CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

Evaluating Open-QA Evaluation

Wang, Cunxiang, Cheng, Sirui, Guo, Qipeng, Yue, Yuanhao, Ding, Bowen, Xu, Zhikun, Wang, Yidong, Hu, Xiangkun +2 more·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2305.12421arXiv 2305.12421
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study focuses on the evaluation of the Open Question Answering (Open-QA) task, which can directly estimate the factuality of large language models (LLMs). Current automatic evaluation methods have shown limitations, indicating that human evaluation still remains the most reliable approach. We introduce a new task, Evaluating QA Evaluation (QA-Eval) and the corresponding dataset EVOUNA, designed to assess the accuracy of AI-generated answers in relation to standard answers within Open-QA. Our evaluation of these methods utilizes human-annotated results to measure their performance. Specifically, the work investigates methods that show high correlation with human evaluations, deeming them more reliable. We also discuss the pitfalls of current methods and methods to improve LLM-based evaluators. We believe this new QA-Eval task and corresponding dataset EVOUNA will facilitate the development of more effective automatic evaluation tools and prove valuable for future research in this area. All resources are available at \url{https://github.com/wangcunxiang/QA-Eval} and it is under the Apache-2.0 License.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.12421

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GPT-4 and BingChat can provide correct answers for more than 80% of questions, with a remaining gap of over 15% to achieve complete accuracy.

    “The results of the study indicated that while GPT-4 and BingChat can provide correct answers for more than 80% of the questions, there is still a remaining gap of over 15% to achieve complete accuracy.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [204]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. Reading Wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2017.
  2. Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy Lin. End- to-end open-domain question answering with BERTserini. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations), pages 72-77, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-4013. URL https://aclanthology.org/N19-4013. · DOI
  3. Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476, 2023. · arXiv
  4. Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, Quyet V. Do, Yan Xu, and Pascale Fung. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. ArXiv, abs/2302.04023, 2023. · arXiv
  5. Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Wenliang Dai, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55:1 -38, 2022.
  6. Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. Why does chatgpt fall short in answering questions faithfully? ArXiv, abs/2304.10513, 2023. · arXiv
  7. Zezhong Wang, Fan Yang, Pu Zhao, Lu Wang, Jue Zhang, Mohit Garg, Qingwei Lin, and Dongmei Zhang. Empower large language model to perform better on industrial domain-specific question answering. ArXiv, abs/2305.11541, 2023a. · arXiv
  8. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online, April 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.74. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.eacl-main.74. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'20, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2020. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020. emnlp-main.550. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 2019.
  11. Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S. Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, July 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=SkeHuCVFDr.
  13. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.704. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.704. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Jinming Zhao, Ming Liu, Longxiang Gao, Yuan Jin, Lan Du, He Zhao, He Zhang, and Gholamreza Haffari. Summpip: Unsupervised multi-document summarization with sentence graph compression. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1949-1952, 2020.
  15. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  16. Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, Vassilis Plachouras, Tim Rocktäschel, and Sebastian Riedel. KILT: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2523-2544, Online, June 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.200. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.200. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Jindong Wang, Xixu Hu, Wenxin Hou, Hao Chen, Runkai Zheng, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Haojun Huang, Wei Ye, Xiubo Geng, et al. On the robustness of chatgpt: An adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12095, 2023c. · arXiv
  18. Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5418-5426, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.437. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.emnlp-main.437. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Cunxiang Wang, Pai Liu, and Yue Zhang. Can generative pre-trained language models serve as knowledge bases for closed-book QA? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3241-3251, Online, August 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.251. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.251. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Deming Ye, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Zhiyuan Liu. A simple but effective pluggable entity lookup table for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 523-529, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-short.57. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-short.57. · DOI
  21. Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. KG-FiD: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4961-4974, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.340. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.340. · DOI
  22. Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Distilling knowledge from reader to retriever for question answering, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.04584. · arXiv
  23. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67, 2020. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-074.html.
  24. Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text generation. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 27263-27277.
  25. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/file/ e4d2b6e6fdeca3e60e0f1a62fee3d9dd-Paper.pdf.
  26. Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04166, 2023. · arXiv
  27. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_ J.
  28. Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023), 2023.
  29. J. A. Hartigan and M. A. Wong. A k-means clustering algorithm. JSTOR: Applied Statistics, 28(1): 100-108, 1979.
  30. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423. URL https: //www.aclweb.org/anthology/N19-1423. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Models. 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03299. · arXiv
  32. Tatsunori B. Hashimoto, Hugh Zhang, and Percy Liang. Unifying human and statistical evaluation for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1689-1701, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1169. URL https://aclanthology.org/ N19-1169. Table 14: Open-QA and QA-Eval results of Atlas and Chat-Llama2 on 500 samples of NQ. In each cell, the left is the accuracy while the right is the Macro-F1. NQ-Atlas NQ-ChatLlama2 Lexical Matching 92.6/91.7 93.4/87.9 BERT-Score 67.1/72.5 73.4/61.9 GPT-3.5 93.2/92.7 77.6/43.0 Human Score on NQ-Atlas: 47.9; Human Score on NQ-ChatLlama2: 29.7 Table 15: Error results of Eval-Models on the EVOUNA. In each cell, the left is the error rates while the right is the times compared with another human results. NQ-FiD NQ-GPT35 NQ-ChatGPT35 NQ-ChatGPT4 NQ-BingChat Lexical Matching 10.3/2.8x 15.2/4.8x 19.7/4.5x 17.5/5.1x 17.7/3.9x BERT-Score 24.9/6.7x 30.5/9.5x 27.2/6.2x 24.0/7.1x 32.5/7.2x GPT-3.5 6.4/1.7x 15.9/5.0x 17.8/4.0x 19.1/ 5.6x 30.5/ 6.8x Another Human 3.7/1.0x 3.2/1.0x 4.4/1.0x 3.4/1.0x 4.5/1.0x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, C., Cheng, S., Guo, Q., Yue, Y., Ding, B., Xu, Z., Wang, Y., Hu, X., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2305.12421
arXiv
2305.12421
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review