näkemys - Computer Science - # Automated Argument Quality Assessment

Evaluating the Reliability of Large Language Models as Argument Quality Annotators

Q: How can the performance of LLMs as argument quality annotators be further improved, such as through fine-tuning or prompt engineering?

To enhance the performance of LLMs as argument quality annotators, several strategies can be employed: Fine-Tuning: Fine-tuning the LLMs on a specific dataset related to argument quality can help improve their understanding of the nuances and criteria involved in assessing arguments. By training the models on annotated argument quality data, they can learn to provide more accurate and contextually relevant assessments. Prompt Engineering: Crafting more effective prompts can guide LLMs to focus on specific aspects of argument quality. By designing prompts that highlight key dimensions or criteria of argument quality, the models can generate more targeted and relevant annotations. Additionally, incorporating reasoning prompts that require the model to justify its ratings can lead to more transparent and insightful annotations. Diverse Training Data: Ensuring that LLMs are trained on a diverse range of argumentative texts and quality assessments can help them capture a broader spectrum of argument quality characteristics. Exposure to varied examples can improve the models' ability to recognize and evaluate different styles and structures of arguments. Multi-Model Ensembling: Combining the outputs of multiple LLMs or different versions of the same model can help mitigate individual biases or limitations. Ensembling different models can provide a more comprehensive and robust assessment of argument quality by leveraging the strengths of each model. Continuous Evaluation and Feedback: Regularly evaluating the performance of LLMs as annotators and providing feedback based on discrepancies between model annotations and human assessments can facilitate ongoing improvement. This iterative process can help refine the models' capabilities over time.

Q: What are the potential limitations or biases of using LLMs for this task, and how can they be addressed?

While LLMs offer significant potential as argument quality annotators, they are not without limitations and biases: Bias in Training Data: LLMs can inherit biases present in the training data, leading to skewed or inaccurate annotations. To address this, careful curation and preprocessing of training data to mitigate biases and ensure diversity in perspectives are essential. Lack of Contextual Understanding: LLMs may struggle to grasp the context or background information necessary for accurate argument quality assessment. Providing additional context or domain-specific knowledge during training or through prompts can help mitigate this limitation. Overreliance on Surface-Level Features: LLMs may focus on superficial aspects of arguments rather than deeper semantic or rhetorical elements. Encouraging the models to consider a broader range of features and dimensions through diverse prompts can help overcome this limitation. Difficulty in Handling Subjectivity: Evaluating argument quality is inherently subjective, and LLMs may struggle to capture the nuanced and subjective nature of assessments. Incorporating human-in-the-loop approaches, where human annotators validate or adjust model annotations, can help address this challenge. Ethical Considerations: LLMs may inadvertently generate or reinforce harmful or biased assessments of argument quality. Implementing ethical guidelines, bias detection mechanisms, and regular audits can help mitigate ethical concerns and ensure responsible use of LLMs in this task.

Q: Given the subjectivity of argument quality assessment, how can LLMs be leveraged to capture diverse perspectives and nuances in evaluating arguments?

To leverage LLMs effectively for capturing diverse perspectives and nuances in evaluating arguments, the following strategies can be implemented: Multi-Prompt Approach: Using a variety of prompts that highlight different dimensions or criteria of argument quality can encourage LLMs to consider diverse perspectives. By exposing the models to a range of prompts, they can learn to evaluate arguments from various angles and viewpoints. Adversarial Training: Incorporating adversarial training techniques where LLMs are exposed to conflicting or contrasting perspectives on argument quality can help them develop a more nuanced understanding. By training the models to handle divergent viewpoints, they can better capture the complexity of argument assessment. Transfer Learning: Leveraging transfer learning techniques to fine-tune LLMs on datasets with diverse argument quality annotations from different domains or sources can enhance their ability to recognize and evaluate varied perspectives. Transfer learning can help the models adapt to different contexts and styles of arguments. Ensemble Models: Combining the outputs of multiple LLMs trained on diverse datasets or with different fine-tuning approaches can provide a more comprehensive and inclusive assessment of argument quality. Ensemble models can capture a broader range of perspectives and nuances by integrating diverse viewpoints. Human-in-the-Loop Validation: Incorporating human annotators to validate and provide feedback on LLM-generated annotations can ensure that diverse perspectives are considered. Human-in-the-loop validation can help identify and correct biases, inaccuracies, or oversights in the model's assessments, leading to more inclusive and nuanced evaluations.

Keskeiset käsitteet

Large language models can provide consistent and reliable annotations of argument quality, potentially enhancing and streamlining human-led efforts in this domain.

Tiivistelmä

The paper investigates the potential of using large language models (LLMs) as proxies for argument quality annotators. It compares the consistency and alignment of quality assessments made by LLMs (GPT-3 and PaLM 2) against those made by human experts and novices, based on an established taxonomy of argument quality dimensions.

The key findings are:

LLMs exhibit significantly higher consistency in their quality annotations compared to human annotators, as measured by Krippendorff's α.
The assessments of PaLM 2 show moderate to high agreement with those of human experts across most quality dimensions, while GPT-3 exhibits more varied alignment.
Integrating LLM annotations, particularly from PaLM 2, with human annotations can substantially improve the overall agreement, suggesting LLMs as valuable supplementary annotators.

These results indicate that LLMs can serve as a reliable and efficient tool for automated argument quality assessment, potentially streamlining the evaluation of large argument datasets and complementing human-led efforts in this domain.

