Detecting factual errors in summaries has been an important and challenging subject in summarization research. Inspired by the emergent ability of large language models (LLMs), we explore evaluating factual consistency of summaries by directly prompting LLMs. We present a comprehensive empirical study to assess the ability of LLMs as factual consistency evaluators, which consists of (1) analyzing different LLMs such as the GPT model series and Flan-T5; (2) investigating a variety of prompting methods including vanilla prompting, chain-of-thought prompting, and a sentence-by-sentence prompting method to tackle long summaries; and (3) evaluating on diverse summaries generated by multiple summarization systems, ranging from pre-transformer methods to SOTA pretrained models. Our experiments demonstrate that prompting LLMs is able to outperform the previous best factuality systems in all settings, by up to 12.2 absolute points in terms of the binary classification accuracy on inconsistency detection.
相關內容
Large language models~(LLM) like ChatGPT have become indispensable to artificial general intelligence~(AGI), demonstrating excellent performance in various natural language processing tasks. In the real world, graph data is ubiquitous and an essential part of AGI and prevails in domains like social network analysis, bioinformatics and recommender systems. The training corpus of large language models often includes some algorithmic components, which allows them to achieve certain effects on some graph data-related problems. However, there is still little research on their performance on a broader range of graph-structured data. In this study, we conduct an extensive investigation to assess the proficiency of LLMs in comprehending graph data, employing a diverse range of structural and semantic-related tasks. Our analysis encompasses 10 distinct tasks that evaluate the LLMs' capabilities in graph understanding. Through our study, we not only uncover the current limitations of language models in comprehending graph structures and performing associated reasoning tasks but also emphasize the necessity for further advancements and novel approaches to enhance their graph processing capabilities. Our findings contribute valuable insights towards bridging the gap between language models and graph understanding, paving the way for more effective graph mining and knowledge extraction.
Logical reasoning consistently plays a fundamental and significant role in the domains of knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a noteworthy innovation in natural language processing (NLP), exhibiting impressive achievements across various classic NLP tasks. However, the question of whether LLMs can effectively address the task of logical reasoning, which requires gradual cognitive inference similar to human intelligence, remains unanswered. To this end, we aim to bridge this gap and provide comprehensive evaluations in this paper. Firstly, to offer systematic evaluations, we select fifteen typical logical reasoning datasets and organize them into deductive, inductive, abductive and mixed-form reasoning settings. Considering the comprehensiveness of evaluations, we include three representative LLMs (i.e., text-davinci-003, ChatGPT and BARD) and evaluate them on all selected datasets under zero-shot, one-shot and three-shot settings. Secondly, different from previous evaluations relying only on simple metrics (e.g., accuracy), we propose fine-level evaluations from objective and subjective manners, covering both answers and explanations. Additionally, to uncover the logical flaws of LLMs, problematic cases will be attributed to five error types from two dimensions, i.e., evidence selection process and reasoning process. Thirdly, to avoid the influences of knowledge bias and purely focus on benchmarking the logical reasoning capability of LLMs, we propose a new dataset with neutral content. It contains 3,000 samples and covers deductive, inductive and abductive settings. Based on the in-depth evaluations, this paper finally forms a general evaluation scheme of logical reasoning capability from six dimensions. It reflects the pros and cons of LLMs and gives guiding directions for future works.
This paper introduces the Life Scapes Reasoning Benchmark (LSR-Benchmark), a novel dataset targeting real-life scenario reasoning, aiming to close the gap in artificial neural networks' ability to reason in everyday contexts. In contrast to domain knowledge reasoning datasets, LSR-Benchmark comprises free-text formatted questions with rich information on real-life scenarios, human behaviors, and character roles. The dataset consists of 2,162 questions collected from open-source online sources and is manually annotated to improve its quality. Experiments are conducted using state-of-the-art language models, such as gpt3.5-turbo and instruction fine-tuned llama models, to test the performance in LSR-Benchmark. The results reveal that humans outperform these models significantly, indicating a persisting challenge for machine learning models in comprehending daily human life.
Property-based testing (PBT), while an established technique in the software testing research community, is still relatively underused in real-world software. Pain points in writing property-based tests include implementing diverse random input generators and thinking of meaningful properties to test. Developers, however, are more amenable to writing documentation; plenty of library API documentation is available and can be used as natural language specifications for property-based tests. As large language models (LLMs) have recently shown promise in a variety of coding tasks, we explore the potential of using LLMs to synthesize property-based tests. We call our approach PBT-GPT, and propose three different strategies of prompting the LLM for PBT. We characterize various failure modes of PBT-GPT and detail an evaluation methodology for automatically synthesized property-based tests. PBT-GPT achieves promising results in our preliminary studies on sample Python library APIs in $\texttt{numpy}$, $\texttt{networkx}$, and $\texttt{datetime}$.
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry, owing to their unprecedented performance in various applications. As LLMs continue to play a vital role in both research and daily use, their evaluation becomes increasingly critical, not only at the task level, but also at the society level for better understanding of their potential risks. Over the past years, significant efforts have been made to examine LLMs from various perspectives. This paper presents a comprehensive review of these evaluation methods for LLMs, focusing on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate. Firstly, we provide an overview from the perspective of evaluation tasks, encompassing general natural language processing tasks, reasoning, medical usage, ethics, educations, natural and social sciences, agent applications, and other areas. Secondly, we answer the `where' and `how' questions by diving into the evaluation methods and benchmarks, which serve as crucial components in assessing performance of LLMs. Then, we summarize the success and failure cases of LLMs in different tasks. Finally, we shed light on several future challenges that lie ahead in LLMs evaluation. Our aim is to offer invaluable insights to researchers in the realm of LLMs evaluation, thereby aiding the development of more proficient LLMs. Our key point is that evaluation should be treated as an essential discipline to better assist the development of LLMs. We consistently maintain the related open-source materials at: //github.com/MLGroupJLU/LLM-eval-survey.
