On the Evaluation of Machine-Generated Reports
0
🤿
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Large language models (LLMs) have enabled new ways to satisfy information needs, but they still struggle to compose complete, accurate, and verifiable long-form reports.
- This perspective paper presents a vision for automatic report generation and a framework to evaluate such systems.
- The key qualities needed in generated reports are completeness, accuracy, and verifiability.
- The evaluation framework uses "nuggets" of information (questions and answers) and source citation verification to assess these qualities.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models have made it possible for computers to generate human-like text on a wide range of topics. This has opened up new ways for people to find the information they need. However, while these models work well for things like ranking search results or generating short texts, they still have trouble creating long, detailed reports that are fully accurate and can be verified.
This paper brings together perspectives from industry and academia to outline a vision for systems that can automatically generate high-quality, in-depth reports. The key things these reports need to have are:
- Completeness - they cover all the necessary information to fully address the given topic.
- Accuracy - the information provided is correct and factual.
- Verifiability - the sources of the information can be checked.
To help build and evaluate systems that can produce reports with these qualities, the paper presents a evaluation framework. This framework uses specific pieces of information, expressed as questions and answers, that should be included in any good report. It also checks that the report cites its sources correctly, so the information can be verified.
By focusing on these important qualities, this work aims to drive progress in developing advanced report generation systems that can truly satisfy complex information needs.
Technical Explanation
The paper outlines a vision for automatic report generation systems that can produce complete, accurate, and verifiable long-form reports. This is in contrast to the current capabilities of large language models, which often struggle to compose high-quality, in-depth reports despite their success in other text generation tasks like document ranking and short-form text generation.
The key qualities that the authors identify as necessary for generated reports are:
- Completeness: The report must cover all the necessary background information, requirements, and scope as specified in the initial detailed description of the information need.
- Accuracy: The factual information provided in the report must be correct.
- Verifiability: The claims made in the report must be supported by citations to source documents.
To enable the development and evaluation of systems that can produce reports with these qualities, the authors present a flexible evaluation framework. This framework draws on ideas from various existing evaluations, such as evaluating generative ad-hoc information retrieval, automatic generation and evaluation of reading comprehension test items, and comparison of methods for evaluating generative IR.
The key elements of the evaluation framework are:
- Nuggets: Specific pieces of information, expressed as questions and answers, that should be present in a high-quality generated report.
- Citation Verification: Checking that the claims made in the report are supported by citations to source documents.
By focusing on these important qualities and providing a flexible evaluation framework, the authors aim to drive progress in developing advanced report generation systems that can truly satisfy complex, nuanced, and multi-faceted information needs.
Critical Analysis
The authors make a compelling case for the need to develop automatic report generation systems that can produce complete, accurate, and verifiable long-form reports. This is an important challenge, as such reports are necessary to satisfy complex information needs that cannot be adequately addressed by the current capabilities of large language models.
The evaluation framework proposed in the paper is a promising approach to assessing the quality of generated reports. The use of "nuggets" of information and citation verification aligns well with the authors' stated goals of completeness, accuracy, and verifiability. This framework could be a valuable tool for researchers and developers working on advanced report generation systems.
However, the paper does not delve into the significant technical challenges involved in building such systems. Generating coherent, substantive long-form text that meets the high bar of the authors' criteria is an extremely difficult task, even for state-of-the-art language models. Addressing issues like maintaining logical flow, ensuring factual correctness, and seamlessly integrating cited sources will require significant advancements in areas like reasoning, knowledge representation, and multimodal integration.
Additionally, the paper does not discuss potential biases or limitations in the proposed evaluation framework. For example, the reliance on "nuggets" of information may not capture more holistic aspects of report quality, and the citation verification approach may struggle with sources that are not readily available or easily verifiable.
Overall, this paper presents a valuable vision and evaluation framework for automatic report generation, but further research will be needed to address the significant technical challenges and refine the evaluation approach.
Conclusion
This perspective paper outlines a compelling vision for automatic report generation systems that can produce complete, accurate, and verifiable long-form reports. Such systems would be a significant advancement over the current capabilities of large language models, which often struggle with composing high-quality, in-depth reports.
The authors present a flexible evaluation framework that focuses on the key qualities of completeness, accuracy, and verifiability, using "nuggets" of information and citation verification. This framework could be a valuable tool for driving progress in this important area of research.
While the vision and evaluation approach are promising, significant technical challenges remain in building systems that can truly satisfy complex, nuanced information needs through generated reports. Overcoming these challenges will require advancements in areas like reasoning, knowledge representation, and multimodal integration. As the field of natural language generation continues to evolve, the insights and framework provided in this paper can help guide future efforts to develop advanced report generation capabilities.
