Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

IQA-EVAL: Automatic Evaluation of Human-Model Interactive Question Answering

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

arxiv 2408.13545 v2 pith:XZRWZBHL submitted 2024-08-24 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords answeringevaluationhumaninteractionsquestionautomaticevaluateevaluations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

To evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) for question answering (QA), traditional methods typically focus on assessing single-turn responses to given questions. However, this approach doesn't capture the dynamic nature of human-AI interactions, where humans actively seek information through conversation. Recent works in human-computer interaction (HCI) have employed human evaluators to conduct interactions and evaluations, but they are often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to scale. We introduce an automatic evaluation framework IQA-EVAL to achieve Interactive Question Answering Evaluations, more specifically, we introduce a LLM-based Evaluation Agent (LEA) that can: (1) simulate human behaviors to generate interactions with IQA models; (2) automatically evaluate the generated interactions. Moreover, we propose assigning personas to LEAs to better simulate groups of real human evaluators. We show that: (1) our evaluation framework with GPT-4 (or Claude) as the backbone model achieves a high correlation with human evaluations on the IQA task; (2) assigning personas to LEA to better represent the crowd further significantly improves correlations. Finally, we use our automatic metric to evaluate five recent representative LLMs with over 1000 questions from complex and ambiguous question answering tasks, which comes with a substantial cost of $5k if evaluated by humans.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLMs for Customized Marketing Content Generation and Evaluation at Scale

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MarketingFM generates e-commerce ad copy with RAG and an LLM; AutoEval uses LLM-as-a-Judge plus rule checks and self-refines its prompts, with online tests showing significant clicks and impressions lifts but no signi...

  2. Toward Generalizable Evaluation in the LLM Era: A Survey Beyond Benchmarks

    cs.CL 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that frames the core problem of LLM evaluation as 'evaluation generalization': finite test sets cannot scale with unbounded model capabilities, and proposes two transitions in evaluation design.

Pith tools