Humans follow criteria when they execute tasks, and these criteria are directly used to assess the quality of task completion. Therefore, having models learn to use criteria to provide feedback can help humans or models to perform tasks better. However, current research in this area tends to consider only a limited number of criteria, or only a limited number of quality assessment aspects. To fill this gap, we propose a general framework that enables large language models (LLMs) to use comprehensive criteria for a task in delivering natural language feedback on task execution. In particular, we present a model-in-the-loop framework that semi-automatically derives criteria from collected guidelines for different writing tasks and constructs in-context demonstrations for each criterion. We choose three tasks from real-world scenarios to operationalize this idea: paper introduction writing, Python code writing, and Reddit post writing, and evaluate our feedback generation framework using different LLMs. The results reveal the fine-grained effects of adding criteria and demonstrations and provide valuable guidance on how to teach LLMs to use criteria more effectively.

Critique, as a natural language description for assessing the quality of model-generated content, has played a vital role in the training, evaluation, and refinement of LLMs. However, a systematic method to evaluate the quality of critique is lacking. In this paper, we pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which builds specific quantification criteria. To achieve a reliable evaluation outcome, we propose Atomic Information Units (AIUs), which describe the critique in a more fine-grained manner. MetaCritique aggregates each AIU’s judgment for the overall score. Moreover, MetaCritique delivers a natural language rationale for the intricate reasoning within each judgment. Lastly, we construct a meta-evaluation dataset covering 4 tasks across 16 public datasets involving human-written and LLM-generated critiques. Experiments demonstrate that MetaCritique can achieve near-human performance. Our study can facilitate future research in LLM critiques based on our following observations and released resources: (1) superior critiques judged by MetaCritique can lead to better refinements, indicating that it can potentially enhance the alignment of existing LLMs; (2) the leaderboard of critique models reveals that open-source critique models commonly suffer from factuality issues; (3) relevant code and data are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MetaCritique-ARR/ to support deeper exploration; (4) an API at PyPI with the usage documentation in Appendix C allows users to assess the critique conveniently.

Natural language (NL) feedback offers rich insights into user experience. While existing studies focus on an instance-level approach, where feedback is used to refine specific examples, we introduce a framework for system-level use of NL feedback. We show how to use feedback to formalize system-level design decisions in a human-in-the-loop-process – in order to produce better models. In particular this is done through: (i) metric design for tasks; and (ii) language model prompt design for refining model responses. We conduct two case studies of this approach for improving search query and dialog response generation, demonstrating the effectiveness of system-level feedback. We show the combination of system-level and instance-level feedback brings further gains, and that human written instance-level feedback results in more grounded refinements than GPT-3.5 written ones, underlying the importance of human feedback for building systems.

Modern embedding-based metrics for evaluation of generated text generally fall into one of two paradigms: discriminative metrics that are trained to directly predict which outputs are of higher quality according to supervised human annotations, and generative metrics that are trained to evaluate text based on the probabilities of a generative model. Both have their advantages; discriminative metrics are able to directly optimize for the problem of distinguishing between good and bad outputs, while generative metrics can be trained using abundant raw text. In this paper, we present a framework that combines the best of both worlds, using both supervised and unsupervised signals from whatever data we have available. We operationalize this idea by training T5Score, a metric that uses these training signals with mT5 as backbone. We perform an extensive empirical comparison with other existing metrics on 5 datasets, 19 languages and 280 systems, demonstrating the utility of our method. Experimental results show that: T5Score achieves the best performance on all datasets against existing top-scoring metrics at the segment level.

Despite data’s crucial role in machine learning, most existing tools and research tend to focus on systems on top of existing data rather than how to interpret and manipulate data. In this paper, we propose DataLab, a unified data-oriented platform that not only allows users to interactively analyze the characteristics of data but also provides a standardized interface so that many data processing operations can be provided within a unified interface. Additionally, in view of the ongoing surge in the proliferation of datasets, DataLab has features for dataset recommendation and global vision analysis that help researchers form a better view of the data ecosystem. So far, DataLab covers 1,300 datasets and 3,583 of its transformed version, where 313 datasets support different types of analysis (e.g., with respect to gender bias) with the help of 119M samples annotated by 318 feature functions. DataLab is under active development and will be supported going forward. We have released a web platform, web API, Python SDK, and PyPI published package, which hopefully, can meet the diverse needs of researchers.

With the rapid development of NLP research, leaderboards have emerged as one tool to track the performance of various systems on various NLP tasks. They are effective in this goal to some extent, but generally present a rather simplistic one-dimensional view of the submitted systems, communicated only through holistic accuracy numbers. In this paper, we present a new conceptualization and implementation of NLP evaluation: the ExplainaBoard, which in addition to inheriting the functionality of the standard leaderboard, also allows researchers to (i) diagnose strengths and weaknesses of a single system (e.g. what is the best-performing system bad at?) (ii) interpret relationships between multiple systems. (e.g. where does system A outperform system B? What if we combine systems A, B and C?) and (iii) examine prediction results closely (e.g. what are common errors made by multiple systems or in what contexts do particular errors occur?). So far, ExplainaBoard covers more than 400 systems, 50 datasets, 40 languages, and 12 tasks. We not only released an online platform at the website but also make our evaluation tool an API with MIT Licence at Github and PyPi that allows users to conveniently assess their models offline. We additionally release all output files from systems that we have run or collected to motivate “output-driven” research in the future.