arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2307.03025cs.CL
收藏

风格胜于实质:大型语言模型的评估偏差

Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models

Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence(穆罕默德·本·扎耶德人工智能大学);Monash University(莫纳什大学)

Minghao Wu, Alham Fikri Aji

AI总结:

本研究揭示LLM评估中存在事实错误答案获更高评分的偏差,提出多维度独立评估的Multi-Elo评分系统(MERS),显著提升LLM评估的事实准确性,但众包评估未见显著改善。

摘要:

随着大型语言模型(LLMs)的持续发展,准确且全面地评估其性能变得越来越具有挑战性。基于人类判断,通过Elo评分对LLMs的相对性能进行排名正日益流行。然而,人类和LLMs作为评估者的能力程度仍不确定。本研究调查了众包标注者、专家标注者以及LLMs在比较不同模型输出时的行为。为此,我们策划了一个包含故意缺陷的机器生成答案的数据集。我们的研究结果揭示了评估过程中一个令人担忧的偏差:带有事实错误的答案比过短或包含语法错误的答案获得更有利的评分。为解决此问题,我们提出在多维度上独立评估机器生成的文本,而不是将所有评估方面合并为一个单一分数。我们将此想法实例化到Elo评分系统中,形成了多维度Elo评分系统(MERS)。我们研究的实证结果表明,该方法显著提高了基于LLM的评估质量,尤其是在事实准确性方面。然而,在基于众包的评估中未见显著改善,这表明需要进一步研究。

英文摘要:

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Ranking the relative performance of LLMs based on Elo ratings, according to human judgment, is gaining more popularity. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System (MERS). Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