Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

"Is ChatGPT a Better Explainer than My Professor?": Evaluating the Explanation Capabilities of LLMs in Conversation Compared to a Human Baseline

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 2406.18512 v1 pith:CJCHBRO5 submitted 2024-06-26 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords responseexplainerllmsactscapabilitiesdatasetdifferentexplanation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Explanations form the foundation of knowledge sharing and build upon communication principles, social dynamics, and learning theories. We focus specifically on conversational approaches for explanations because the context is highly adaptive and interactive. Our research leverages previous work on explanatory acts, a framework for understanding the different strategies that explainers and explainees employ in a conversation to both explain, understand, and engage with the other party. We use the 5-Levels dataset was constructed from the WIRED YouTube series by Wachsmuth et al., and later annotated by Booshehri et al. with explanatory acts. These annotations provide a framework for understanding how explainers and explainees structure their response when crafting a response. With the rise of generative AI in the past year, we hope to better understand the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and how they can augment expert explainer's capabilities in conversational settings. To achieve this goal, the 5-Levels dataset (We use Booshehri et al.'s 2023 annotated dataset with explanatory acts.) allows us to audit the ability of LLMs in engaging in explanation dialogues. To evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in generating explainer responses, we compared 3 different strategies, we asked human annotators to evaluate 3 different strategies: human explainer response, GPT4 standard response, GPT4 response with Explanation Moves.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ELI-Why: Evaluating the Pedagogical Utility of Language Model Explanations

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ELI-Why shows GPT-4's grade-tailored explanations often miss the intended educational level and are less informative than human-curated explanations.

Pith tools