One Prompt To Rule Them All: LLMs for Opinion Summary Evaluation
2402.11683
0
0
Abstract
Evaluation of opinion summaries using conventional reference-based metrics rarely provides a holistic evaluation and has been shown to have a relatively low correlation with human judgments. Recent studies suggest using Large Language Models (LLMs) as reference-free metrics for NLG evaluation, however, they remain unexplored for opinion summary evaluation. Moreover, limited opinion summary evaluation datasets inhibit progress. To address this, we release the SUMMEVAL-OP dataset covering 7 dimensions related to the evaluation of opinion summaries: fluency, coherence, relevance, faithfulness, aspect coverage, sentiment consistency, and specificity. We investigate Op-I-Prompt a dimension-independent prompt, and Op-Prompts, a dimension-dependent set of prompts for opinion summary evaluation. Experiments indicate that Op-I-Prompt emerges as a good alternative for evaluating opinion summaries achieving an average Spearman correlation of 0.70 with humans, outperforming all previous approaches. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to investigate LLMs as evaluators on both closed-source and open-source models in the opinion summarization domain.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) for evaluating opinion summaries, which are concise written descriptions that capture the key points and sentiments from a longer document.
- The researchers investigate whether a single prompt can be used to effectively evaluate opinion summaries across different datasets, rather than requiring custom prompts for each dataset.
- They compare the performance of several LLM-based evaluation methods to human judgments, examining aspects like coherence, faithfulness, and overall quality.
Plain English Explanation
In this paper, the researchers looked at using large language models to evaluate opinion summaries. Opinion summaries are short written descriptions that capture the main points and feelings from a longer document.
The key question the researchers explored is whether a single prompt (or instruction) could be used to effectively evaluate opinion summaries across different datasets, rather than needing a custom prompt for each dataset. They compared the performance of several LLM-based evaluation methods to human judgments, looking at how well the summaries captured the coherence, faithfulness, and overall quality of the original text.
The researchers wanted to see if LLMs could be consistent and unbiased evaluators of opinion summaries, rather than requiring a lot of customization for each new dataset. This could make the evaluation process more efficient and standardized.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted experiments using several LLM-based methods for evaluating opinion summaries, including:
- Extracting relevant features from the summary and comparing to the original text
- Using the LLM to generate a new summary and comparing it to the input summary
- Prompting the LLM to directly assess the summary quality
They evaluated these methods across multiple datasets and compared the LLM assessments to human judgments. The goal was to determine if a single prompt could effectively capture the multi-faceted nature of summary quality without requiring dataset-specific prompts.
The results showed that the LLM-based methods could achieve performance comparable to human raters on aspects like coherence and faithfulness. However, the LLMs struggled to fully capture the overall quality assessment in the way humans did.
Critical Analysis
The research provides promising evidence that LLMs can be leveraged as efficient multi-prompt evaluators for opinion summaries. However, the authors acknowledge that the LLMs exhibited some biases and inconsistencies compared to human raters, particularly when assessing overall quality.
Further research is needed to better understand the limitations of LLMs as evaluators and how to address potential biases. Incorporating additional signals or fine-tuning the models on specific datasets may help improve their assessment capabilities.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrates the potential for using LLMs to efficiently evaluate opinion summaries, but also highlights areas for improvement. While LLMs can capture certain quality dimensions like coherence and faithfulness, assessing the overall quality of a summary remains a challenge.
Continued research in this area could lead to more standardized and scalable methods for evaluating opinion summaries, with important implications for areas like content moderation, media analysis, and educational assessment.
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
State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation
Moran Mizrahi, Guy Kaplan, Dan Malkin, Rotem Dror, Dafna Shahaf, Gabriel Stanovsky
0
0
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of various evaluation benchmarks. These benchmarks typically rely on a single instruction template for evaluating all LLMs on a specific task. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances, involving 20 different LLMs and 39 tasks from 3 benchmarks. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead. We discuss tailored evaluation metrics for specific use cases (e.g., LLM developers vs. developers interested in a specific downstream task), ensuring a more reliable and meaningful assessment of LLM capabilities. We then implement these criteria and conduct evaluations of multiple models, providing insights into the true strengths and limitations of current LLMs.
5/7/2024
PrExMe! Large Scale Prompt Exploration of Open Source LLMs for Machine Translation and Summarization Evaluation
Christoph Leiter, Steffen Eger
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized the field of NLP. Notably, their in-context learning capabilities also enable their use as evaluation metrics for natural language generation, making them particularly advantageous in low-resource scenarios and time-restricted applications. In this work, we introduce PrExMe, a large-scale prompt exploration for metrics, where we evaluate more than 720 prompt templates for open-source LLM-based metrics on machine translation (MT) and summarization datasets, totalling over 6.6M evaluations. This extensive comparison (1) serves as a benchmark of the performance of recent open-source LLMs as metrics and (2) explores the stability and variability of different prompting strategies. We discover that, on the one hand, there are scenarios for which prompts are stable. For instance, some LLMs show idiosyncratic preferences and favor to grade generated texts with textual labels while others prefer to return numeric scores. On the other hand, the stability of prompts and model rankings can be susceptible to seemingly innocuous changes. For example, changing the requested output format from 0 to 100 to -1 to +1 can strongly affect the rankings in our evaluation. Our study contributes to understanding the impact of different prompting approaches on LLM-based metrics for MT and summarization evaluation, highlighting the most stable prompting patterns and potential limitations.
6/27/2024
Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators
Rickard Stureborg, Dimitris Alikaniotis, Yoshi Suhara
0
0
The zero-shot capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has enabled highly flexible, reference-free metrics for various tasks, making LLM evaluators common tools in NLP. However, the robustness of these LLM evaluators remains relatively understudied; existing work mainly pursued optimal performance in terms of correlating LLM scores with human expert scores. In this paper, we conduct a series of analyses using the SummEval dataset and confirm that LLMs are biased evaluators as they: (1) exhibit familiarity bias-a preference for text with lower perplexity, (2) show skewed and biased distributions of ratings, and (3) experience anchoring effects for multi-attribute judgments. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low inter-sample agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality. Furthermore, we share recipes for configuring LLM evaluators to mitigate these limitations. Experimental results on the RoSE dataset demonstrate improvements over the state-of-the-art LLM evaluators.
5/6/2024
Distilling Opinions at Scale: Incremental Opinion Summarization using XL-OPSUMM
Sri Raghava Muddu, Rupasai Rangaraju, Tejpalsingh Siledar, Swaroop Nath, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Swaprava Nath, Suman Banerjee, Amey Patil, Muthusamy Chelliah, Sudhanshu Shekhar Singh, Nikesh Garera
0
0
Opinion summarization in e-commerce encapsulates the collective views of numerous users about a product based on their reviews. Typically, a product on an e-commerce platform has thousands of reviews, each review comprising around 10-15 words. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown proficiency in summarization tasks, they struggle to handle such a large volume of reviews due to context limitations. To mitigate, we propose a scalable framework called Xl-OpSumm that generates summaries incrementally. However, the existing test set, AMASUM has only 560 reviews per product on average. Due to the lack of a test set with thousands of reviews, we created a new test set called Xl-Flipkart by gathering data from the Flipkart website and generating summaries using GPT-4. Through various automatic evaluations and extensive analysis, we evaluated the framework's efficiency on two datasets, AMASUM and Xl-Flipkart. Experimental results show that our framework, Xl-OpSumm powered by Llama-3-8B-8k, achieves an average ROUGE-1 F1 gain of 4.38% and a ROUGE-L F1 gain of 3.70% over the next best-performing model.
6/18/2024