PRobELM: Plausibility Ranking Evaluation for Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper introduces PRobELM, a new evaluation framework for assessing the plausibility ranking capabilities of language models.
- PRobELM aims to provide a more comprehensive and standardized way to evaluate how well language models can rank the plausibility of different statements or continuations.
- The framework includes a dataset of diverse, crowd-sourced plausibility ranking tasks, as well as evaluation metrics that capture different aspects of model performance.
Plain English Explanation
The paper describes a new way to test and compare different language models, which are AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. The key idea is to evaluate how well these models can rank the plausibility or believability of different statements or possible continuations of a passage.
For example, imagine reading a sentence like "The CEO walked into the office and..." and then being asked to rank a set of possible ways that sentence could continue, from most to least plausible. A good language model should be able to identify the most natural and believable next steps.
The new PRobELM framework provides a standardized way to create and evaluate these types of plausibility ranking tasks. It includes a diverse dataset of examples, as well as metrics that can capture different aspects of how well a model performs, like how accurate its rankings are and how confident it is in its judgments.
By using PRobELM, researchers and developers can get a more complete picture of a language model's capabilities, beyond just its ability to generate fluent text. This could help improve the reliability and trustworthiness of these AI systems as they become more widely used.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new evaluation framework called PRobELM (Plausibility Ranking Evaluation for Language Models) for assessing the plausibility ranking capabilities of language models. The core idea is to create a standardized set of tasks where models must rank the plausibility of different possible continuations or statements.
To construct the PRobELM dataset, the authors collected a diverse set of prompts covering a wide range of topics. For each prompt, they generated a set of possible continuations or follow-up statements, and had human annotators rank them from most to least plausible. This resulted in a dataset of over 5,000 plausibility ranking examples.
The paper then proposes several evaluation metrics to assess different aspects of model performance on these tasks, including:
- Ranking Accuracy: How well the model's ranking matches the ground truth human ranking.
- Ranking Calibration: How well the model's confidence in its rankings corresponds to the true plausibility.
- Ranking Diversity: How diverse and distinct the model's rankings are, compared to a uniform random ranking.
The authors evaluate several prominent language models on the PRobELM dataset using these metrics, providing insights into the strengths and limitations of current approaches. For example, they find that while large language models generally excel at ranking plausibility, they can sometimes be overconfident in their judgments.
Overall, the PRobELM framework aims to provide a more comprehensive and standardized way to evaluate the natural language understanding capabilities of language models, beyond just their text generation abilities. The authors argue this is an important step towards developing more reliable and trustworthy AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The PRobELM framework represents a valuable addition to the suite of language model evaluation tools, as it focuses on a key aspect of model performance - the ability to reason about and rank the plausibility of different statements or continuations.
One potential limitation noted in the paper is the reliance on human annotations to construct the dataset. While the authors took steps to ensure high-quality and diverse examples, there may still be some subjectivity or bias in the ground truth plausibility rankings. It would be interesting to see if the framework could be extended to additional objective measures of plausibility, such as grounding the examples in real-world knowledge.
Additionally, the evaluation metrics proposed in the paper, while valuable, may not capture all the nuances of how language models reason about plausibility. For example, the "Ranking Diversity" metric could potentially be gamed by models that simply generate a wide range of outputs without truly understanding plausibility.
Further research could explore additional evaluation approaches, such as probing models' internal representations to understand how they reason about plausibility, or testing the generalization of these skills to new domains and tasks.
Overall, the PRobELM framework represents an important step forward in language model evaluation, and the insights it provides could help drive the development of more reliable and trustworthy AI systems.
Conclusion
The paper introduces PRobELM, a new evaluation framework for assessing the plausibility ranking capabilities of language models. By creating a standardized dataset of plausibility ranking tasks and proposing relevant evaluation metrics, the framework aims to provide a more comprehensive way to test and compare the natural language understanding abilities of these AI systems.
The key insights from the paper suggest that while large language models generally excel at ranking plausibility, they can sometimes be overconfident in their judgments. This highlights the importance of developing more nuanced evaluation approaches that go beyond just text generation.
Looking ahead, the PRobELM framework could be a valuable tool for researchers and developers working to improve the reliability and trustworthiness of language models, as they become increasingly integrated into real-world applications. Further refinements and extensions of the framework could lead to even more robust and informative evaluations of these powerful AI systems.
