Towards Robust QA Evaluation via Open LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be viable surrogates for the widely used, albeit overly rigid, lexical matching metrics in evaluating question answering (QA) models. However, these LLM-based evaluation methods are invariably based on proprietary LLMs. Despite their remarkable capabilities, proprietary LLMs are costly and subject to internal changes that can affect their output, which inhibits the reproducibility of their results and limits the widespread adoption of LLM-based evaluation. In this demo, we aim to use publicly available LLMs for standardizing LLM-based QA evaluation. However, open-source LLMs lag behind their proprietary counterparts. We overcome this gap by adopting chain-of-thought prompting with self-consistency to build a reliable evaluation framework. We demonstrate that our evaluation framework, based on 750M and 7B open LLMs, correlates competitively with human judgment, compared to most recent GPT-3 and GPT-4 models. Our codebase and data are available at https://github.com/castorini/qa-eval.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".