RefuteBench 2.0 -- Agentic Benchmark for Dynamic Evaluation of LLM Responses to Refutation Instruction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18308v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:51:25 GMT
• Title: RefuteBench 2.0 -- Agentic Benchmark for Dynamic Evaluation of LLM Responses to Refutation Instruction
• Authors: Jianhao Yan, Yun Luo, Yue Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We introduce RefuteBench 2.0, which significantly extends the original RefuteBench by incorporating LLM agents as refuters and evaluators.<n>We design both transient and persistent refutation instructions with different validity periods.<n>We show that the LLM-based refuter could generate more human-like refutations and the evaluators could assign scores with high correlation with humans.
• Score: 17.782410287625645
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the multi-turn interaction schema, large language models (LLMs) can leverage user feedback to enhance the quality and relevance of their responses. However, evaluating an LLM's ability to incorporate user refutation feedback is crucial yet challenging. In this study, we introduce RefuteBench 2.0, which significantly extends the original RefuteBench by incorporating LLM agents as refuters and evaluators, which allows for flexible and comprehensive assessment. We design both transient and persistent refutation instructions with different validity periods. Meta-evaluation shows that the LLM-based refuter could generate more human-like refutations and the evaluators could assign scores with high correlation with humans. Experimental results of various LLMs show that current models could effectively satisfy the refutation but fail to memorize the refutation information. Interestingly, we also observe that the performance of the initial task decreases as the refutations increase. Analysis of the attention scores further shows a potential weakness of current LLMs: they struggle to retain and correctly use previous information during long context dialogues. https://github.com/ElliottYan/RefuteBench-2.0

Related papers

• Time-Reversal Provides Unsupervised Feedback to LLMs [31.575024356581846]
  Time Reversed Language Models (TRLMs) can score and generate queries when conditioned on responses.<n>We show that TRLM scoring outperforms conventional forward scoring of response given query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T17:54:12Z)
• LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints [86.59857711385833]
  We introduce RealInstruct, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow real-world multi-constrained instructions. To address the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, we propose the Decompose, Critique and Refine (DeCRIM) self-correction pipeline. Our results show that DeCRIM improves Mistral's performance by 7.3% on RealInstruct and 8.0% on IFEval even with weak feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T01:25:10Z)
• RefuteBench: Evaluating Refuting Instruction-Following for Large Language Models [17.782410287625645]
  This paper proposes a benchmark, RefuteBench, covering tasks such as question answering, machine translation, and email writing. The evaluation aims to assess whether models can positively accept feedback in form of refuting instructions and whether they can consistently adhere to user demands throughout the conversation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T01:39:56Z)
• Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives [45.87069217634753]
  Research indicates without external feedback, Large Language Model's intrinsic reflection is unstable. Our investigation unveils that the key bottleneck is the quality of the self-evaluated feedback. We advocate Self-Contrast: It adaptively explores diverse solving perspectives tailored to the request, contrasts the differences, and summarizes these discrepancies into a checklist which could be used to re-examine and eliminate discrepancies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T00:32:33Z)
• 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)
• LLMRefine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback [65.84061725174269]
  Recent large language models (LLM) are leveraging human feedback to improve their generation quality. We propose LLMRefine, an inference time optimization method to refine LLM's output. We conduct experiments on three text generation tasks, including machine translation, long-form question answering (QA), and topical summarization. LLMRefine consistently outperforms all baseline approaches, achieving improvements up to 1.7 MetricX points on translation tasks, 8.1 ROUGE-L on ASQA, 2.2 ROUGE-L on topical summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:52:11Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• 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)

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.