Strategic Prompting for Conversational Tasks: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models Across Diverse Conversational Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17204v1
• Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:21:24 GMT
• Title: Strategic Prompting for Conversational Tasks: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models Across Diverse Conversational Tasks
• Authors: Ratnesh Kumar Joshi, Priyanshu Priya, Vishesh Desai, Saurav Dudhate, Siddhant Senapati, Asif Ekbal, Roshni Ramnani, Anutosh Maitra,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the capabilities and limitations of five prevalent Large Language Models: Llama, OPT, Falcon, Alpaca, and MPT. The study encompasses various conversational tasks, including reservation, empathetic response generation, mental health and legal counseling, persuasion, and negotiation.
• Score: 21.079199282600907
• License:
• Abstract: Given the advancements in conversational artificial intelligence, the evaluation and assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in ensuring optimal performance across various conversational tasks. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study that thoroughly evaluates the capabilities and limitations of five prevalent LLMs: Llama, OPT, Falcon, Alpaca, and MPT. The study encompasses various conversational tasks, including reservation, empathetic response generation, mental health and legal counseling, persuasion, and negotiation. To conduct the evaluation, an extensive test setup is employed, utilizing multiple evaluation criteria that span from automatic to human evaluation. This includes using generic and task-specific metrics to gauge the LMs' performance accurately. From our evaluation, no single model emerges as universally optimal for all tasks. Instead, their performance varies significantly depending on the specific requirements of each task. While some models excel in certain tasks, they may demonstrate comparatively poorer performance in others. These findings emphasize the importance of considering task-specific requirements and characteristics when selecting the most suitable LM for conversational applications.

Related papers

• Benchmarking Large Language Models for Conversational Question Answering in Multi-instructional Documents [61.41316121093604]
  We present InsCoQA, a novel benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the context of conversational question answering (CQA) Sourced from extensive, encyclopedia-style instructional content, InsCoQA assesses models on their ability to retrieve, interpret, and accurately summarize procedural guidance from multiple documents. We also propose InsEval, an LLM-assisted evaluator that measures the integrity and accuracy of generated responses and procedural instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T09:10:00Z)
• Putting GPT-4o to the Sword: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Language, Vision, Speech, and Multimodal Proficiency [3.161954199291541]
  This research study comprehensively evaluates the language, vision, speech, and multimodal capabilities of GPT-4o. GPT-4o demonstrates high accuracy and efficiency across multiple domains in language and reasoning capabilities. The model shows variability and faces limitations in handling complex and ambiguous inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T19:00:21Z)
• Learning to Clarify: Multi-turn Conversations with Action-Based Contrastive Self-Training [33.57497419019826]
  Action-Based Contrastive Self-Training allows for sample-efficient dialogue policy learning in multi-turn conversation. ACT demonstrates substantial conversation modeling improvements over standard approaches to supervised fine-tuning and DPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T22:44:48Z)
• PUB: A Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark for Assessing LLMs' Pragmatics Capabilities [40.55743949223173]
  Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark (PUB) is a dataset consisting of fourteen tasks in four pragmatics phenomena. PUB includes a total of 28k data points, 6.1k of which have been created by us, and the rest are adapted from existing datasets. Our study indicates that fine-tuning for instruction-following and chat significantly enhances the pragmatics capabilities of smaller language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T13:46:14Z)
• Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation [71.76872586182981]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations. We propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• MM-BigBench: Evaluating Multimodal Models on Multimodal Content Comprehension Tasks [56.60050181186531]
  We introduce MM-BigBench, which incorporates a diverse range of metrics to offer an extensive evaluation of the performance of various models and instructions. Our paper evaluates a total of 20 language models (14 MLLMs) on 14 multimodal datasets spanning 6 tasks, with 10 instructions for each task, and derives novel insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T11:57:04Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• A Practical Survey on Zero-shot Prompt Design for In-context Learning [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought about significant improvements in Natural Language Processing(NLP) tasks. This paper presents a comprehensive review of in-context learning techniques, focusing on different types of prompts. We explore various approaches to prompt design, such as manual design, optimization algorithms, and evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-22T23:00:34Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.