Current developments in large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. An interesting application of these systems is in the automated assessment of natural language generation (NLG), a highly challenging area with great practical benefit. In this paper, we explore two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment: absolute score prediction, and comparative assessment which uses relative comparisons between pairs of candidates. Though comparative assessment has not been extensively studied in NLG assessment, we note that humans often find it more intuitive to compare two options rather than scoring each one independently. This work examines comparative assessment from multiple perspectives: performance compared to absolute grading; positional biases in the prompt; and efficient ranking in terms of the number of comparisons. We illustrate that LLM comparative assessment is a simple, general and effective approach for NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring, and in many cases can achieve performance competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Additionally, we demonstrate that LLMs often exhibit strong positional biases when making pairwise comparisons, and we propose debiasing methods that can further improve performance.

Sequence-to-sequence models often require an expensive autoregressive decoding process. However, for some downstream tasks such as out-of-distribution (OOD) detection and resource allocation, the actual decoding output is not needed, just a scalar attribute of this sequence. In such scenarios, where knowing the quality of a system’s output to predict poor performance prevails over knowing the output itself, is it possible to bypass the autoregressive decoding? We propose Non-Autoregressive Proxy (NAP) models that can efficiently predict scalar-valued sequence-level attributes. Importantly, NAPs predict these metrics directly from the encodings, avoiding the expensive decoding stage. We consider two sequence tasks: Machine Translation (MT) and Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR). In OOD for MT, NAPs outperform ensembles while being significantly faster. NAPs are also proven capable of predicting metrics such as BERTScore (MT) or word error rate (ASR). For downstream tasks, such as data filtering and resource optimization, NAPs generate performance predictions that outperform predictive uncertainty while being highly inference efficient.

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 are capable of generating highly fluent responses to a wide variety of user prompts. However, LLMs are known to hallucinate facts and make non-factual statements which can undermine trust in their output. Existing fact-checking approaches either require access to the output probability distribution (which may not be available for systems such as ChatGPT) or external databases that are interfaced via separate, often complex, modules. In this work, we propose “SelfCheckGPT”, a simple sampling-based approach that can be used to fact-check the responses of black-box models in a zero-resource fashion, i.e. without an external database. SelfCheckGPT leverages the simple idea that if an LLM has knowledge of a given concept, sampled responses are likely to be similar and contain consistent facts. However, for hallucinated facts, stochastically sampled responses are likely to diverge and contradict one another. We investigate this approach by using GPT-3 to generate passages about individuals from the WikiBio dataset, and manually annotate the factuality of the generated passages. We demonstrate that SelfCheckGPT can: i) detect non-factual and factual sentences; and ii) rank passages in terms of factuality. We compare our approach to several baselines and show that our approach has considerably higher AUC-PR scores in sentence-level hallucination detection and higher correlation scores in passage-level factuality assessment compared to grey-box methods.

In this paper, we consider the challenge of summarizing patients medical progress notes in a limited data setting. For the Problem List Summarization (shared task 1A) at the BioNLP Workshop 2023, we demonstrate that ClinicalT5 fine-tuned to 765 medical clinic notes outperforms other extractive, abstractive and zero-shot baselines, yielding reasonable baseline systems for medical note summarization. Further, we introduce Hierarchical Ensemble of Summarization Models (HESM), consisting of token-level ensembles of diverse fine-tuned ClinicalT5 models, followed by Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding. Our HESM approach lead to a considerable summarization performance boost, and when evaluated on held-out challenge data achieved a ROUGE-L of 32.77, which was the best-performing system at the top of the shared task leaderboard.

Recently it has been shown that without any access to the contextual passage, multiple choice reading comprehension (MCRC) systems are able to answer questions significantly better than random on average. These systems use their accumulated “world knowledge” to directly answer questions, rather than using information from the passage. This paper examines the possibility of exploiting this observation as a tool for test designers to ensure that the form of “world knowledge” is acceptable for a particular set of questions. We propose information-theory based metrics that enable the level of “world knowledge” exploited by systems to be assessed. Two metrics are described: the expected number of options, which measures whether a passage-free system can identify the answer a question using world knowledge; and the contextual mutual information, which measures the importance of context for a given question. We demonstrate that questions with low expected number of options, and hence answerable by the shortcut system, are often similarly answerable by humans without context. This highlights that the general knowledge ‘shortcuts’ could be equally used by exam candidates, and that our proposed metrics may be helpful for future test designers to monitor the quality of questions.

Multiple-choice tests are a common approach for assessing candidates’ comprehension skills. Standard multiple-choice reading comprehension exams require candidates to select the correct answer option from a discrete set based on a question in relation to a contextual passage. For appropriate assessment, the distractor answer options must by definition be incorrect but plausible and diverse. However, generating good quality distractors satisfying these criteria is a challenging task for content creators. We propose automated assessment metrics for the quality of distractors in multiple-choice reading comprehension tests. Specifically, we define quality in terms of the incorrectness, plausibility and diversity of the distractor options. We assess incorrectness using the classification ability of a binary multiple-choice reading comprehension system. Plausibility is assessed by considering the distractor confidence - the probability mass associated with the distractor options for a standard multi-class multiple-choice reading comprehension system. Diversity is assessed by pairwise comparison of an embedding-based equivalence metric between the distractors of a question. To further validate the plausibility metric we compare against candidate distributions over multiple-choice questions and agreement with a ChatGPT model’s interpretation of distractor plausibility and diversity.

Machine learning systems have shown impressive performance across a range of natural language tasks. However, it has been hypothesized that these systems are prone to learning spurious correlations that may be present in the training data. Though these correlations will not impact in-domain performance, they are unlikely to generalize well to out-of-domain data, limiting the applicability of systems. This work examines this phenomenon on text classification tasks. Rather than artificially injecting features into the data, we demonstrate that real spurious correlations can be exploited by current state-of-the-art deep-learning systems. Specifically, we show that even when only ‘stop’ words are available at the input stage, it is possible to predict the class significantly better than random. Though it is shown that these stop words are not required for good in-domain performance, they can degrade the ability of the system to generalize well to out-of-domain data.