-
Walking a Tightrope -- Evaluating Large Language Models in High-Risk Domains
Authors:
Chia-Chien Hung,
Wiem Ben Rim,
Lindsay Frost,
Lars Bruckner,
Carolin Lawrence
Abstract:
High-risk domains pose unique challenges that require language models to provide accurate and safe responses. Despite the great success of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and its variants, their performance in high-risk domains remains unclear. Our study delves into an in-depth analysis of the performance of instruction-tuned LLMs, focusing on factual accuracy and safety adherence. T…
▽ More
High-risk domains pose unique challenges that require language models to provide accurate and safe responses. Despite the great success of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and its variants, their performance in high-risk domains remains unclear. Our study delves into an in-depth analysis of the performance of instruction-tuned LLMs, focusing on factual accuracy and safety adherence. To comprehensively assess the capabilities of LLMs, we conduct experiments on six NLP datasets including question answering and summarization tasks within two high-risk domains: legal and medical. Further qualitative analysis highlights the existing limitations inherent in current LLMs when evaluating in high-risk domains. This underscores the essential nature of not only improving LLM capabilities but also prioritizing the refinement of domain-specific metrics, and embracing a more human-centric approach to enhance safety and factual reliability. Our findings advance the field toward the concerns of properly evaluating LLMs in high-risk domains, aiming to steer the adaptability of LLMs in fulfilling societal obligations and aligning with forthcoming regulations, such as the EU AI Act.
△ Less
Submitted 25 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
KGxBoard: Explainable and Interactive Leaderboard for Evaluation of Knowledge Graph Completion Models
Authors:
Haris Widjaja,
Kiril Gashteovski,
Wiem Ben Rim,
Pengfei Liu,
Christopher Malon,
Daniel Ruffinelli,
Carolin Lawrence,
Graham Neubig
Abstract:
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) store information in the form of (head, predicate, tail)-triples. To augment KGs with new knowledge, researchers proposed models for KG Completion (KGC) tasks such as link prediction; i.e., answering (h; p; ?) or (?; p; t) queries. Such models are usually evaluated with averaged metrics on a held-out test set. While useful for tracking progress, averaged single-score metrics…
▽ More
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) store information in the form of (head, predicate, tail)-triples. To augment KGs with new knowledge, researchers proposed models for KG Completion (KGC) tasks such as link prediction; i.e., answering (h; p; ?) or (?; p; t) queries. Such models are usually evaluated with averaged metrics on a held-out test set. While useful for tracking progress, averaged single-score metrics cannot reveal what exactly a model has learned -- or failed to learn. To address this issue, we propose KGxBoard: an interactive framework for performing fine-grained evaluation on meaningful subsets of the data, each of which tests individual and interpretable capabilities of a KGC model. In our experiments, we highlight the findings that we discovered with the use of KGxBoard, which would have been impossible to detect with standard averaged single-score metrics.
△ Less
Submitted 23 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
A Human-Centric Assessment Framework for AI
Authors:
Sascha Saralajew,
Ammar Shaker,
Zhao Xu,
Kiril Gashteovski,
Bhushan Kotnis,
Wiem Ben Rim,
Jürgen Quittek,
Carolin Lawrence
Abstract:
With the rise of AI systems in real-world applications comes the need for reliable and trustworthy AI. An essential aspect of this are explainable AI systems. However, there is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework where a leading domain expert accepts or rejects the solutions of an AI sys…
▽ More
With the rise of AI systems in real-world applications comes the need for reliable and trustworthy AI. An essential aspect of this are explainable AI systems. However, there is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework where a leading domain expert accepts or rejects the solutions of an AI system and another domain expert. By comparing the acceptance rates of provided solutions, we can assess how the AI system performs compared to the domain expert, and whether the AI system's explanations (if provided) are human-understandable. This setup -- comparable to the Turing test -- can serve as a framework for a wide range of human-centric AI system assessments. We demonstrate this by presenting two instantiations: (1) an assessment that measures the classification accuracy of a system with the option to incorporate label uncertainties; (2) an assessment where the usefulness of provided explanations is determined in a human-centric manner.
△ Less
Submitted 1 July, 2022; v1 submitted 25 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
