Automatic evaluation of retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems relies on fine-grained dimensions like faithfulness and relevance, as judged by expert human annotators. Meta-evaluation benchmarks support the development of automatic evaluators that correlate well with human judgement. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focus on English or use translated data, which fails to capture cultural nuances. A native approach provides a better representation of the end user experience. In this work, we develop a Multilingual End-to-end Meta-Evaluation RAG benchmark (MEMERAG). Our benchmark builds on the popular MIRACL dataset, using native-language questions and generating responses with diverse large language models (LLMs), which are then assessed by expert annotators for faithfulness and relevance. We describe our annotation process and show that it achieves high inter-annotator agreement. We then analyse the performance of the answer-generating LLMs across languages as per the human evaluators. Finally we apply the dataset to our main use-case which is to benchmark multilingual automatic evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge). We show that our benchmark can reliably identify improvements offered by advanced prompting techniques and LLMs. We will release our benchmark to support the community developing accurate evaluation methods for multilingual RAG systems.

Generalized Category Discovery (GCD) is a practical and challenging open-world task that aims to recognize both known and novel categories in unlabeled data using limited labeled data from known categories. Due to the lack of supervision, previous GCD methods face significant challenges, such as difficulty in rectifying errors for confusing instances, and inability to effectively uncover and leverage the semantic meanings of discovered clusters. Therefore, additional annotations are usually required for real-world applicability. However, human annotation is extremely costly and inefficient. To address these issues, we propose GLEAN, a unified framework for generalized category discovery that actively learns from diverse and quality-enhanced LLM feedback. Our approach leverages three different types of LLM feedback to: (1) improve instance-level contrastive features, (2) generate category descriptions, and (3) align uncertain instances with LLM-selected category descriptions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior performance of \MethodName over state-of-the-art models across diverse datasets, metrics, and supervision settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/amazon-science/Glean.

Faithfulness evaluators based on large language models (LLMs) are often fooled by the fluency of the text and struggle with identifying errors in the summaries. We propose an approach to summary faithfulness evaluation in which multiple LLM-based agents are assigned initial stances (regardless of what their belief might be) and forced to come up with a reason to justify the imposed belief, thus engaging in a multi-round debate to reach an agreement. The uniformly distributed initial assignments result in a greater diversity of stances leading to more meaningful debates and ultimately more errors identified. Furthermore, by analyzing the recent faithfulness evaluation datasets, we observe that naturally, it is not always the case for a summary to be either faithful to the source document or not. We therefore introduce a new dimension, ambiguity, and a detailed taxonomy to identify such special cases. Experiments demonstrate our approach can help identify ambiguities, and have even a stronger performance on non-ambiguous summaries.

Developing language model-based dialogue agents requires effective data to train models that can follow specific task logic. However, most existing data augmentation methods focus on increasing diversity in language, topics, or dialogue acts at the utterance level, largely neglecting a critical aspect of task logic diversity at the dialogue level. This paper proposes a novel data augmentation method designed to enhance the diversity of synthetic dialogues by focusing on task execution logic. Our method uses LLMs to generate decision tree-structured task plans, which enables the derivation of diverse dialogue trajectories for a given task. Each trajectory, referred to as a "dialog flow", guides the generation of a multi-turn dialogue that follows a unique trajectory. We apply this method to generate a task-oriented dialogue dataset comprising 3,886 dialogue flows across 15 different domains. We validate the effectiveness of this dataset using the next action prediction task, where models fine-tuned on our dataset outperform strong baselines, including GPT-4. Upon acceptance of this paper, we plan to release the code and data publicly.

Document-grounded dialogue systems aim to answer user queries by leveraging external information. Previous studies have mainly focused on handling free-form documents, often overlooking structured data such as lists, which can represent a range of nuanced semantic relations. Motivated by the observation that even advanced language models like GPT-3.5 often miss semantic cues from lists, this paper aims to enhance question answering (QA) systems for better interpretation and use of structured lists. To this end, we introduce the LIST2QA dataset, a novel benchmark to evaluate the ability of QA systems to respond effectively using list information. This dataset is created from unlabeled customer service documents using language models and model-based filtering processes to enhance data quality, and can be used to fine-tune and evaluate QA models. Apart from directly generating responses through fine-tuned models, we further explore the explicit use of Intermediate Steps for Lists (ISL), aligning list items with user backgrounds to better reflect how humans interpret list items before generating responses. Our experimental results demonstrate that models trained on LIST2QA with our ISL approach outperform baselines across various metrics. Specifically, our fine-tuned Flan-T5-XL model shows increases of 3.1% in ROUGE-L, 4.6% in correctness, 4.5% in faithfulness, and 20.6% in completeness compared to models without applying filtering and the proposed ISL method.

