Efficiently Measuring the Cognitive Ability of LLMs: An Adaptive Testing Perspective

Large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, have shown some human-like cognitive abilities. For comparing these abilities of different models, several benchmarks (i.e. sets of standard test questions) from different fields (e.g., Literature, Biology and Psychology) are often adopted and the test results under traditional metrics such as accuracy, recall and F1, are reported. However, such way for evaluating LLMs can be inefficient and inaccurate from the cognitive science perspective. Inspired by Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) used in psychometrics, we propose an adaptive testing framework for LLM evaluation. Rather than using a standard test set and simply reporting accuracy, this approach dynamically adjusts the characteristics of the test questions, such as difficulty, based on the model's performance. This allows for a more accurate estimation of the model's abilities, using fewer questions. More importantly, it allows LLMs to be compared with humans easily, which is essential for NLP models that aim for human-level ability. Our diagnostic reports have found that ChatGPT often behaves like a ``careless student'', prone to slip and occasionally guessing the questions. We conduct a fine-grained diagnosis and rank the latest 6 instruction-tuned LLMs from three aspects of Subject Knowledge, Mathematical Reasoning, and Programming, where GPT4 can outperform other models significantly and reach the cognitive ability of middle-level students. Different tests for different models using efficient adaptive testing -- we believe this has the potential to become a new norm in evaluating large language models

USE OF LANGUAGE TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE MATCHING AND RETRIEVAL IN TRANSLATION MEMORY

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of PhilosophyCurrent Translation Memory (TM) tools lack semantic knowledge while matching. Most TM tools compute similarity at the string level, which does not take into account semantic aspects in matching. Therefore, semantically similar segments, which differ on the surface form, are often not retrieved. In this thesis, we present five novel and efficient approaches to incorporate advanced semantic knowledge in translation memory matching and retrieval. Two efficient approaches which use a paraphrase database to improve translation memory matching and retrieval are presented. Both automatic and human evaluations are conducted. The results on both evaluations show that paraphrasing improves matching and retrieval. An approach based on manually designed features extracted using NLP systems and resources is presented, where a Support Vector Machine (SVM) regression model is trained, which calculates the similarity between two segments. The approach based on manually designed features did not retrieve better matches than simple edit-distance. Two approaches for retrieving segments from a TM using deep learning are investigated. The first one is based on Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) networks, while the other one is based on Tree Structured Long Short Term Memory (Tree-LSTM) networks. Eight different models using different datasets and settings are trained. The results are comparable to a baseline which uses simple edit-distance

Robust Text Correction for Grammar and Fluency

Grammar is one of the most important properties of natural language. It is a set of structural (i.e., syntactic and morphological) rules that are shared among native speakers in order to engage smooth communication. Automated grammatical error correction (GEC) is a natural language processing (NLP) application, which aims to correct grammatical errors in a given source sentence by computational models. Since the data-driven statistical methods began in 1990s and early 2000s, the GEC com- munity has worked on establishing a common framework for its evaluation (i.e., dataset and metric for benchmarking) in order to compare GEC models’ performance quantitatively. A series of shared tasks since early 2010s is a good example of this. In the first half of this thesis, I propose character-level and token-level error correction algorithms. For the character-level error correction, I introduce a semi-character recurrent neural network, which is motivated by a finding in psycholinguistics, called the Cmabrigde Uinervtisy (Cambridge University) effect or typoglycemia. For word-level error correc- tion, I propose an error-repair dependency parsing algorithm for ungrammatical texts. The algorithm can parse sentences and correct grammatical errors simultaneously. However, it is important to note that grammatical errors are not usually limited to mor- phological or syntactic errors. For example, collocational errors such as *quick/fast food and *fast/quick meal are not fully explained by only syntactic rules. This is another im- portant property of natural language, called fluency (or acceptability). Fluency is a level of mastery that goes beyond knowledge of how to follow the rules, and includes know- ing when they can be broken or flouted. In fact, the GEC community has also extended the scope of error types from closed class errors (e.g., noun numbers, verb forms) to the fluency-oriented errors. The second half of this thesis investigates GEC while considering fluency as well as grammaticality. When it comes to “whole-sentence” correction, by extending the scope of errors considering fluency as well as grammaticality, the GEC community has overlooked the reliability and validity of the task scheme (i.e., evaluation metric and dataset for bench- marking). Thus, I reassess the goals of GEC as a “whole-sentence” rewriting task while considering fluency. Following the fluency-oriented GEC framework, I introduce a new benchmark corpus that is more diverse in various aspects such as proficiency, topics, and learners’ native languages. Based on the fluency-oriented metric and dataset, I propose a new “whole-sentence” error correction model with neural reinforcement learning. Unlike conventional maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), the model directly optimizes toward an objective that consid- ers a sentence-level, task-specific evaluation metric. I demonstrate that the proposed model outperforms MLE in human and automated evaluation metrics. Finally, I conclude the thesis and outline ideas and suggestions for future GEC research

Evaluating Machine Intelligence with Question Answering

Humans ask questions to learn about the world and to test knowledge understanding. The ability to ask questions combines aspects of intelligence unique to humans: language understanding, knowledge representation, and reasoning. Thus, building systems capable of intelligent question answering (QA) is a grand goal of natural language processing (NLP). To measure progress in NLP, we create "exams" for computer systems and compare their effectiveness against a reference point---often based on humans. How precisely we measure progress depends on whether we are building computer systems that optimize human satisfaction in information-seeking tasks or that measure progress towards intelligent QA. In the first part of this dissertation, we explore each goal in turn, how they differ, and describe their relationship to QA formats. As an example of an information-seeking evaluation, we introduce a new dialog QA task paired with a new evaluation method. Afterward, we turn our attention to using QA to evaluate machine intelligence. A good evaluation should be able to discriminate between lesser and more capable QA models. This dissertation explores three ways to improve the discriminative power of QA evaluations: (1) dynamic weighting of test questions, (2) a format that by construction tests multiple levels of knowledge, and (3) evaluation data that is created through human-computer collaboration. By dynamically weighting test questions, we challenge a foundational assumption of the de facto standard in QA evaluation---the leaderboard. Namely, we contend that contrary to nearly all QA and NLP evaluations which implicitly assign equal weights to examples by averaging scores, that examples are not equally useful for estimating machine (or human) QA ability. As any student may tell you, not all questions on an exam are equally difficult and in the worst-case questions are unsolvable. Drawing on decades of research in educational testing, we propose adopting an alternative evaluation methodology---Item Response Theory---that is widely used to score human exams (e.g., the SAT). By dynamically weighting questions, we show that this improves the reliability of leaderboards in discriminating between models of differing QA ability while also being helpful in the construction of new evaluation datasets. Having improved the scoring of models, we next turn to improving the format and data in QA evaluations. Our idea is simple. In most QA tasks (e.g., Jeopardy!), each question tests a single level of knowledge; in our task (the trivia game Quizbowl), we test multiple levels of knowledge with each question. Since each question tests multiple levels of knowledge, this decreases the likelihood that we learn nothing about the difference between two models (i.e., they are both correct or both wrong), which substantially increases discriminative power. Despite the improved format, we next show that while our QA models defeat accomplished trivia players, that they are overly reliant on brittle pattern matching, which indicates a failure to intelligently answer questions. To mitigate this problem, we introduce a new framework for building evaluation data where humans and machines cooperatively craft trivia questions that are difficult to answer through clever pattern matching tricks alone---while being no harder for humans. We conclude by sketching a broader vision for QA evaluation that combines the three components of evaluation we improve---scoring, format, and data---to create living evaluations and re-imagine the role of leaderboards