Evaluating LLMs at Detecting Errors in LLM Responses
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2024
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866913448126840832 |
|---|---|
| author | Kamoi, Ryo Das, Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Lou, Renze Ahn, Jihyun Janice Zhao, Yilun Lu, Xiaoxin Zhang, Nan Zhang, Yusen Zhang, Ranran Haoran Vummanthala, Sujeeth Reddy Dave, Salika Qin, Shaobo Cohan, Arman Yin, Wenpeng Zhang, Rui |
| author_facet | Kamoi, Ryo Das, Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Lou, Renze Ahn, Jihyun Janice Zhao, Yilun Lu, Xiaoxin Zhang, Nan Zhang, Yusen Zhang, Ranran Haoran Vummanthala, Sujeeth Reddy Dave, Salika Qin, Shaobo Cohan, Arman Yin, Wenpeng Zhang, Rui |
| contents | With Large Language Models (LLMs) being widely used across various tasks, detecting errors in their responses is increasingly crucial. However, little research has been conducted on error detection of LLM responses. Collecting error annotations on LLM responses is challenging due to the subjective nature of many NLP tasks, and thus previous research focuses on tasks of little practical value (e.g., word sorting) or limited error types (e.g., faithfulness in summarization). This work introduces ReaLMistake, the first error detection benchmark consisting of objective, realistic, and diverse errors made by LLMs. ReaLMistake contains three challenging and meaningful tasks that introduce objectively assessable errors in four categories (reasoning correctness, instruction-following, context-faithfulness, and parameterized knowledge), eliciting naturally observed and diverse errors in responses of GPT-4 and Llama 2 70B annotated by experts. We use ReaLMistake to evaluate error detectors based on 12 LLMs. Our findings show: 1) Top LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 3 detect errors made by LLMs at very low recall, and all LLM-based error detectors perform much worse than humans. 2) Explanations by LLM-based error detectors lack reliability. 3) LLMs-based error detection is sensitive to small changes in prompts but remains challenging to improve. 4) Popular approaches to improving LLMs, including self-consistency and majority vote, do not improve the error detection performance. Our benchmark and code are provided at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/ReaLMistake. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2404_03602 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Evaluating LLMs at Detecting Errors in LLM Responses Kamoi, Ryo Das, Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Lou, Renze Ahn, Jihyun Janice Zhao, Yilun Lu, Xiaoxin Zhang, Nan Zhang, Yusen Zhang, Ranran Haoran Vummanthala, Sujeeth Reddy Dave, Salika Qin, Shaobo Cohan, Arman Yin, Wenpeng Zhang, Rui Computation and Language With Large Language Models (LLMs) being widely used across various tasks, detecting errors in their responses is increasingly crucial. However, little research has been conducted on error detection of LLM responses. Collecting error annotations on LLM responses is challenging due to the subjective nature of many NLP tasks, and thus previous research focuses on tasks of little practical value (e.g., word sorting) or limited error types (e.g., faithfulness in summarization). This work introduces ReaLMistake, the first error detection benchmark consisting of objective, realistic, and diverse errors made by LLMs. ReaLMistake contains three challenging and meaningful tasks that introduce objectively assessable errors in four categories (reasoning correctness, instruction-following, context-faithfulness, and parameterized knowledge), eliciting naturally observed and diverse errors in responses of GPT-4 and Llama 2 70B annotated by experts. We use ReaLMistake to evaluate error detectors based on 12 LLMs. Our findings show: 1) Top LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 3 detect errors made by LLMs at very low recall, and all LLM-based error detectors perform much worse than humans. 2) Explanations by LLM-based error detectors lack reliability. 3) LLMs-based error detection is sensitive to small changes in prompts but remains challenging to improve. 4) Popular approaches to improving LLMs, including self-consistency and majority vote, do not improve the error detection performance. Our benchmark and code are provided at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/ReaLMistake. |
| title | Evaluating LLMs at Detecting Errors in LLM Responses |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03602 |