LLMMaps -- A Visual Metaphor for Stratified Evaluation of Large Language Models
AI-generated Key Points
- Large Language Models (LLMs) are impressive in various natural language processing tasks
- LLMs are prone to hallucinations and require diligent evaluation approaches
- Evaluations based on Q&A datasets for specific knowledge fields often report only a single accuracy number for the entire field, which is problematic for transparency and model improvement
- Ulm University researchers propose LLMMaps as a novel visualization technique to evaluate LLMs' performance with respect to Q&A datasets
- LLMMaps provide detailed insights into LLMs' knowledge capabilities in different subfields by transforming Q&A datasets and LLM responses into an internal knowledge structure
- Comparative visualization allows for the detailed comparison of multiple LLMs, displaying accuracy, number of questions answered correctly, and other relevant information
- Researchers conducted a comparative analysis of several state-of-the-art LLMs using LLMMaps and received positive feedback from participants who found the visualization unique and novel
- The proposed approach provides a stratified evaluation of one or several LLMs on one or several Q&A datasets - providing detailed insights into subfields where hallucinations are more likely to occur
- The approach can help better assess risks associated with using these models while guiding their further development.
- All necessary source code and data for generating LLMMaps will be available on GitHub.
Authors: Patrik Puchert, Poonam Poonam, Christian van Onzenoodt, Timo Ropinski
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing and demonstrated impressive capabilities in various tasks. Unfortunately, they are prone to hallucinations, where the model exposes incorrect or false information in its responses, which renders diligent evaluation approaches mandatory. While LLM performance in specific knowledge fields is often evaluated based on question and answer (Q&A) datasets, such evaluations usually report only a single accuracy number for the entire field, a procedure which is problematic with respect to transparency and model improvement. A stratified evaluation could instead reveal subfields, where hallucinations are more likely to occur and thus help to better assess LLMs' risks and guide their further development. To support such stratified evaluations, we propose LLMMaps as a novel visualization technique that enables users to evaluate LLMs' performance with respect to Q&A datasets. LLMMaps provide detailed insights into LLMs' knowledge capabilities in different subfields, by transforming Q&A datasets as well as LLM responses into our internal knowledge structure. An extension for comparative visualization furthermore, allows for the detailed comparison of multiple LLMs. To assess LLMMaps we use them to conduct a comparative analysis of several state-of-the-art LLMs, such as BLOOM, GPT-2, GPT-3, ChatGPT and LLaMa-13B, as well as two qualitative user evaluations. All necessary source code and data for generating LLMMaps to be used in scientific publications and elsewhere will be available on GitHub.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.