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
🤿
0
On the Evaluation of Machine-Generated Reports
James Mayfield, Eugene Yang, Dawn Lawrie, Sean MacAvaney, Paul McNamee, Douglas W. Oard, Luca Soldaini, Ian Soboroff, Orion Weller, Efsun Kayi, Kate Sanders, Marc Mason, Noah Hibbler
Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled new ways to satisfy information needs. Although great strides have been made in applying them to settings like document ranking and short-form text generation, they still struggle to compose complete, accurate, and verifiable long-form reports. Reports with these qualities are necessary to satisfy the complex, nuanced, or multi-faceted information needs of users. In this perspective paper, we draw together opinions from industry and academia, and from a variety of related research areas, to present our vision for automatic report generation, and -- critically -- a flexible framework by which such reports can be evaluated. In contrast with other summarization tasks, automatic report generation starts with a detailed description of an information need, stating the necessary background, requirements, and scope of the report. Further, the generated reports should be complete, accurate, and verifiable. These qualities, which are desirable -- if not required -- in many analytic report-writing settings, require rethinking how to build and evaluate systems that exhibit these qualities. To foster new efforts in building these systems, we present an evaluation framework that draws on ideas found in various evaluations. To test completeness and accuracy, the framework uses nuggets of information, expressed as questions and answers, that need to be part of any high-quality generated report. Additionally, evaluation of citations that map claims made in the report to their source documents ensures verifiability.
Read more5/13/2024
0
Report Cards: Qualitative Evaluation of Language Models Using Natural Language Summaries
Blair Yang, Fuyang Cui, Keiran Paster, Jimmy Ba, Pashootan Vaezipoor, Silviu Pitis, Michael R. Zhang
The rapid development and dynamic nature of large language models (LLMs) make it difficult for conventional quantitative benchmarks to accurately assess their capabilities. We propose report cards, which are human-interpretable, natural language summaries of model behavior for specific skills or topics. We develop a framework to evaluate report cards based on three criteria: specificity (ability to distinguish between models), faithfulness (accurate representation of model capabilities), and interpretability (clarity and relevance to humans). We also propose an iterative algorithm for generating report cards without human supervision and explore its efficacy by ablating various design choices. Through experimentation with popular LLMs, we demonstrate that report cards provide insights beyond traditional benchmarks and can help address the need for a more interpretable and holistic evaluation of LLMs.
Read more9/4/2024
0
A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization
Huyen Nguyen, Haihua Chen, Lavanya Pobbathi, Junhua Ding
Evaluating text summarization has been a challenging task in natural language processing (NLP). Automatic metrics which heavily rely on reference summaries are not suitable in many situations, while human evaluation is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. We also conducts a comparative study on eight automatic metrics, human evaluation, and our proposed LLM-based method. Seven different types of state-of-the-art (SOTA) summarization models were evaluated. We perform extensive experiments and analysis on datasets with patent documents. Our results show that LLMs evaluation aligns closely with human evaluation, while widely-used automatic metrics such as ROUGE-2, BERTScore, and SummaC do not and also lack consistency. Based on the empirical comparison, we propose a LLM-powered framework for automatically evaluating and improving text summarization, which is beneficial and could attract wide attention among the community.
Read more7/2/2024
0
Generative Information Retrieval Evaluation
Marwah Alaofi, Negar Arabzadeh, Charles L. A. Clarke, Mark Sanderson
This paper is a draft of a chapter intended to appear in a forthcoming book on generative information retrieval, co-edited by Chirag Shah and Ryen White. In this chapter, we consider generative information retrieval evaluation from two distinct but interrelated perspectives. First, large language models (LLMs) themselves are rapidly becoming tools for evaluation, with current research indicating that LLMs may be superior to crowdsource workers and other paid assessors on basic relevance judgement tasks. We review past and ongoing related research, including speculation on the future of shared task initiatives, such as TREC, and a discussion on the continuing need for human assessments. Second, we consider the evaluation of emerging LLM-based generative information retrieval (GenIR) systems, including retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems. We consider approaches that focus both on the end-to-end evaluation of GenIR systems and on the evaluation of a retrieval component as an element in a RAG system. Going forward, we expect the evaluation of GenIR systems to be at least partially based on LLM-based assessment, creating an apparent circularity, with a system seemingly evaluating its own output. We resolve this apparent circularity in two ways: 1) by viewing LLM-based assessment as a form of slow search, where a slower IR system is used for evaluation and training of a faster production IR system; and 2) by recognizing a continuing need to ground evaluation in human assessment, even if the characteristics of that human assessment must change.
Read more4/17/2024