This paper explores the potential of using large language models (LLMs) as an alternative to human evaluation for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans. The authors present LLMs with task instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used in human evaluation and ask the LLMs to generate responses to those questions. This process is called LLM evaluation. The authors compare the results of LLM evaluation with expert human evaluation in two natural language processing tasks: open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks. They find that the results of LLM evaluation are consistent with human evaluation, indicating that LLMs can effectively assess text quality. The authors also demonstrate that the results of LLM evaluation are stable across different formatting of task instructions and sampling algorithms. This study is the first to show the potential of using LLMs for text quality assessment and discusses its limitations and ethical considerations associated with it. Additionally, a detailed example is provided on how to use LLM evaluation in open-ended story generation using the WritingPrompts dataset. Overall, this research highlights how LLMs can be a valuable tool for evaluating text quality in NLP tasks offering reproducibility and stability compared to traditional human evaluation methods.
- - Large language models (LLMs) can be used as an alternative to human evaluation for assessing text quality
- - LLMs are given task instructions, samples, and questions used in human evaluation to generate responses
- - LLM evaluation is compared with expert human evaluation in open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks tasks
- - Results of LLM evaluation are consistent with human evaluation, indicating effective text quality assessment
- - LLM evaluation results are stable across different formatting of task instructions and sampling algorithms
- - This study demonstrates the potential of using LLMs for text quality assessment and discusses limitations and ethical considerations
- - A detailed example is provided on using LLM evaluation in open-ended story generation with the WritingPrompts dataset
- - LLMs offer reproducibility and stability compared to traditional human evaluation methods in NLP tasks.
Large language models (LLMs) are like smart computers that can help us check if a piece of writing is good or not. Instead of asking people to read and judge the writing, we can ask the LLMs to do it for us. The LLMs are given instructions and examples just like what humans use to evaluate the writing. When tested on making up stories and tricky attacks, the LLMs' evaluation matches with what humans say, which means they are good at judging writing quality. The results from the LLMs stay consistent even when we change how we give them instructions or pick samples. This study shows that using LLMs can be helpful in checking if a piece of writing is good, but there are some things we need to be careful about."
Definitions- Large language models (LLMs): Smart computers that can understand and generate human-like text.
- Text quality assessment: Checking if a piece of writing is good or not.
- Evaluation: Judging or assessing something.
- Open-ended story generation: Making up stories without any specific rules or limits.
- Adversarial attacks tasks: Trying to trick or confuse a computer program by giving it difficult questions or problems.
- Reproducibility: Being able to get the same results again and again.
- Stability: Staying consistent even when things change.
Using Large Language Models for Text Quality Assessment
In recent years, machine learning models have become increasingly powerful and are now capable of performing complex tasks such as natural language processing (NLP). However, assessing the quality of texts generated by these models or written by humans is still a challenge. Traditional methods of human evaluation are often time-consuming and subjective. In this paper, we explore the potential of using large language models (LLMs) as an alternative to human evaluation for assessing text quality in NLP tasks.
Background
Human evaluation has been used extensively to assess the quality of texts in NLP tasks such as open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks. This process involves providing task instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used in human evaluation to experts who then generate responses to those questions. While this method is effective at evaluating text quality, it can be slow and expensive due to its reliance on expert labor. Additionally, it can suffer from subjectivity since different experts may have different opinions about the same sample.
Methodology
In this study, we propose LLM evaluation as an alternative approach for assessing text quality in NLP tasks. We present LLMs with task instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used in human evaluation and ask them to generate responses to those questions. We compare the results of LLM evaluation with expert human evaluations in two natural language processing tasks: open-ended story generation using WritingPrompts dataset [1]and adversarial attacks on sentiment classifiers [2]. The results show that LLM evaluations are consistent with human evaluations indicating that they can effectively assess text quality while offering reproducibility and stability compared to traditional methods. Furthermore, our experiments demonstrate that the results of LLM evaluations remain stable across different formatting of task instructions and sampling algorithms suggesting their potential use for automated assessment systems where manual intervention is not possible or desirable.
Limitations & Ethical Considerations
Although our study shows promising results regarding the effectiveness of LLMs for text quality assessment there are some limitations associated with it which should be taken into account before deploying them in production environments:
• The accuracy of LLMs depends heavily on training data which may contain bias or errors leading to inaccurate assessments;
• LLMs require significant computational resources making them difficult or impossible for smaller organizations;
• There is a risk that automated assessment systems could lead to unfair decisions if not properly monitored;
• Finally, ethical considerations must also be taken into account when deploying automated assessment systems such as privacy concerns related data collection practices etc..
Example Application: Open-Ended Story Generation
To illustrate how one might use an LLM for evaluating text quality let us consider a simple example involving open-ended story generation using WritingPrompts dataset [1]. First we need a model trained on this dataset which will serve as our “expert” (in this case an AI model). Then we need a set of prompts from WritingPrompts along with corresponding stories generated by both humans and machines (our “samples”). Finally we need some questions designed specifically for evaluating stories such as “How creative was the story?” or “Was it believable?” These questions will serve as input for our LLM which will then generate responses based on its understanding of each sample provided (in this case stories). The output from our model can then be compared against expert ratings given by humans allowing us evaluate how well it performed relative other metrics like accuracy etc..
Conclusion
This research highlights how large language models can provide valuable insights into text quality assessments without relying on costly manual labor or subjective opinions thus offering reproducibility and stability compared traditional methods while being more cost effective overall. It also provides detailed examples demonstrating how one might go about implementing an automated system based on these techniques while discussing its limitations & ethical considerations associated with it . All things considered ,this paper presents compelling evidence showing why large language models should be seriously considered when designing any kind automation system involving textual content analysis .