REVIEW 3 cited by
Using Interactive Feedback to Improve the Accuracy and Explainability of Question Answering Systems Post-Deployment
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
read the original abstract
Most research on question answering focuses on the pre-deployment stage; i.e., building an accurate model for deployment. In this paper, we ask the question: Can we improve QA systems further \emph{post-}deployment based on user interactions? We focus on two kinds of improvements: 1) improving the QA system's performance itself, and 2) providing the model with the ability to explain the correctness or incorrectness of an answer. We collect a retrieval-based QA dataset, FeedbackQA, which contains interactive feedback from users. We collect this dataset by deploying a base QA system to crowdworkers who then engage with the system and provide feedback on the quality of its answers. The feedback contains both structured ratings and unstructured natural language explanations. We train a neural model with this feedback data that can generate explanations and re-score answer candidates. We show that feedback data not only improves the accuracy of the deployed QA system but also other stronger non-deployed systems. The generated explanations also help users make informed decisions about the correctness of answers. Project page: https://mcgill-nlp.github.io/feedbackqa/
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Evidence Lock Before Commitment: A Frozen Interface Degrades LLM-as-Judge Evaluation
Making a persisted evidence record the exclusive input to a later LLM verdict reduces preference agreement and order robustness relative to one-call structured judging.
-
Aligning Black-box Language Models with Human Judgments
A linear correction learned from 100 labeled examples per task substantially improves LLM-human agreement on evaluation tasks, including for smaller models.
-
Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges
A broad survey of LLM alignment that catalogs objectives, benchmarks, SFT/RLHF/DPO methods, and safety challenges, without contributing new experimental or theoretical results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.