Large-scale language models (LLMs) has shown remarkable capability in various of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks and attracted lots of attention recently. However, some studies indicated that large language models fail to achieve promising result beyond the state-of-the-art models in English grammatical error correction (GEC) tasks. In this report, we aim to explore the how large language models perform on Chinese grammatical error correction tasks and provide guidance for future work. We conduct experiments with 3 different LLMs of different model scale on 4 Chinese GEC dataset. Our experimental results indicate that the performances of LLMs on automatic evaluation metrics falls short of the previous sota models because of the problem of over-correction. Furthermore, we also discover notable variations in the performance of LLMs when evaluated on different data distributions. Our findings demonstrates that further investigation is required for the application of LLMs on Chinese GEC task.
Lexical matching remains the de facto evaluation method for open-domain question answering (QA). Unfortunately, lexical matching fails completely when a plausible candidate answer does not appear in the list of gold answers, which is increasingly the case as we shift from extractive to generative models. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) for QA aggravates lexical matching failures since candidate answers become longer, thereby making matching with the gold answers even more challenging. Without accurate evaluation, the true progress in open-domain QA remains unknown. In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of various open-domain QA models, including LLMs, by manually evaluating their answers on a subset of NQ-open, a popular benchmark. Our assessments reveal that while the true performance of all models is significantly underestimated, the performance of the InstructGPT (zero-shot) LLM increases by nearly +60%, making it on par with existing top models, and the InstructGPT (few-shot) model actually achieves a new state-of-the-art on NQ-open. We also find that more than 50% of lexical matching failures are attributed to semantically equivalent answers. We further demonstrate that regex matching ranks QA models consistent with human judgments, although still suffering from unnecessary strictness. Finally, we demonstrate that automated evaluation models are a reasonable surrogate for lexical matching in some circumstances, but not for long-form answers generated by LLMs. The automated models struggle in detecting hallucinations in LLM answers and are thus unable to evaluate LLMs. At this time, there appears to be no substitute for human evaluation.
In recent years, Graph Neural Networks have reported outstanding performance in tasks like community detection, molecule classification and link prediction. However, the black-box nature of these models prevents their application in domains like health and finance, where understanding the models' decisions is essential. Counterfactual Explanations (CE) provide these understandings through examples. Moreover, the literature on CE is flourishing with novel explanation methods which are tailored to graph learning. In this survey, we analyse the existing Graph Counterfactual Explanation methods, by providing the reader with an organisation of the literature according to a uniform formal notation for definitions, datasets, and metrics, thus, simplifying potential comparisons w.r.t to the method advantages and disadvantages. We discussed seven methods and sixteen synthetic and real datasets providing details on the possible generation strategies. We highlight the most common evaluation strategies and formalise nine of the metrics used in the literature. We first introduce the evaluation framework GRETEL and how it is possible to extend and use it while providing a further dimension of comparison encompassing reproducibility aspects. Finally, we provide a discussion on how counterfactual explanation interplays with privacy and fairness, before delving into open challenges and future works.
Structural data well exists in Web applications, such as social networks in social media, citation networks in academic websites, and threads data in online forums. Due to the complex topology, it is difficult to process and make use of the rich information within such data. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown great advantages on learning representations for structural data. However, the non-transparency of the deep learning models makes it non-trivial to explain and interpret the predictions made by GNNs. Meanwhile, it is also a big challenge to evaluate the GNN explanations, since in many cases, the ground-truth explanations are unavailable. In this paper, we take insights of Counterfactual and Factual (CF^2) reasoning from causal inference theory, to solve both the learning and evaluation problems in explainable GNNs. For generating explanations, we propose a model-agnostic framework by formulating an optimization problem based on both of the two casual perspectives. This distinguishes CF^2 from previous explainable GNNs that only consider one of them. Another contribution of the work is the evaluation of GNN explanations. For quantitatively evaluating the generated explanations without the requirement of ground-truth, we design metrics based on Counterfactual and Factual reasoning to evaluate the necessity and sufficiency of the explanations. Experiments show that no matter ground-truth explanations are available or not, CF^2 generates better explanations than previous state-of-the-art methods on real-world datasets. Moreover, the statistic analysis justifies the correlation between the performance on ground-truth evaluation and our proposed metrics.
The dominating NLP paradigm of training a strong neural predictor to perform one task on a specific dataset has led to state-of-the-art performance in a variety of applications (eg. sentiment classification, span-prediction based question answering or machine translation). However, it builds upon the assumption that the data distribution is stationary, ie. that the data is sampled from a fixed distribution both at training and test time. This way of training is inconsistent with how we as humans are able to learn from and operate within a constantly changing stream of information. Moreover, it is ill-adapted to real-world use cases where the data distribution is expected to shift over the course of a model's lifetime. The first goal of this thesis is to characterize the different forms this shift can take in the context of natural language processing, and propose benchmarks and evaluation metrics to measure its effect on current deep learning architectures. We then proceed to take steps to mitigate the effect of distributional shift on NLP models. To this end, we develop methods based on parametric reformulations of the distributionally robust optimization framework. Empirically, we demonstrate that these approaches yield more robust models as demonstrated on a selection of realistic problems. In the third and final part of this thesis, we explore ways of efficiently adapting existing models to new domains or tasks. Our contribution to this topic takes inspiration from information geometry to derive a new gradient update rule which alleviate catastrophic forgetting issues during adaptation.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191