Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators

Ranked by how close their title and abstract are to this paper’s. Select some to read them together.

Closest papers

1. Very close Not relevant

   CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing

   Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong et al. · 2023 · Computation and Language · Not summarized yet

   Abstract

   Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have been impressive. However, these models sometimes show inconsistencies and problematic behavior, such as hallucinating facts, generating flawed code, or creating offensive and toxic content. Unlike these models, humans typically utilize external tools to cross-check and refine their initial content, like using a search engine for fact-checking, or a code interpreter for debugging. Inspired by this observation, we introduce a framework called CRITIC that allows LLMs, which are essentially "black boxes" to validate and progressively amend their own outputs in a manner similar to human interaction with tools. More specifically, starting wi…

2. Very close Not relevant

   Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Critique Models with Test-Time and Training-Time Supervision

   Zhiheng Xi, Dingwen Yang, Jixuan Huang et al. · 2024 · Computation and Language · AI summary available

   Abstract

   Training large language models (LLMs) to spend more time thinking and reflection before responding is crucial for effectively solving complex reasoning tasks in fields such as science, coding, and mathematics. However, the effectiveness of mechanisms like self-reflection and self-correction depends on the model's capacity to accurately assess its own performance, which can be limited by factors such as initial accuracy, question difficulty, and the lack of external feedback. In this paper, we delve into a two-player paradigm that separates the roles of reasoning and critique models, where the critique model provides step-level feedback to supervise the reasoning (actor) model during both tes…

3. Very close Not relevant

   Shepherd: A Critic for Language Model Generation

   Tianlu Wang, Ping Yu, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan et al. · 2023 · Computation and Language · AI summary available

   Abstract

   As large language models improve, there is increasing interest in techniques that leverage these models' capabilities to refine their own outputs. In this work, we introduce Shepherd, a language model specifically tuned to critique responses and suggest refinements, extending beyond the capabilities of an untuned model to identify diverse errors and provide suggestions to remedy them. At the core of our approach is a high quality feedback dataset, which we curate from community feedback and human annotations. Even though Shepherd is small (7B parameters), its critiques are either equivalent or preferred to those from established models including ChatGPT. Using GPT-4 for evaluation, Shepherd …

4. Close Not relevant

   Learning to summarize from human feedback

   Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu et al. · 2020 · Computation and Language · AI summary available

   Abstract

   As language models become more powerful, training and evaluation are increasingly bottlenecked by the data and metrics used for a particular task. For example, summarization models are often trained to predict human reference summaries and evaluated using ROUGE, but both of these metrics are rough proxies for what we really care about---summary quality. In this work, we show that it is possible to significantly improve summary quality by training a model to optimize for human preferences. We collect a large, high-quality dataset of human comparisons between summaries, train a model to predict the human-preferred summary, and use that model as a reward function to fine-tune a summarization po…

5. Close Not relevant

   Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations

   Ethan Perez, Sam Ringer, Kamilė Lukošiūtė et al. · 2022 · Computation and Language · AI summary available

   Abstract

   As language models (LMs) scale, they develop many novel behaviors, good and bad, exacerbating the need to evaluate how they behave. Prior work creates evaluations with crowdwork (which is time-consuming and expensive) or existing data sources (which are not always available). Here, we automatically generate evaluations with LMs. We explore approaches with varying amounts of human effort, from instructing LMs to write yes/no questions to making complex Winogender schemas with multiple stages of LM-based generation and filtering. Crowdworkers rate the examples as highly relevant and agree with 90-100% of labels, sometimes more so than corresponding human-written datasets. We generate 154 datas…

6. Close Not relevant

   Reflect, Retry, Reward: Self-Improving LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

   Shelly Bensal, Umar Jamil, Christopher Bryant et al. · 2025 · Computation and Language · AI summary available

   Abstract

   We explore a method for improving the performance of large language models through self-reflection and reinforcement learning. By incentivizing the model to generate better self-reflections when it answers incorrectly, we demonstrate that a model's ability to solve complex, verifiable tasks can be enhanced even when generating synthetic data is infeasible and only binary feedback is available. Our framework operates in two stages: first, upon failing a given task, the model generates a self-reflective commentary analyzing its previous attempt; second, the model is given another attempt at the task with the self-reflection in context. If the subsequent attempt succeeds, the tokens generated d…

7. Close Not relevant

   Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization

   Tianyi Zhang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus et al. · 2023 · Computation and Language · AI summary available

   Abstract

   Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. By conducting a human evaluation on ten LLMs across different pretraining methods, prompts, and model scales, we make two important observations. First, we find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability. Second, existing studies have been limited by low-quality references, leading to underestimates of human performance and lower few-shot and finetuning performance. To better evaluate LLMs, we perform human evaluation over high-quality summaries we collect from freelance writers. Despite major stylist…

8. Close Not relevant

   ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models

   Aparna Elangovan, Ling Liu, Lei Xu et al. · 2024 · Computation and Language · AI summary available

   Abstract

   In this position paper, we argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking that draws upon insights from disciplines such as user experience research and human behavioral psychology to ensure that the experimental design and results are reliable. The conclusions from these evaluations, thus, must consider factors such as usability, aesthetics, and cognitive biases. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. Furthermore, the evaluation should differentiate the capabilities and weaknesses of increasingly…