Are Large Language Models Good at Utility Judgments?
2403.19216
0
0
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is considered to be a promising approach to alleviate the hallucination issue of large language models (LLMs), and it has received widespread attention from researchers recently. Due to the limitation in the semantic understanding of retrieval models, the success of RAG heavily lies on the ability of LLMs to identify passages with utility. Recent efforts have explored the ability of LLMs to assess the relevance of passages in retrieval, but there has been limited work on evaluating the utility of passages in supporting question answering. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive study about the capabilities of LLMs in utility evaluation for open-domain QA. Specifically, we introduce a benchmarking procedure and collection of candidate passages with different characteristics, facilitating a series of experiments with five representative LLMs. Our experiments reveal that: (i) well-instructed LLMs can distinguish between relevance and utility, and that LLMs are highly receptive to newly generated counterfactual passages. Moreover, (ii) we scrutinize key factors that affect utility judgments in the instruction design. And finally, (iii) to verify the efficacy of utility judgments in practical retrieval augmentation applications, we delve into LLMs' QA capabilities using the evidence judged with utility and direct dense retrieval results. (iv) We propose a k-sampling, listwise approach to reduce the dependency of LLMs on the sequence of input passages, thereby facilitating subsequent answer generation. We believe that the way we formalize and study the problem along with our findings contributes to a critical assessment of retrieval-augmented LLMs. Our code and benchmark can be found at url{https://github.com/ict-bigdatalab/utility_judgments}.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores whether large language models (LLMs) are capable of making accurate judgments about the utility or usefulness of information, a critical ability for open-domain question answering systems.
- The researchers conduct a series of experiments to assess an LLM's ability to evaluate the relevance and usefulness of evidence for answering questions.
- The findings suggest that LLMs can make reasonably accurate utility judgments, but their performance is still limited compared to human raters, especially for more complex or ambiguous questions.
Plain English Explanation
The paper investigates whether large language models, which are powerful AI systems trained on vast amounts of text data, are able to effectively judge the usefulness or relevance of information when answering open-ended questions. This is an important skill for AI question-answering systems, as they need to be able to identify the most helpful pieces of information to provide a good answer.
The researchers set up experiments where the language model was shown pieces of text and asked to evaluate how useful that information would be for answering a particular question. They found that the language model was generally able to make reasonably accurate judgments about the utility of the evidence, but its performance was not as good as human raters, especially for more complex or ambiguous questions.
This suggests that while large language models are making progress in their ability to reason about the usefulness of information, they still have room for improvement compared to human-level understanding and judgment. Further research and development may be needed to build AI systems that can match or exceed human capabilities when it comes to assessing the value of information for answering open-ended questions.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a study on the ability of large language models (LLMs) to make accurate utility judgments - i.e., assess the relevance and usefulness of information for answering open-domain questions. The researchers conduct a series of experiments using the GPT-3 language model to evaluate evidence utility across a range of question types.
In the experiments, the LLM is shown a question and a piece of text (the "evidence") and asked to judge how useful that evidence would be for answering the question. The researchers compare the LLM's utility judgments to those made by human raters, as well as analyze factors that influence the LLM's performance, such as question complexity and ambiguity.
The results suggest that LLMs can make reasonably accurate utility judgments, but their performance is still inferior to that of human raters, especially for more complex or ambiguous questions. The researchers also find that the LLM's utility judgments are influenced by factors like question type, evidence length, and the match between the question and the evidence.
These findings have implications for the development of retrieval-augmented question answering systems, which rely on the ability to accurately assess the usefulness of retrieved information. The paper's insights could help inform the design of more effective retrieval-augmented language models for open-domain question answering.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a well-designed experimental setup to investigate the utility judgment capabilities of large language models, and the findings offer valuable insights into the current limitations of these models. However, there are a few areas that could be explored further:
-
Scope and Generalizability: The experiments were conducted using a single LLM (GPT-3) and a limited set of question types. It would be informative to see if the results hold true for other LLMs and a wider range of question domains and complexities.
-
Interpretability: The paper does not provide much insight into the specific mechanisms or heuristics the LLM uses to make its utility judgments. A more in-depth analysis of the model's decision-making process could help identify areas for improvement.
-
Practical Implications: While the paper discusses the relevance of the findings for retrieval-augmented question answering systems, it would be valuable to explore how these insights can be translated into practical applications and system design guidelines.
-
Benchmarking: The researchers compare the LLM's performance to human raters, but it would also be useful to benchmark against other existing utility judgment approaches or systems to provide a more comprehensive evaluation.
Overall, the paper represents a significant contribution to understanding the capabilities and limitations of large language models in making utility judgments, which is a crucial component of effective open-domain question answering. Further research building on these findings could lead to more robust and reliable AI systems for this important task.
Conclusion
This paper investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to make accurate judgments about the utility or relevance of information for answering open-domain questions. Through a series of experiments, the researchers find that LLMs can perform reasonably well at utility judgments, but their performance is still inferior to that of human raters, particularly for more complex or ambiguous questions.
