Link to paper

The full paper is available here.

You can also find the paper on PapersWithCode here.

Abstract

  • Real-world applications of language models involve human-LM interaction.
  • HALIE is a new framework to evaluate human-LM interaction.
  • HALIE captures interactive process, subjective experience, and preference.
  • Five tasks are designed to capture different forms of interaction.
  • Non-interactive performance does not always result in better human-LM interaction.

Paper Content

Introduction

  • Language models have advanced and can be used for a wide range of tasks
  • Evaluation of language models is currently non-interactive
  • Most benchmarks focus on non-interactive evaluation
  • HALIE framework expands on non-interactive evaluation by considering the full process, first-person experience, and preference beyond quality
  • LMs are already used interactively to brainstorm, paraphrase, reformulate, autocomplete, and write code
  • Goal is to augment human capabilities rather than automate them

Social dialogue

  • Dialogue is a popular mode of interaction for language models
  • We evaluate human-LM interaction in the context of open-ended dialogue about social situations
  • Task: given a social scenario, users converse with a system until they choose to finish
  • System logic: user input, possible actions, updating dialogue history
  • User study: 189 crowd workers, 10 scenarios, survey questions
  • Results: instruction tuning improves performance on most quality metrics, but not specificity
  • Users may prefer to interact with a more specific LM

Question answering

  • Question answering is a task in NLP
  • Users can query a system multiple times to answer a question
  • System consists of multiple-choice question, user input, and system output
  • 342 crowd workers recruited to answer questions with and without assistance from an LM
  • Users with LM assistance generally outperformed an LM alone
  • Count number of queries needed to answer each question as a proxy measurement for efficiency
  • TextDavinci achieved highest accuracy while requiring least effort
  • TextBabbage performed better than Davinci on most metrics
  • Instruction tuned models were perceived most favorably in survey evaluation

Crossword puzzles

  • Crossword puzzles have been studied as a challenging task for AI systems
  • Solving a crossword puzzle is a generative task requiring open-ended responses to clues
  • Crossword puzzle task provides additional structure, whereby a user can check whether a candidate answer satisfies the lexical constraints of the puzzle
  • Clues are often not straightforward and a user might need to reformulate the query to find the desired information
  • System logic includes a state of a crossword puzzle, selected clue, user letters entered in the puzzle, dialogue history, and user input
  • User study recruited 350 workers on Amazon Mechanical Turk, split across four language models and five puzzles
  • Survey questions asked users to rank different qualities of the AI assistant on a 5-point Likert scale
  • Results show that users significantly preferred Text-Davinci over other models with respect to helpfulness
  • Misinformation was particularly pernicious using TextBabbage
  • Short prompts exacerbate misinformation and toxicity
  • Users demonstrate diverse engagement behavior

Text summarization

  • Text summarization is a long-standing problem in NLP
  • We focus on human-LM interaction for single-document summarization
  • System provides previous human-edited summaries as examples to the system to improve future summaries
  • Task is to edit model-generated summary to be consistent, relevant, and coherent
  • 964 documents randomly selected from XSum dataset
  • 39 crowd workers recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk
  • Summary-level questions ask consistency, relevance, and coherence of the original and edited summaries
  • Session-level questions evaluate users’ overall perceptions of the summarization system
  • 100 documents randomly sampled and assessed by 3 different evaluators

Metaphor generation

  • Metaphors are used to communicate complex or abstract ideas
  • Creating metaphors requires divergent, lateral thinking
  • Prior work designed metaphor generation tools to help with ideation
  • Task is to write metaphorical sentences that evoke a given metaphor
  • System logic consists of seed metaphor, user sentence history, user input, and system suggestions
  • 32 workers recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk to come up with metaphorical sentences using the system
  • 10 minutes given to each user to come up with as many sentences as possible
  • Evaluation criteria from Gero and Chilton (2019) used

Framework

  • Introduce HALIE framework for evaluating human-LM interaction
  • Describe tasks and system construction for studying human-LM interaction
  • Use interaction traces to represent interaction process
  • Propose dimensions and metrics for evaluating human-LM interaction

Solving tasks interactively

  • Studying human-LM interaction in the context of tasks
  • Five tasks studied: social dialogue, question answering, crossword puzzles, text summarization, and metaphor generation
  • Tasks span from goal-oriented to open-ended
  • High coverage on common usages of LMs reported by Ouyang et al. (2022)

Constructing an interactive system

  • Human-LM interaction can be designed in different ways
  • Language models take a text prompt and decoding parameters as input and return a set of text completions
  • System logic defines states, user actions, and a transition function
  • Interaction traces are sequences of state-action pairs
  • Design considerations include how much control users have over prompts, decoding parameters, and how completions are shown to users

Evaluating human-lm interaction

  • Evaluation of human-LM interaction should consider the entire interaction process, not just the final output.
  • Evaluation should reflect the perspective of the user who interacts with the LM.
  • Evaluation should consider both objective metrics (e.g. accuracy) and subjective metrics (e.g. enjoyment).
  • Evaluation should consider all combinations of the three dimensions (targets, perspectives, and criteria).
  • Metrics can be proxies for different quality or preference metrics depending on the task.

Experiments

  • Introduction of five tasks and four state-of-the-art LMs
  • Evaluation of human-LM interaction
  • Text summarization evaluated by third-party evaluators for consistency, relevancy, and coherence
  • First-person perspectives evaluated by edit distance and survey responses for helpfulness and improvement
  • Discrepancy between metrics based on third-party and first-person perspectives
  • TextDavinci better at in-context learning user’s preferences for summarization
  • Davinci requires least effort and highest acceptance rate for suggestions
  • TextDavinci most helpful and satisfactory according to survey responses
  • Third-party evaluators considered sentences written with TextDavinci to be the worst
  • Satisfaction and reuse may depend on different factors
  • Evaluation of LM-based language generation systems distinguishes between model completions and interaction traces
  • Evaluation of model completions has a long history in NLP
  • Evaluation traditionally centers on specific tasks
  • Users perceived TextDavinci to be the most helpful and satisfied with results
  • Users perceived Davinci to be the easiest to work with and willing to reuse the model
  • Positive correlation between helpfulness, satisfaction, ease of interaction, and willingness to reuse
  • Evaluation of interaction traces covers broader range of evaluation dimensions
  • Interactive systems studied in many disparate communities
  • Interaction often understood as feedback signal for model improvement
  • Focus on broader user experience with LMs

Discussion

  • Challenges encountered while designing tasks and systems for benchmarking LMs in interactive settings
  • Potential solutions and paths forward for benchmarking LMs in interactive settings

Low latency matters

  • Latency affects human-LM interaction and user perception.
  • Guidelines recommend interactive systems respond within 0.1-1 seconds.
  • Some models were too slow, influencing user perception and causing exclusion.
  • Meeting latency standards can be a challenge, especially with larger models.
  • Factors beyond model scale (e.g. compute resources, query optimization, API support) affect latency.
  • Latency is crucial for positive user experience in real world.

Complexity of interactive study design

  • User study design must account for individual differences in how users interact with LMs.
  • It is desirable for each user to interact with most/all models.
  • Sequential effects need to be controlled for to avoid undesired confounding.
  • It is recommended to recruit a large number of diverse users to allow for more flexibility.

Potential impact on users

  • LMs can generate toxic, biased, or otherwise undesirable text
  • Exposure to this text can cause psychological harm
  • Responsible deployment of interactive human-LM systems requires a harm mitigation strategy
  • User accommodation reflects underlying properties of the models
  • Task framing can affect user accommodation
  • Human-LM interaction can have lasting and longitudinal impacts on users