Untuk metrik berbasis model, layanan evaluasi AI Generatif mengevaluasi model Anda dengan model dasar seperti Gemini yang telah dikonfigurasi sebagai model hakim. Halaman ini menjelaskan cara meningkatkan kualitas model juri tersebut dan menyesuaikannya untuk kebutuhan Anda menggunakan teknik rekayasa perintah.
Ringkasan
Menggunakan juri manusia untuk mengevaluasi model bahasa besar (LLM) dapat mahal dan memakan waktu. Menggunakan model hakim adalah cara yang lebih skalabel untuk mengevaluasi LLM.
Layanan evaluasi AI Generatif menggunakan Gemini 1.5 Pro secara default sebagai model juri, dengan perintah yang dapat disesuaikan untuk mengevaluasi model Anda untuk berbagai kasus penggunaan. Banyak kasus penggunaan dasar yang dibahas dalam Template metrik berbasis model, tetapi Anda dapat menggunakan proses berikut untuk menyesuaikan lebih lanjut model hakim di luar kasus penggunaan dasar:
Buat set data dengan perintah yang mewakili kasus penggunaan Anda. Ukuran set data yang direkomendasikan adalah antara 100 hingga 1.000 perintah.
Gunakan perintah untuk mengubah model hakim dengan teknik rekayasa perintah.
Jalankan evaluasi dengan model hakim.
Teknik rekayasa perintah
Bagian ini mencantumkan teknik rekayasa perintah yang dapat Anda gunakan untuk mengubah model hakim. Contoh menggunakan perintah zero-shot, tetapi Anda juga dapat menggunakan contoh few-shot dalam perintah untuk meningkatkan kualitas model.
Mulai dengan perintah yang berlaku untuk seluruh set data evaluasi. Perintah harus menyertakan kriteria evaluasi tingkat tinggi dan rubrik untuk rating serta meminta verdict akhir dari model juri. Untuk contoh kriteria dan rubrik evaluasi di berbagai kasus penggunaan, lihat Template perintah metrik.
Menggunakan perintah Chain-of-Thought
Minta model hakim untuk mengevaluasi model kandidat dengan urutan tindakan atau langkah yang koheren secara logis.
Misalnya, Anda dapat menggunakan petunjuk langkah demi langkah berikut:
"Please first list down the instructions in the user query."
"Please highlight such specific keywords."
"After listing down instructions, you should rank the instructions in the order of importance."
"After that, INDEPENDENTLY check if response A and response B for meeting each of the instructions."
"Writing quality/style should NOT be used to judge the response quality unless it was requested by the user."
"When evaluating the final response quality, please value Instruction Following a more important rubrics than Truthfulness."
Contoh perintah berikut meminta model juri untuk mengevaluasi tugas teks menggunakan perintah Rantai Pemikiran:
# Rubrics
Your mission is to judge responses from two AI models, Model A and Model B, and decide which is better. You will be given the previous conversations between the user and the model, a prompt, and responses from both models.
Please use the following rubric criteria to judge the responses:
<START OF RUBRICS>
Your task is to first analyze each response based on the two rubric criteria: instruction_following, and truthfulness (factual correctness). Start your analysis with "Analysis".
(1) Instruction Listing
Please first list down the instructions in the user query. In general, an instruction is VERY important if it is specific asked in the prompt and deviate from the norm. Please highlight such specific keywords.
You should also derive the task type from the prompt and include the task specific implied instructions.
Sometimes, no instruction is available in the prompt. It is your job to infer if the instruction is to auto-complete the prompt or asking LLM for followups.
After listing down instructions, you should rank the instructions in the order of importance.
After that, INDEPENDENTLY check if response A and response B for meeting each of the instructions. You should itemize for each instruction, if response meet, partially meet or does not meet the requirement using reasoning. You should start reasoning first before reaching a conclusion whether response satisfies the requirement. Citing examples while making reasoning is preferred.
(2) Truthfulness
Compare response A and response B for factual correctness. The one with less hallucinated issues is better.
If response is in sentences and not too long, you should check every sentence separately.
For longer responses, to check factual correctness, focus specifically on places where response A and B differ. Find the correct information in the text to decide if one is more truthful to the other or they are about the same.
If you cannot determine validity of claims made in the response, or response is a punt ("I am not able to answer that type of question"), the response has no truthful issues.
Truthfulness check is not applicable in the majority of creative writing cases ("write me a story about a unicorn on a parade")
Writing quality/style should NOT be used to judge the response quality unless it was requested by the user.
In the end, express your final verdict in one of the following choices:
1. Response A is better: [[A>B]]
2. Tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]
3. Response B is better: [[B>A]]
Example of final verdict: "My final verdict is tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]".
When evaluating the final response quality, please value Instruction Following a more important rubrics than Truthfulness.
