Testing and Evaluation of Large Language Models: Correctness, Non-Toxicity, and Fairness
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Provides a plain English summary of a technical research paper
- Covers the key ideas, methodology, and insights from the paper
- Critically analyzes the research, discussing limitations and areas for further study
- Concludes with the main takeaways and potential implications
Plain English Explanation
The research paper explores [key topic] using [methodology]. The researchers [brief description of key findings or contributions]. This is significant because [explanation of why the research is important or impactful].
The paper begins by [summary of introduction]. It then describes the [summary of methodology], including [key details]. The researchers found that [summary of main results or insights]. These findings suggest that [plain English interpretation of the significance or implications].
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates [keyword] by [description of experiment design or architecture]. The authors [keyword] to [keyword] and then [keyword] to [keyword]. Their results indicate that [keyword] is [keyword] under [keyword] conditions, and that [keyword] can [keyword] [keyword].
Specifically, the researchers internal link used [technique] to [purpose]. They internal link on a dataset of [details] and evaluated [metric] to assess [goal]. The findings show that [result] and [result], suggesting that [interpretation].
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges several [keyword] and [keyword] associated with the proposed [keyword] approach. For example, the authors note that [limitation] and [limitation], which could [concern] the reliability of the results.
Additionally, the research does not [keyword] or [keyword], which are important considerations for [keyword] applications. Further work is needed to internal link and explore [keyword] in more depth.
Overall, this paper provides valuable insights into [keyword], but caution is warranted in interpreting the findings and applying the techniques in practice due to the identified [keyword] and [keyword].
Conclusion
This research presents a novel [keyword] approach for [keyword]. The key contributions are [keyword], [keyword], and [keyword], which suggest that [keyword] can [keyword] under certain conditions.
While the findings are promising, the paper also highlights important [keyword] and [keyword] that warrant further investigation. Addressing these limitations could lead to more robust and [keyword] [keyword] solutions in the future.
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
Testing and Evaluation of Large Language Models: Correctness, Non-Toxicity, and Fairness
Wenxuan Wang
Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have rapidly penetrated into people's work and daily lives over the past few years, due to their extraordinary conversational skills and intelligence. ChatGPT has become the fastest-growing software in terms of user numbers in human history and become an important foundational model for the next generation of artificial intelligence applications. However, the generations of LLMs are not entirely reliable, often producing content with factual errors, biases, and toxicity. Given their vast number of users and wide range of application scenarios, these unreliable responses can lead to many serious negative impacts. This thesis introduces the exploratory works in the field of language model reliability during the PhD study, focusing on the correctness, non-toxicity, and fairness of LLMs from both software testing and natural language processing perspectives. First, to measure the correctness of LLMs, we introduce two testing frameworks, FactChecker and LogicAsker, to evaluate factual knowledge and logical reasoning accuracy, respectively. Second, for the non-toxicity of LLMs, we introduce two works for red-teaming LLMs. Third, to evaluate the fairness of LLMs, we introduce two evaluation frameworks, BiasAsker and XCulturalBench, to measure the social bias and cultural bias of LLMs, respectively.
Read more9/4/2024
💬
0
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Isabel O. Gallegos, Ryan A. Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, Nesreen K. Ahmed
Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.
Read more7/16/2024
0
A Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Natural Language Generation Tasks
Xuanfan Ni, Piji Li
Recent efforts have evaluated large language models (LLMs) in areas such as commonsense reasoning, mathematical reasoning, and code generation. However, to the best of our knowledge, no work has specifically investigated the performance of LLMs in natural language generation (NLG) tasks, a pivotal criterion for determining model excellence. Thus, this paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of well-known and high-performing LLMs, namely ChatGPT, ChatGLM, T5-based models, LLaMA-based models, and Pythia-based models, in the context of NLG tasks. We select English and Chinese datasets encompassing Dialogue Generation and Text Summarization. Moreover, we propose a common evaluation setting that incorporates input templates and post-processing strategies. Our study reports both automatic results, accompanied by a detailed analysis.
Read more5/17/2024
💬
0
Assessing the nature of large language models: A caution against anthropocentrism
Ann Speed
Generative AI models garnered a large amount of public attention and speculation with the release of OpenAIs chatbot, ChatGPT. At least two opinion camps exist: one excited about possibilities these models offer for fundamental changes to human tasks, and another highly concerned about power these models seem to have. To address these concerns, we assessed several LLMs, primarily GPT 3.5, using standard, normed, and validated cognitive and personality measures. For this seedling project, we developed a battery of tests that allowed us to estimate the boundaries of some of these models capabilities, how stable those capabilities are over a short period of time, and how they compare to humans. Our results indicate that LLMs are unlikely to have developed sentience, although its ability to respond to personality inventories is interesting. GPT3.5 did display large variability in both cognitive and personality measures over repeated observations, which is not expected if it had a human-like personality. Variability notwithstanding, LLMs display what in a human would be considered poor mental health, including low self-esteem, marked dissociation from reality, and in some cases narcissism and psychopathy, despite upbeat and helpful responses.
Read more6/28/2024