A Judge-free LLM Open-ended Generation Benchmark Based on the Distributional Hypothesis
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09316v1
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:30:54 GMT
- Title: A Judge-free LLM Open-ended Generation Benchmark Based on the Distributional Hypothesis
- Authors: Kentaro Imajo, Masanori Hirano, Shuji Suzuki, Hiroaki Mikami,
- Abstract summary: We propose a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) using n-gram statistics and rules.
Using 50 question and reference answer sets, we introduce three new metrics based on n-grams and rules: Fluency, Truthfulness, and Helpfulness.
Our benchmark strongly correlates with GPT-4o-based evaluations while requiring significantly fewer computational resources.
- Score: 1.5802986215292303
- License:
- Abstract: Evaluating the open-ended text generation of large language models (LLMs) is challenging because of the lack of a clear ground truth and the high cost of human or LLM-based assessments. We propose a novel benchmark that evaluates LLMs using n-gram statistics and rules, without relying on human judgement or LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Using 50 question and reference answer sets, we introduce three new metrics based on n-grams and rules: Fluency, Truthfulness, and Helpfulness. Our benchmark strongly correlates with GPT-4o-based evaluations while requiring significantly fewer computational resources, demonstrating its effectiveness as a scalable alternative for assessing LLMs' open-ended generation capabilities.
Related papers
- Can LLMs Replace Human Evaluators? An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge in Software Engineering [18.766132076075365]
Large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation.
Pass@k metric requires extensive unit tests and configured environments, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text.
Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-10T06:49:29Z) - DHP Benchmark: Are LLMs Good NLG Evaluators? [42.16315294351651]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly serving as evaluators in Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks.
We propose the Discernment of Hierarchical Perturbation (DHP) benchmarking framework to measure the NLG evaluation capabilities of LLMs.
We have re-established six evaluation datasets for this benchmark, covering four NLG tasks: Summarization, Story Completion, Question Answering, and Translation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-25T02:01:38Z) - DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [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) - RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation.
Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z) - METAL: Towards Multilingual Meta-Evaluation [12.852595634767901]
This study proposes a framework for an end-to-end assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators in multilingual scenarios.
We create a dataset covering 10 languages containing native speaker judgments for the task of summarization.
We compare the performance of LLM-based evaluators created using GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4, and PaLM2.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-02T06:14:54Z) - GenCeption: Evaluate Multimodal LLMs with Unlabeled Unimodal Data [3.08543976986593]
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are typically assessed using expensive annotated multimodal benchmarks.
This paper outlines and validates GenCeption, a novel, annotation-free evaluation method.
It requires only unimodal data to measure inter-modality semantic coherence and inversely assesses MLLMs' tendency to hallucinate.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-22T21:22:04Z) - 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) - Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization.
Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z) - Which is better? Exploring Prompting Strategy For LLM-based Metrics [6.681126871165601]
This paper describes the DSBA submissions to the Prompting Large Language Models as Explainable Metrics shared task.
Traditional similarity-based metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE have shown to misalign with human evaluation and are ill-suited for open-ended generation tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-07T06:36:39Z) - LLMRec: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Recommendation Task [54.48899723591296]
The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated.
We benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization.
The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-23T16:32:54Z) - 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.