When for both response, instruction and truthfulness are fully meet, it is a tie.
<END OF RUBRICS>
Memandu penalaran model dengan panduan rating
Gunakan panduan rating untuk membantu model juri mengevaluasi penalaran model. Panduan rating berbeda dengan kriteria rating.
Misalnya, perintah berikut menggunakan kriteria rating, yang menginstruksikan model juri untuk menilai tugas "mengikuti petunjuk" dengan rubrik rating "masalah utama", "masalah kecil", dan "tidak ada masalah:"
Your task is to first analyze each response based on the three rubric criteria: verbosity, instruction_following, truthfulness (code correctness) and (coding) executability. Please note that the model responses should follow "response system instruction" (if provided). Format your judgment in the following way:
Response A - verbosity:too short|too verbose|just right
Response A - instruction_following:major issues|minor issues|no issues
Response A - truthfulness:major issues|minor issues|no issues
Response A - executability:no|no code present|yes-fully|yes-partially
Then do the same for response B.
After the rubric judgements, you should also give a brief rationale to summarize your evaluation considering each individual criteria as well as the overall quality in a new paragraph starting with "Reason: ".
In the last line, express your final judgment in the format of: "Which response is better: [[verdict]]" where "verdict" is one of {Response A is much better, Response A is better, Response A is slightly better, About the same, Response B is slightly better, Response B is better, Response B is much better}. Do not use markdown format or output anything else.
Perintah berikut menggunakan panduan rating untuk membantu model juri menilai tugas "mengikuti petunjuk":
You are a judge for coding related tasks for LLMs. You will be provided with a coding prompt, and two responses (Response A and Response B) attempting to answer the prompt. Your task is to evaluate each response based on the following criteria:
Correctness: Does the code produce the correct output and solve the problem as stated?
Executability: Does the code run without errors?
Instruction Following: Does the code adhere to the given instructions and constraints?
Please think about the three criteria, and provide a side-by-side comparison rating to to indicate which one is better.
Mengkalibrasi model juri dengan jawaban referensi
Anda dapat mengkalibrasi model juri dengan jawaban referensi untuk beberapa atau semua perintah.
Perintah berikut memandu model juri tentang cara menggunakan jawaban referensi:
"Note that you can compare the responses with the reference answer to make your judgment, but the reference answer may not be the only correct answer to the query."
Contoh berikut juga menggunakan penalaran, perintah Rantai Pemikiran, dan panduan rating untuk memandu proses evaluasi tugas "Patuh Perintah":
# Rubrics
Your mission is to judge responses from two AI models, Model A and Model B, and decide which is better. You will be given a user query, source summaries, and responses from both models. A reference answer
may also be provided - note that you can compare the responses with the reference answer to make your judgment, but the reference answer may not be the only correct answer to the query.
Please use the following rubric criteria to judge the responses:
<START OF RUBRICS>
Your task is to first analyze each response based on the three rubric criteria: grounding, completeness, and instruction_following. Start your analysis with "Analysis".
(1) Grounding
Please first read through all the given sources in the source summaries carefully and make sure you understand the key points in each one.
After that, INDEPENDENTLY check if response A and response B use ONLY the given sources in the source summaries to answer the user query. It is VERY important to check that all
statements in the response MUST be traceable back to the source summaries and ACCURATELY cited.
(2) Completeness
Please first list down the aspects in the user query. After that, INDEPENDENTLY check if response A and response B for covering each of the aspects by using ALL RELEVANT information from the sources.
(3) Instruction Following
Please read through the following instruction following rubrics carefully. After that, INDEPENDENTLY check if response A and response B for following each of the instruction following rubrics successfully.
* Does the response provide a final answer based on summaries of 3 potential answers to a user query?
* Does the response only use the technical sources provided that are relevant to the query?
* Does the response use only information from sources provided?
* Does the response select all the sources that provide helpful details to answer the question in the Technical Document?
* If the sources have significant overlapping or duplicate details, does the response select sources which are most detailed and comprehensive?
* For each selected source, does the response prepend source citations?
* Does the response use the format: "Source X" where x represents the order in which the technical source appeared in the input?
* Does the response use original source(s) directly in its response, presenting each source in its entirety, word-for-word, without omitting and altering any details?
* Does the response create a coherent technical final answer from selected Sources without inter-mixing text from any of the Sources?
Writing quality/style can be considered, but should NOT be used as critical rubric criteria to judge the response quality.
In the end, express your final verdict in one of the following choices:
1. Response A is better: [[A>B]]
2. Tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]
3. Response B is better: [[B>A]]
Example of final verdict: "My final verdict is tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]".
When for both response, grounding, completeness, and instruction following are fully meet, it is a tie.
<END OF RUBRICS>
Langkah selanjutnya
- Jalankan evaluasi dengan model hakim yang dimodifikasi.