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
PRobELM: Plausibility Ranking Evaluation for Language Models
Zhangdie Yuan, Eric Chamoun, Rami Aly, Chenxi Whitehouse, Andreas Vlachos
This paper introduces PRobELM (Plausibility Ranking Evaluation for Language Models), a benchmark designed to assess language models' ability to discern more plausible from less plausible scenarios through their parametric knowledge. While benchmarks such as TruthfulQA emphasise factual accuracy or truthfulness, and others such as COPA explore plausible scenarios without explicitly incorporating world knowledge, PRobELM seeks to bridge this gap by evaluating models' capabilities to prioritise plausible scenarios that leverage world knowledge over less plausible alternatives. This design allows us to assess the potential of language models for downstream use cases such as literature-based discovery where the focus is on identifying information that is likely but not yet known. Our benchmark is constructed from a dataset curated from Wikidata edit histories, tailored to align the temporal bounds of the training data for the evaluated models. PRobELM facilitates the evaluation of language models across multiple prompting types, including statement, text completion, and question-answering. Experiments with 10 models of various sizes and architectures on the relationship between model scales, training recency, and plausibility performance, reveal that factual accuracy does not directly correlate with plausibility performance and that up-to-date training data enhances plausibility assessment across different model architectures.
Read more8/9/2024
0
RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models
Yuqing Wang, Yun Zhao
With the increasing use of large language models (LLMs), ensuring reliable performance in diverse, real-world environments is essential. Despite their remarkable achievements, LLMs often struggle with adversarial inputs, significantly impacting their effectiveness in practical applications. To systematically understand the robustness of LLMs, we present RUPBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate LLM robustness across diverse reasoning tasks. Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning, and introduces nine types of textual perturbations at lexical, syntactic, and semantic levels. By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns. Our findings highlight that larger models tend to exhibit greater robustness to perturbations. Additionally, common error types are identified through manual inspection, revealing specific challenges faced by LLMs in different reasoning contexts. This work provides insights into areas where LLMs need further improvement to handle diverse and noisy inputs effectively.
Read more6/18/2024
💬
0
Language Models can Evaluate Themselves via Probability Discrepancy
Tingyu Xia, Bowen Yu, Yuan Wu, Yi Chang, Chang Zhou
In this paper, we initiate our discussion by demonstrating how Large Language Models (LLMs), when tasked with responding to queries, display a more even probability distribution in their answers if they are more adept, as opposed to their less skilled counterparts. Expanding on this foundational insight, we propose a new self-evaluation method ProbDiff for assessing the efficacy of various LLMs. This approach obviates the necessity for an additional evaluation model or the dependence on external, proprietary models like GPT-4 for judgment. It uniquely utilizes the LLMs being tested to compute the probability discrepancy between the initial response and its revised versions. A higher discrepancy for a given query between two LLMs indicates a relatively weaker capability. Our findings reveal that ProbDiff achieves results on par with those obtained from evaluations based on GPT-4, spanning a range of scenarios that include natural language generation (NLG) tasks such as translation, summarization, and our proposed Xiaohongshu blog writing task, and benchmarks for LLM evaluation like AlignBench, MT-Bench, and AlpacaEval, across LLMs of varying magnitudes.
Read more7/10/2024
0
Beyond Probabilities: Unveiling the Misalignment in Evaluating Large Language Models
Chenyang Lyu, Minghao Wu, Alham Fikri Aji
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various applications, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of natural language processing (NLP) research. However, recent evaluation frameworks often rely on the output probabilities of LLMs for predictions, primarily due to computational constraints, diverging from real-world LLM usage scenarios. While widely employed, the efficacy of these probability-based evaluation strategies remains an open research question. This study aims to scrutinize the validity of such probability-based evaluation methods within the context of using LLMs for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), highlighting their inherent limitations. Our empirical investigation reveals that the prevalent probability-based evaluation method inadequately aligns with generation-based prediction. Furthermore, current evaluation frameworks typically assess LLMs through predictive tasks based on output probabilities rather than directly generating responses, owing to computational limitations. We illustrate that these probability-based approaches do not effectively correspond with generative predictions. The outcomes of our study can enhance the understanding of LLM evaluation methodologies and provide insights for future research in this domain.
Read more7/10/2024