Automated evaluation is crucial for streamlining text summarization benchmarking and model development, given the costly and time-consuming nature of human evaluation. Traditional methods like ROUGE do not correlate well with human judgment, while recently proposed LLM-based metrics provide only summary-level assessment using Likert-scale scores. This limits deeper model analysis, e.g., we can only assign one hallucination score at the summary level, while at the sentence level, we can count sentences containing hallucinations. To remedy those limitations, we propose FineSurE, a fine-grained evaluator specifically tailored for the summarization task using large language models (LLMs). It also employs completeness and conciseness criteria, in addition to faithfulness, enabling multi-dimensional assessment. We compare various open-source and proprietary LLMs as backbones for FineSurE. In addition, we conduct extensive benchmarking of FineSurE against SOTA methods including NLI-, QA-, and LLM-based methods, showing improved performance especially on the completeness and conciseness dimensions. The code is available at https://github.com/DISL-Lab/FineSurE-ACL24.

The development of large language models (LLM) has shown progress on reasoning, though studies have largely considered either English or simple reasoning tasks. To address this, we introduce a multilingual structured reasoning and explanation dataset, termed xSTREET, that covers four tasks across six languages. xSTREET exposes a gap in base LLM performance between English and non-English reasoning tasks. We then propose two methods to remedy this gap, building on the insight that LLMs trained on code are better reasoners. First, at training time, we augment a code dataset with multilingual comments using machine translation while keeping program code as-is. Second, at inference time, we bridge the gap between training and inference by employing a prompt structure that incorporates step-by-step code primitives to derive new facts and find a solution. Our methods show improved multilingual performance on xSTREET, most notably on the scientific commonsense reasoning subtask. Furthermore, the models show no regression on non-reasoning tasks, thus demonstrating our techniques maintain general-purpose abilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful models for generation tasks, but they may not generate good quality outputs in their first attempt. Apart from model fine-tuning, existing approaches to improve prediction accuracy and quality typically involve LLM self-improvement / self-reflection that incorporate feedback from models themselves. Despite their effectiveness, these methods are hindered by their high computational cost and lack of scalability. In this work, we propose CERET, a method for refining text generations by considering semantic stability, entailment and inter-sample uncertainty measures. Experimental results show that CERET outperforms Self-consistency and Self-rerank baselines consistently under various task setups, by ~1.6% in Rouge-1 for abstractive summarization and ~3.5% in hit rate for question answering. Compared to LLM Self-rerank method, our approach only requires 9.4% of its latency and is more cost-effective.

Single document news summarization has seen substantial progress on faithfulness in recent years, driven by research on the evaluation of factual consistency, or hallucinations. We ask whether these advances carry over to other text summarization domains. We propose a new evaluation benchmark on topic-focused dialogue summarization, generated by LLMs of varying sizes. We provide binary sentence-level human annotations of the factual consistency of these summaries along with detailed explanations of factually inconsistent sentences. Our analysis shows that existing LLMs hallucinate significant amounts of factual errors in the dialogue domain, regardless of the model's size. On the other hand, when LLMs, including GPT-4, serve as binary factual evaluators, they perform poorly and can be outperformed by prevailing state-of-the-art specialized factuality evaluation metrics. Finally, we conducted an analysis of hallucination types with a curated error taxonomy. We find that there are diverse errors and error distributions in model-generated summaries and that non-LLM based metrics can capture all error types better than LLM-based evaluators.

Conversational systems often rely on embedding models for intent classification and intent clustering tasks. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), which enable instructional embeddings allowing one to adjust semantics over the embedding space using prompts, are being viewed as a panacea for these downstream conversational tasks. However, traditional evaluation benchmarks rely solely on task metrics that don't particularly measure gaps related to semantic understanding. Thus, we propose an intent semantic toolkit that gives a more holistic view of intent embedding models by considering three tasks -- (1) intent classification, (2) intent clustering, and (3) a novel triplet task. The triplet task gauges the model's understanding of two semantic concepts paramount in real-world conversational systems -- negation and implicature. We observe that current embedding models fare poorly in semantic understanding of these concepts. To address this, we propose a pre-training approach to improve the embedding model by leveraging augmentation with data generated by an auto-regressive model and a contrastive loss term. Our approach improves the semantic understanding of the intent embedding model on the aforementioned linguistic dimensions while slightly effecting their performance on downstream task metrics.