Evaluating and Characterizing Human Rationales
원문 초록
Two main approaches for evaluating the quality of machine-generated rationales are: 1) using human rationales as a gold standard; and 2) automated metrics based on how rationales affect model behavior. An open question, however, is how human rationales fare with these automatic metrics. Analyzing a variety of datasets and models, we find that human rationales do not necessarily perform well on these metrics. To unpack this finding, we propose improved metrics to account for model-dependent baseline performance. We then propose two methods to further characterize rationale quality, one based on model retraining and one on using "fidelity curves" to reveal properties such as irrelevance and redundancy. Our work leads to actionable suggestions for evaluating and characterizing rationales.
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
CulFiT: A Fine-grained Cultural-aware LLM Training Paradigm via Multilingual Critique Data Synthesis
O$^2$-Searcher: A Searching-based Agent Model for Open-Domain Open-Ended Question Answering
Ranked Voting based Self-Consistency of Large Language Models
Neptune: The Long Orbit to Benchmarking Long Video Understanding
Utilize the Flow before Stepping into the Same River Twice: Certainty Represented Knowledge Flow for Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning
Ranking Generated Answers: On the Agreement of Retrieval Models with Humans on Consumer Health Questions
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.