arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2402.15089cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
收藏

AttributionBench:自动归因评估有多难?

AttributionBench: How Hard is Automatic Attribution Evaluation?

The Ohio State University(俄亥俄州立大学)

Yifei Li, Xiang Yue, Zeyi Liao, Huan Sun

AI总结:

本文提出综合基准AttributionBench,通过大量实验揭示自动归因评估的挑战,并分析错误原因,为归因评估方法提供标准化测试平台。

摘要:

现代生成式搜索引擎通过提供引用证据来增强大语言模型(LLM)响应的可靠性。然而,评估答案的归因,即生成响应中的每一条声明是否都得到其引用证据的充分支持,仍然是一个未解决的问题。这种验证传统上依赖昂贵的人工评估,凸显了对自动归因评估方法的迫切需求。为了弥补这些方法缺乏标准化基准的不足,我们提出了AttributionBench,这是一个从各种现有归因数据集中汇编而成的综合基准。我们在AttributionBench上进行的大量实验揭示了自动归因评估的挑战,即使对于最先进的大语言模型也是如此。具体而言,我们的研究结果表明,即使是经过微调的GPT-3.5,在二元分类形式下也只能达到约80%的宏观F1分数。对300多个错误案例的详细分析表明,大多数失败源于模型无法处理细微信息,以及模型可访问的信息与人类标注者可访问的信息之间的差异。

英文摘要:

Modern generative search engines enhance the reliability of large language model (LLM) responses by providing cited evidence. However, evaluating the answer's attribution, i.e., whether every claim within the generated responses is fully supported by its cited evidence, remains an open problem. This verification, traditionally dependent on costly human evaluation, underscores the urgent need for automatic attribution evaluation methods. To bridge the gap in the absence of standardized benchmarks for these methods, we present AttributionBench, a comprehensive benchmark compiled from various existing attribution datasets. Our extensive experiments on AttributionBench reveal the challenges of automatic attribution evaluation, even for state-of-the-art LLMs. Specifically, our findings show that even a fine-tuned GPT-3.5 only achieves around 80% macro-F1 under a binary classification formulation. A detailed analysis of more than 300 error cases indicates that a majority of failures stem from the model's inability to process nuanced information, and the discrepancy between the information the model has access to and that human annotators do.

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。

↑