Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2405.18638v1

In this position paper, the authors argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be approached as a multidisciplinary endeavor. They emphasize the importance of considering factors such as usability, aesthetics, and cognitive biases in evaluating LLMs to ensure reliable experimental design and results. The authors stress the need for effective test sets to differentiate between the capabilities and weaknesses of increasingly powerful LLMs. They also highlight how cognitive biases can impact evaluations by conflating fluent information with truthfulness and how cognitive uncertainty can affect rating scores like Likert scales. To accurately measure a model's capabilities, they address the critical role of test sets and propose a framework called ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of six pillars: Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible Evaluation Practices, and Scalability. This paper contributes to rethinking human evaluation for generative large language models by advocating for a more comprehensive approach that considers various disciplines and factors to ensure accurate and reliable assessments in the age of advanced AI technologies.

• - Human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be approached as a multidisciplinary endeavor
• - Factors such as usability, aesthetics, and cognitive biases are important in evaluating LLMs
• - Effective test sets are crucial to differentiate between capabilities and weaknesses of powerful LLMs
• - Cognitive biases can impact evaluations by conflating fluent information with truthfulness and affecting rating scores like Likert scales
• - The framework ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation consists of six pillars: Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible Evaluation Practices, and Scalability

Summary- People need to work together from different fields to evaluate big talking computer programs. - Things like how easy it is to use, how nice it looks, and our natural ways of thinking are important when checking these computer programs. - Having good tests is very important to see what these powerful computer programs can do well and where they struggle. - Our natural ways of thinking can sometimes mix up what sounds good with what is actually true, which can affect how we rate these computer programs using scales. - There's a plan called ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation that has six main parts: Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible Evaluation Practices, and Scalability. Definitions- Evaluate: To carefully look at something and judge its value or quality. - Usability: How easy something is to use or operate. - Aesthetics: The appearance or beauty of something. - Cognitive biases: Ways our brains naturally think that might lead us to make mistakes in judgment. - Test sets: Groups of tasks or questions used to check the abilities of something. - Likert scales: A type of rating scale used in surveys where people choose from a range of options to express their opinions.

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant advancements in natural language processing and generation. These models, such as GPT-3 and BERT, have the ability to generate human-like text with impressive fluency and coherence. However, with this increasing power comes the need for thorough evaluation methods to accurately measure their capabilities. In a position paper titled "ConSiDERS-The-Human: A Multidisciplinary Framework for Evaluating Generative Large Language Models," authors Andreas Rücklé, Sebastian Stabinger, and Iryna Gurevych argue that human evaluation of LLMs should be approached as a multidisciplinary endeavor. They emphasize the importance of considering factors such as usability, aesthetics, and cognitive biases in evaluating LLMs to ensure reliable experimental design and results. One of the key points highlighted by the authors is the need for effective test sets to differentiate between the capabilities and weaknesses of increasingly powerful LLMs. This is crucial because without proper test sets, it becomes challenging to accurately assess a model's performance. The authors stress that test sets should be carefully designed to cover various linguistic phenomena and tasks relevant to real-world applications. Moreover, they also address how cognitive biases can impact evaluations by conflating fluent information with truthfulness. In other words, just because a generated text is fluent does not necessarily mean it is accurate or truthful. This highlights the importance of considering multiple dimensions when evaluating LLMs rather than solely relying on fluency metrics. Another aspect that can affect evaluations is cognitive uncertainty which can lead to inconsistent rating scores on Likert scales. The authors suggest addressing this issue by providing clear instructions on how to interpret these scales or using alternative scoring methods like pairwise comparison or magnitude estimation. To accurately measure a model's capabilities across different dimensions while accounting for potential biases and uncertainties in human evaluation processes, Rücklé et al., propose a framework called ConSiDERS-The-Human. This framework consists of six pillars: Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible Evaluation Practices, and Scalability. The first pillar, Consistency, emphasizes the need for consistent evaluation methods across different tasks and datasets to ensure reliable results. The second pillar, Scoring Criteria, suggests using multiple metrics and dimensions to assess a model's performance rather than relying on a single metric. The third pillar, Differentiating, highlights the importance of distinguishing between different levels of performance within a task or dataset. The fourth pillar focuses on User Experience and stresses the need for user-friendly evaluation processes that are easy to understand and follow. This is crucial as it can impact the quality of data collected from human evaluators. The fifth pillar addresses Responsible Evaluation Practices which include ethical considerations such as ensuring diversity in evaluators and avoiding biased language in test sets. Lastly, the sixth pillar emphasizes Scalability by suggesting ways to make evaluation processes more efficient without compromising on their reliability. This includes automating certain aspects of evaluations or using crowdsourcing platforms to collect data from a large number of evaluators quickly. In conclusion, this position paper contributes to rethinking human evaluation for generative large language models by advocating for a more comprehensive approach that considers various disciplines and factors. By addressing issues such as cognitive biases and uncertainties while proposing a multidisciplinary framework like ConSiDERS-The-Human, Rücklé et al., provide valuable insights into how we can accurately evaluate LLMs in the age of advanced AI technologies. As LLMs continue to advance rapidly in their capabilities and applications, it becomes increasingly important to have robust evaluation methods in place to ensure their responsible use in society.