Mukauta tiivistelmää

Kirjoita tekoälyn avulla

Luo viitteet

Käännä lähde

toiselle kielelle

Luo miellekartta

lähdeaineistosta

Siirry lähteeseen

arxiv.org

Tilastot

"Evaluating argument quality is a challenging and time-consuming process that demands a deep understanding of the topic and expertise from the argumentation literature."
"LLMs have demonstrated impressive capabilities in tasks that require a profound understanding of semantic nuances and discourse structures."
"The study found that LLMs exhibit significantly higher consistency in their quality annotations compared to human annotators, as measured by Krippendorff's α."
"The assessments of PaLM 2 show moderate to high agreement with those of human experts across most quality dimensions, while GPT-3 exhibits more varied alignment."
"Integrating LLM annotations, particularly from PaLM 2, with human annotations can substantially improve the overall agreement, suggesting LLMs as valuable supplementary annotators."

Lainaukset

"Evaluating the quality of an argument across these diverse dimensions demands a deep understanding of the topic at hand, often coupled with expertise from the argumentation literature."
"LLMs have been effectively employed in tasks such as summarization, question answering, and relation extraction."
"Our findings highlight that LLMs can produce consistent annotations, with a moderately high agreement with human experts across most of the quality dimensions."

Tärkeimmät oivallukset

Are Large Language Models Reliable Argument Quality Annotators?

by Nailia Mirza... klo arxiv.org 04-16-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.09696.pdf

Are Large Language Models Reliable Argument Quality Annotators?

Syvällisempiä Kysymyksiä

How can the performance of LLMs as argument quality annotators be further improved, such as through fine-tuning or prompt engineering?

To enhance the performance of LLMs as argument quality annotators, several strategies can be employed:

Fine-Tuning: Fine-tuning the LLMs on a specific dataset related to argument quality can help improve their understanding of the nuances and criteria involved in assessing arguments. By training the models on annotated argument quality data, they can learn to provide more accurate and contextually relevant assessments.

Prompt Engineering: Crafting more effective prompts can guide LLMs to focus on specific aspects of argument quality. By designing prompts that highlight key dimensions or criteria of argument quality, the models can generate more targeted and relevant annotations. Additionally, incorporating reasoning prompts that require the model to justify its ratings can lead to more transparent and insightful annotations.

Diverse Training Data: Ensuring that LLMs are trained on a diverse range of argumentative texts and quality assessments can help them capture a broader spectrum of argument quality characteristics. Exposure to varied examples can improve the models' ability to recognize and evaluate different styles and structures of arguments.

Multi-Model Ensembling: Combining the outputs of multiple LLMs or different versions of the same model can help mitigate individual biases or limitations. Ensembling different models can provide a more comprehensive and robust assessment of argument quality by leveraging the strengths of each model.

Continuous Evaluation and Feedback: Regularly evaluating the performance of LLMs as annotators and providing feedback based on discrepancies between model annotations and human assessments can facilitate ongoing improvement. This iterative process can help refine the models' capabilities over time.

What are the potential limitations or biases of using LLMs for this task, and how can they be addressed?

While LLMs offer significant potential as argument quality annotators, they are not without limitations and biases:

Bias in Training Data: LLMs can inherit biases present in the training data, leading to skewed or inaccurate annotations. To address this, careful curation and preprocessing of training data to mitigate biases and ensure diversity in perspectives are essential.

Lack of Contextual Understanding: LLMs may struggle to grasp the context or background information necessary for accurate argument quality assessment. Providing additional context or domain-specific knowledge during training or through prompts can help mitigate this limitation.

Overreliance on Surface-Level Features: LLMs may focus on superficial aspects of arguments rather than deeper semantic or rhetorical elements. Encouraging the models to consider a broader range of features and dimensions through diverse prompts can help overcome this limitation.

Difficulty in Handling Subjectivity: Evaluating argument quality is inherently subjective, and LLMs may struggle to capture the nuanced and subjective nature of assessments. Incorporating human-in-the-loop approaches, where human annotators validate or adjust model annotations, can help address this challenge.

Ethical Considerations: LLMs may inadvertently generate or reinforce harmful or biased assessments of argument quality. Implementing ethical guidelines, bias detection mechanisms, and regular audits can help mitigate ethical concerns and ensure responsible use of LLMs in this task.

Given the subjectivity of argument quality assessment, how can LLMs be leveraged to capture diverse perspectives and nuances in evaluating arguments?

To leverage LLMs effectively for capturing diverse perspectives and nuances in evaluating arguments, the following strategies can be implemented:

Multi-Prompt Approach: Using a variety of prompts that highlight different dimensions or criteria of argument quality can encourage LLMs to consider diverse perspectives. By exposing the models to a range of prompts, they can learn to evaluate arguments from various angles and viewpoints.

Adversarial Training: Incorporating adversarial training techniques where LLMs are exposed to conflicting or contrasting perspectives on argument quality can help them develop a more nuanced understanding. By training the models to handle divergent viewpoints, they can better capture the complexity of argument assessment.

Transfer Learning: Leveraging transfer learning techniques to fine-tune LLMs on datasets with diverse argument quality annotations from different domains or sources can enhance their ability to recognize and evaluate varied perspectives. Transfer learning can help the models adapt to different contexts and styles of arguments.

Ensemble Models: Combining the outputs of multiple LLMs trained on diverse datasets or with different fine-tuning approaches can provide a more comprehensive and inclusive assessment of argument quality. Ensemble models can capture a broader range of perspectives and nuances by integrating diverse viewpoints.

Human-in-the-Loop Validation: Incorporating human annotators to validate and provide feedback on LLM-generated annotations can ensure that diverse perspectives are considered. Human-in-the-loop validation can help identify and correct biases, inaccuracies, or oversights in the model's assessments, leading to more inclusive and nuanced evaluations.