The insights from this study have important implications for the development of retrieval-augmented question answering systems, which rely on the accurate assessment of the usefulness of retrieved information. The findings suggest that while LLMs are making progress in this area, there is still room for improvement to match or exceed human-level utility judgment capabilities. Continued research and innovation in this field could lead to more effective and reliable retrieval-augmented language models for open-domain question answering.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
💬
A Survey on RAG Meets LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, Qing Li
0
0
As one of the most advanced techniques in AI, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) can offer reliable and up-to-date external knowledge, providing huge convenience for numerous tasks. Particularly in the era of AI-Generated Content (AIGC), the powerful capacity of retrieval in providing additional knowledge enables RAG to assist existing generative AI in producing high-quality outputs. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated revolutionary abilities in language understanding and generation, while still facing inherent limitations, such as hallucinations and out-of-date internal knowledge. Given the powerful abilities of RAG in providing the latest and helpful auxiliary information, Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models (RA-LLMs) have emerged to harness external and authoritative knowledge bases, rather than solely relying on the model's internal knowledge, to augment the generation quality of LLMs. In this survey, we comprehensively review existing research studies in RA-LLMs, covering three primary technical perspectives: architectures, training strategies, and applications. As the preliminary knowledge, we briefly introduce the foundations and recent advances of LLMs. Then, to illustrate the practical significance of RAG for LLMs, we systematically review mainstream relevant work by their architectures, training strategies, and application areas, detailing specifically the challenges of each and the corresponding capabilities of RA-LLMs. Finally, to deliver deeper insights, we discuss current limitations and several promising directions for future research. Updated information about this survey can be found at https://advanced-recommender-systems.github.io/RAG-Meets-LLMs/
6/18/2024
Evaluating Quality of Answers for Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Strong LLM Is All You Need
Yang Wang, Alberto Garcia Hernandez, Roman Kyslyi, Nicholas Kersting
0
0
We present a comprehensive evaluation of answer quality in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) applications using vRAG-Eval, a novel grading system that is designed to assess correctness, completeness, and honesty. We further map the grading of quality aspects aforementioned into a binary score, indicating an accept or reject decision, mirroring the intuitive thumbs-up or thumbs-down gesture commonly used in chat applications. This approach suits factual business settings where a clear decision opinion is essential. Our assessment applies vRAG-Eval to two Large Language Models (LLMs), evaluating the quality of answers generated by a vanilla RAG application. We compare these evaluations with human expert judgments and find a substantial alignment between GPT-4's assessments and those of human experts, reaching 83% agreement on accept or reject decisions. This study highlights the potential of LLMs as reliable evaluators in closed-domain, closed-ended settings, particularly when human evaluations require significant resources.
6/27/2024
✨
Evaluating the Retrieval Component in LLM-Based Question Answering Systems
Ashkan Alinejad, Krtin Kumar, Ali Vahdat
0
0
Question answering systems (QA) utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) heavily depend on the retrieval component to provide them with domain-specific information and reduce the risk of generating inaccurate responses or hallucinations. Although the evaluation of retrievers dates back to the early research in Information Retrieval, assessing their performance within LLM-based chatbots remains a challenge. This study proposes a straightforward baseline for evaluating retrievers in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based chatbots. Our findings demonstrate that this evaluation framework provides a better image of how the retriever performs and is more aligned with the overall performance of the QA system. Although conventional metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score may not fully capture LLMs' capabilities - as they can yield accurate responses despite imperfect retrievers - our method considers LLMs' strengths to ignore irrelevant contexts, as well as potential errors and hallucinations in their responses.
6/11/2024
Tool Calling: Enhancing Medication Consultation via Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Zhongzhen Huang, Kui Xue, Yongqi Fan, Linjie Mu, Ruoyu Liu, Tong Ruan, Shaoting Zhang, Xiaofan Zhang
0
0
Large-scale language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across various language tasks but suffer from hallucinations and temporal misalignment. To mitigate these shortcomings, Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has been utilized to provide external knowledge to facilitate the answer generation. However, applying such models to the medical domain faces several challenges due to the lack of domain-specific knowledge and the intricacy of real-world scenarios. In this study, we explore LLMs with RAG framework for knowledge-intensive tasks in the medical field. To evaluate the capabilities of LLMs, we introduce MedicineQA, a multi-round dialogue benchmark that simulates the real-world medication consultation scenario and requires LLMs to answer with retrieved evidence from the medicine database. MedicineQA contains 300 multi-round question-answering pairs, each embedded within a detailed dialogue history, highlighting the challenge posed by this knowledge-intensive task to current LLMs. We further propose a new textit{Distill-Retrieve-Read} framework instead of the previous textit{Retrieve-then-Read}. Specifically, the distillation and retrieval process utilizes a tool calling mechanism to formulate search queries that emulate the keyword-based inquiries used by search engines. With experimental results, we show that our framework brings notable performance improvements and surpasses the previous counterparts in the evidence retrieval process in terms of evidence retrieval accuracy. This advancement sheds light on applying RAG to the medical domain.
4/30/2024