PPLqa: An Unsupervised Information-Theoretic Quality Metric for Comparing Generative Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15320v1
• Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:28:06 GMT
• Title: PPLqa: An Unsupervised Information-Theoretic Quality Metric for Comparing Generative Large Language Models
• Authors: Gerald Friedland, Xin Huang, Yueying Cui, Vishaal Kapoor, Ashish Khetan, Sanjiv Das,
• Abstract summary: We propose PPLqa, an easy to compute, language independent, information-theoretic metric to measure the quality of responses of generative Large Language Models (LLMs) The method and metric enables users to rank generative language models for quality of responses, so as to make a selection of the best model for a given task.
• Score: 9.027802326177135
• License:
• Abstract: We propose PPLqa, an easy to compute, language independent, information-theoretic metric to measure the quality of responses of generative Large Language Models (LLMs) in an unsupervised way, without requiring ground truth annotations or human supervision. The method and metric enables users to rank generative language models for quality of responses, so as to make a selection of the best model for a given task. Our single metric assesses LLMs with an approach that subsumes, but is not explicitly based on, coherence and fluency (quality of writing) and relevance and consistency (appropriateness of response) to the query. PPLqa performs as well as other related metrics, and works better with long-form Q\&A. Thus, PPLqa enables bypassing the lengthy annotation process required for ground truth evaluations, and it also correlates well with human and LLM rankings.

Related papers

• Decoding Biases: Automated Methods and LLM Judges for Gender Bias Detection in Language Models [47.545382591646565]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excelled at language understanding and generating human-level text. LLMs are susceptible to adversarial attacks where malicious users prompt the model to generate undesirable text. In this work, we train models to automatically create adversarial prompts to elicit biased responses from target LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:11:34Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• 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)
• Predicting Question-Answering Performance of Large Language Models through Semantic Consistency [5.857193811761703]
  We address the task of assessing question-answering semantic consistency of large language models. We create a benchmark dataset with high-quality paraphrases for factual questions, and release the dataset to the community. We build and evaluate a framework for factual QA reference-less performance prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-02T11:27:21Z)
• CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
  We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Evaluation of HTR models without Ground Truth Material [2.4792948967354236]
  evaluation of Handwritten Text Recognition models during their development is straightforward. But the evaluation process becomes tricky as soon as we switch from development to application. We show that lexicon-based evaluation can compete with lexicon-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T01:26:09Z)

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.