Daily Arxiv

This page organizes papers related to artificial intelligence published around the world.
This page is summarized using Google Gemini and is operated on a non-profit basis.
The copyright of the paper belongs to the author and the relevant institution. When sharing, simply cite the source.

Integrated Framework for LLM Evaluation with Answer Generation

Created by
  • Haebom

Author

Sujeong Lee, Hayoung Lee, Seongsoo Heo, Wonik Choi

Outline

Reliable model evaluation is essential for practical application of large-scale language models. Existing benchmark-based evaluation methods rely on fixed reference answers, limiting their ability to capture important qualitative aspects of generated responses. To address these shortcomings, this paper proposes SPEED, an integrated evaluation framework that leverages expert feature experts to perform comprehensive and descriptive analysis of model output. SPEED actively integrates expert feedback across multiple dimensions, including hallucination detection, toxicity assessment, and lexical-contextual appropriateness. Experimental results demonstrate that SPEED achieves robust and consistent evaluation performance across diverse domains and datasets. Furthermore, by utilizing relatively small and efficient expert models, SPEED demonstrates superior resource efficiency compared to large-scale evaluation tools. These results demonstrate that SPEED significantly improves fairness and interpretability in LLM evaluation and presents a promising alternative to existing evaluation methodologies.

Takeaways, Limitations

Takeaways:
Enhancing the qualitative aspects of LLM assessment through an expert-based, multidimensional assessment framework.
Broadening the scope of evaluation by incorporating various evaluation items such as hallucination detection, toxicity assessment, and vocabulary-context appropriateness.
Increase resource efficiency by using relatively small models
Improving the fairness and interpretability of LLM assessments
Limitations:
Lack of detailed description of the composition and performance of specific expert models.
Insufficient information about the dataset and domain used in the experiment.
Lack of quantitative comparison results with other evaluation methodologies
👍