The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2311.02807 · v2 · pith:AHH6KSII · submitted 2023-11-06 · cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:AHH6KSIIrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords modelmetricsevaluationimprovementqualevalinsightsquantitativechallenging
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Quantitative evaluation metrics have traditionally been pivotal in gauging the advancements of artificial intelligence systems, including large language models (LLMs). However, these metrics have inherent limitations. Given the intricate nature of real-world tasks, a single scalar to quantify and compare is insufficient to capture the fine-grained nuances of model behavior. Metrics serve only as a way to compare and benchmark models, and do not yield actionable diagnostics, thus making the model improvement process challenging. Model developers find themselves amid extensive manual efforts involving sifting through vast datasets and attempting hit-or-miss adjustments to training data or setups. In this work, we address the shortcomings of quantitative metrics by proposing QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights that when applied, accelerate model improvement. The insights are backed by a comprehensive dashboard with fine-grained visualizations and human-interpretable analyses. We corroborate the faithfulness of QualEval by demonstrating that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative on a challenging dialogue task (DialogSum) when compared to baselines. QualEval successfully increases the pace of model development, thus in essence serving as a data-scientist-in-a-box. Given the focus on critiquing and improving current evaluation metrics, our method serves as a refreshingly new technique for both model evaluation and improvement.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evalet: Evaluating Large Language Models through Functional Fragmentation

    cs.HC 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0

    Evalet applies functional fragmentation to deliver fragment-level qualitative analysis of LLM evaluations, with a user study showing 48% more misalignment detections than holistic scoring.