REVIEW 3 cited by
LLMEval: A Preliminary Study on How to Evaluate Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Recently, the evaluation of Large Language Models has emerged as a popular area of research. The three crucial questions for LLM evaluation are ``what, where, and how to evaluate''. However, the existing research mainly focuses on the first two questions, which are basically what tasks to give the LLM during testing and what kind of knowledge it should deal with. As for the third question, which is about what standards to use, the types of evaluators, how to score, and how to rank, there hasn't been much discussion. In this paper, we analyze evaluation methods by comparing various criteria with both manual and automatic evaluation, utilizing onsite, crowd-sourcing, public annotators and GPT-4, with different scoring methods and ranking systems. We propose a new dataset, LLMEval and conduct evaluations on 20 LLMs. A total of 2,186 individuals participated, leading to the generation of 243,337 manual annotations and 57,511 automatic evaluation results. We perform comparisons and analyses of different settings and conduct 10 conclusions that can provide some insights for evaluating LLM in the future. The dataset and the results are publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval .
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
From Reddit to Generative AI: Evaluating Large Language Models for Anxiety Support Fine-tuned on Social Media Data
Fine-tuning GPT-3.5 and Llama 2 on r/Anxiety posts improves readability but raises toxicity and bias while reducing empathy and reflection.
-
An Empirical Study of Evaluating Long-form Question Answering
In long-form QA, LLM-based evaluators correlate with human judgments better than ROUGE or BERTScore, but they are biased by answer length, question type, self-reinforcement, and rare-word usage, and fine-grained promp...
-
Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey
A review that proposes a two-dimensional taxonomy for evaluating LLM agents and highlights enterprise-specific evaluation gaps.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.