With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), due to their strong performance across various fields, LLM-based evaluation methods (LLM-as-a-Judge) have become widely used in natural language generation (NLG) evaluation. However, these methods encounter the following challenges: (1) distinguishing instruction-following ability, (2) being applicable across diverse NLG tasks, and (3) identifying low-quality outputs. To address these issues, we propose CAMIEval, a multidimensional comparative evaluation method based on instruction-following. Specifically, we define three fundamental dimensions of instruction-following: relevance, factuality, and adherence. Subsequently, we introduce a concrete Chain-of-Thoughts (ConcreteCoT) process to enhance the accuracy of evaluations. In addition, we trained a “regrettable model” RegretLM to generate low-quality outputs, which helps the evaluator better identify the potential shortcomings of the candidate output by comparing low-quality outputs with reference outputs. Through this comparison, the evaluator can generate instruction-specific dimensions that complement the fundamental dimensions, forming a more comprehensive evaluation metric system. Experiments on two NLG evaluation benchmarks demonstrate that CAMIEval consistently outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluations, providing a general and accurate framework for evaluating the outputs of LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) can perform complex reasoning by generating intermediate reasoning steps using chain-of-thought prompting under zero-shot or few-shot settings. However, zero-shot prompting always encounters low performance, and the superior performance of few-shot prompting hinges on the manual-crafting of task-specific demonstrations one by one. In this paper, we present **RoSE** (**R**easoning with **O**rchestrated **S**treaming **E**xperiences), a general framework for solving reasoning tasks that can self-improve as it answers various reasoning questions. To enable RoSE, we describe an architecture that extends an LLM to store all answered reasoning questions and their reasoning steps in a streaming experience pool and orchestrate helpful questions from the pool to assist itself in answering new questions. To set up a question-aware orchestration mechanism, RoSE first calculates the similarity of each question in the pool with the question to be answered. Since the solution to each question in the experience pool is not always correct, RoSE will sort the questions according to their similarity with the question to be answered, and then uniformly divide them into multiple buckets. It finally extracts one question from each bucket to make the extracted questions more diverse. To make the extracted questions help RoSE answer new questions as much as possible, we introduce two other attributes of uncertainty and complexity for each question. RoSE will preferentially select the questions with low uncertainty and high complexity from each bucket. We evaluate the versatility of RoSE in various complex reasoning tasks and LLMs, such as arithmetic and commonsense reasoning, and find that it can achieve excellent performance without any labeled data and pre-set unlabeled data.

Automatic evaluation metrics are crucial to the development of generative systems. In recent years, pre-trained language model (PLM) based metrics, such as BERTScore, have been commonly adopted in various generation tasks. However, it has been demonstrated that PLMs encode a range of stereotypical societal biases, leading to a concern about the fairness of PLMs as metrics. To that end, this work presents the first systematic study on the social bias in PLM-based metrics. We demonstrate that popular PLM-based metrics exhibit significantly higher social bias than traditional metrics on 6 sensitive attributes, namely race, gender, religion, physical appearance, age, and socioeconomic status. In-depth analysis suggests that choosing paradigms (matching, regression, or generation) of the metric has a greater impact on fairness than choosing PLMs. In addition, we develop debiasing adapters that are injected into PLM layers, mitigating bias in PLM-based metrics while retaining high performance for evaluating text generation.

Supersized pre-trained language models have pushed the accuracy of various natural language processing (NLP) tasks to a new state-of-the-art (SOTA). Rather than pursuing the reachless SOTA accuracy, more and more researchers start paying attention to model efficiency and usability. Different from accuracy, the metric for efficiency varies across different studies, making them hard to be fairly compared. To that end, this work presents ELUE (Efficient Language Understanding Evaluation), a standard evaluation, and a public leaderboard for efficient NLP models. ELUE is dedicated to depicting the Pareto Frontier for various language understanding tasks, such that it can tell whether and how much a method achieves Pareto improvement. Along with the benchmark, we also release a strong baseline, ElasticBERT, which allows BERT to exit at any layer in both static and dynamic ways. We demonstrate the ElasticBERT, despite its simplicity, outperforms or performs on par with SOTA compressed and early exiting models. With ElasticBERT, the proposed ELUE has a strong Pareto Frontier and makes a better evaluation for efficient NLP models.