Are LLM-based Evaluators Confusing NLG Quality Criteria?
원문 초록
Some prior work has shown that LLMs perform well in NLG evaluation for different tasks. However, we discover that LLMs seem to confuse different evaluation criteria, which reduces their reliability. For further verification, we first consider avoiding issues of inconsistent conceptualization and vague expression in existing NLG quality criteria themselves. So we summarize a clear hierarchical classification system for 11 common aspects with corresponding different criteria from previous studies involved. Inspired by behavioral testing, we elaborately design 18 types of aspect-targeted perturbation attacks for fine-grained analysis of the evaluation behaviors of different LLMs. We also conduct human annotations beyond the guidance of the classification system to validate the impact of the perturbations. Our experimental results reveal confusion issues inherent in LLMs, as well as other noteworthy phenomena, and necessitate further research and improvements for LLM-based evaluation.
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
OpeNLGauge: An Explainable Metric for NLG Evaluation with Open-Weights LLMs
Analyzing and Evaluating Correlation Measures in NLG Meta-Evaluation
Themis: A Reference-free NLG Evaluation Language Model with Flexibility and Interpretability
Defining and Detecting Vulnerability in Human Evaluation Guidelines: A Preliminary Study Towards Reliable NLG Evaluation
Better than Random: Reliable NLG Human Evaluation with Constrained Active Sampling
Unveiling the Achilles' Heel of NLG Evaluators: A Unified Adversarial Framework Driven by Large Language Models
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.