Is my Meeting Summary Good? Estimating Quality with a Multi-LLM Evaluator

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18444v1
• Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:35:32 GMT
• Title: Is my Meeting Summary Good? Estimating Quality with a Multi-LLM Evaluator
• Authors: Frederic Kirstein, Terry Ruas, Bela Gipp,
• Abstract summary: MESA employs a three-step assessment of individual error types, multi-agent discussion for decision refinement, and feedback-based self-training to refine error definition understanding and alignment with human judgment. Using GPT-4o as its backbone, MESA achieves correlation with human judgment in error detection and mid Spearman and Kendall correlation in reflecting error impact on summary quality, on average 0.25 higher than previous methods.
• Score: 6.532478490187084
• License:
• Abstract: The quality of meeting summaries generated by natural language generation (NLG) systems is hard to measure automatically. Established metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore have a relatively low correlation with human judgments and fail to capture nuanced errors. Recent studies suggest using large language models (LLMs), which have the benefit of better context understanding and adaption of error definitions without training on a large number of human preference judgments. However, current LLM-based evaluators risk masking errors and can only serve as a weak proxy, leaving human evaluation the gold standard despite being costly and hard to compare across studies. In this work, we present MESA, an LLM-based framework employing a three-step assessment of individual error types, multi-agent discussion for decision refinement, and feedback-based self-training to refine error definition understanding and alignment with human judgment. We show that MESA's components enable thorough error detection, consistent rating, and adaptability to custom error guidelines. Using GPT-4o as its backbone, MESA achieves mid to high Point-Biserial correlation with human judgment in error detection and mid Spearman and Kendall correlation in reflecting error impact on summary quality, on average 0.25 higher than previous methods. The framework's flexibility in adapting to custom error guidelines makes it suitable for various tasks with limited human-labeled data.

Related papers

• Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models [11.173637560124828]
  Large language models are increasingly relied upon sources of information, but their propensity for false or misleading statements poses high risks for users and society. In this paper, we confront the critical problem of miscalibration where a model's linguistic assertiveness fails to reflect its true internal certainty. We introduce a new human misalignment evaluation and a novel method for measuring the linguistic assertiveness of Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-10T17:10:13Z)
• Subtle Errors Matter: Preference Learning via Error-injected Self-editing [59.405145971637204]
  We propose a novel preference learning framework called eRror-Injected Self-Editing (RISE) RISE injects predefined subtle errors into partial tokens of correct solutions to construct hard pairs for error mitigation. Experiments validate the effectiveness of RISE, with preference learning on Qwen2-7B-Instruct yielding notable improvements of 3.0% on GSM8K and 7.9% on MATH.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T07:43:38Z)
• MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators [53.91199933655421]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant potential as judges for Machine Translation (MT) quality assessment. We introduce a universal and training-free framework, $textbfMQM-APE, based on the idea of filtering out non-impactful errors. Experiments show that our approach consistently improves both the reliability and quality of error spans against GEMBA-MQM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T06:43:40Z)
• 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)
• Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments [2.1370543868467275]
  This follow-up paper explores methods to align Large Language Models evaluator preferences with human evaluations. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T09:26:40Z)
• How Reliable Are Automatic Evaluation Methods for Instruction-Tuned LLMs? [3.1706553206969925]
  We perform a meta-evaluation of such methods and assess their reliability across a broad range of tasks. We observe that while automatic evaluation methods can approximate human ratings under specific conditions, their validity is highly context-dependent. Our findings enhance the understanding of how automatic methods should be applied and interpreted when developing and evaluating instruction-tuned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T15:48:33Z)
• 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)
• Misclassification in Automated Content Analysis Causes Bias in Regression. Can We Fix It? Yes We Can! [0.30693357740321775]
  We show in a systematic literature review that communication scholars largely ignore misclassification bias. Existing statistical methods can use "gold standard" validation data, such as that created by human annotators, to correct misclassification bias. We introduce and test such methods, including a new method we design and implement in the R package misclassificationmodels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-12T23:03:55Z)
• 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)

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.