Evaluating the output of generative large language models (LLMs) is challenging and difficult to scale. Many evaluations of LLMs focus on tasks such as single-choice question-answering or text classification. These tasks are not suitable for assessing open-ended question-answering capabilities, which are critical in domains where expertise is required. One such domain is health, where misleading or incorrect answers can have a negative impact on a user's well-being. Using human experts to evaluate the quality of LLM answers is generally considered the gold standard, but expert annotation is costly and slow. We present a method for evaluating LLM answers that uses ranking models trained on annotated document collections as a substitute for explicit relevance judgements and apply it to the CLEF 2021 eHealth dataset. In a user study, our method correlates with the preferences of a human expert (Kendall's $\tau=0.64$). It is also consistent with previous findings in that the quality of generated answers improves with the size of the model and more sophisticated prompting strategies.
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have recently achieved significant progress, demonstrating strong capabilities in open-world visual understanding. However, it is not yet clear how LVLMs address demographic biases in real life, especially the disparities across attributes such as gender, skin tone, age and race. In this paper, We empirically investigate visual fairness in several mainstream LVLMs by auditing their performance disparities across demographic attributes using public fairness benchmark datasets (e.g., FACET, UTKFace). Our fairness evaluation framework employs direct and single-choice question prompt on visual question-answering/classification tasks. Despite advancements in visual understanding, our zero-shot prompting results show that both open-source and closed-source LVLMs continue to exhibit fairness issues across different prompts and demographic groups. Furthermore, we propose a potential multi-modal Chain-of-thought (CoT) based strategy for bias mitigation, applicable to both open-source and closed-source LVLMs. This approach enhances transparency and offers a scalable solution for addressing fairness, providing a solid foundation for future bias reduction efforts.
Tables are recognized for their high information density and widespread usage, serving as essential sources of information. Seeking information from tables (TIS) is a crucial capability for Large Language Models (LLMs), serving as the foundation of knowledge-based Q&A systems. However, this field presently suffers from an absence of thorough and reliable evaluation. This paper introduces a more reliable benchmark for Table Information Seeking (TabIS). To avoid the unreliable evaluation caused by text similarity-based metrics, TabIS adopts a single-choice question format (with two options per question) instead of a text generation format. We establish an effective pipeline for generating options, ensuring their difficulty and quality. Experiments conducted on 12 LLMs reveal that while the performance of GPT-4-turbo is marginally satisfactory, both other proprietary and open-source models perform inadequately. Further analysis shows that LLMs exhibit a poor understanding of table structures, and struggle to balance between TIS performance and robustness against pseudo-relevant tables (common in retrieval-augmented systems). These findings uncover the limitations and potential challenges of LLMs in seeking information from tables. We release our data and code to facilitate further research in this field.
This paper describes our participation in the Shared Task on Software Mentions Disambiguation (SOMD), with a focus on improving relation extraction in scholarly texts through generative Large Language Models (LLMs) using single-choice question-answering. The methodology prioritises the use of in-context learning capabilities of GLMs to extract software-related entities and their descriptive attributes, such as distributive information. Our approach uses Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) techniques and GLMs for Named Entity Recognition (NER) and Attributive NER to identify relationships between extracted software entities, providing a structured solution for analysing software citations in academic literature. The paper provides a detailed description of our approach, demonstrating how using GLMs in a single-choice QA paradigm can greatly enhance IE methodologies. Our participation in the SOMD shared task highlights the importance of precise software citation practices and showcases our system's ability to overcome the challenges of disambiguating and extracting relationships between software mentions. This sets the groundwork for future research and development in this field.