Conversational LLMs using ChatGPT as Case Study [3.0059120458540383]
  We consider the evaluation of the lexical richness of the text generated by conversational Large Language Models (LLMs) and how it depends on the model parameters. The results show how lexical richness depends on the version of ChatGPT and some of its parameters, such as the presence penalty, or on the role assigned to the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T13:41:17Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry. This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)

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.