惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

雷峰网
雷峰网
爱范儿
爱范儿
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
博客园 - Franky
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
博客园 - 聂微东
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
罗磊的独立博客
博客园 - 叶小钗
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
小众软件
小众软件
博客园 - 司徒正美
博客园 - 【当耐特】
IT之家
IT之家

cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Playing Along: Learning a Double-Agent Defender for Belief Steering via Theory of Mind RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents A Triadic Suffix Tokenization Scheme for Numerical Reasoning Hidden Measurement Error in LLM Pipelines Distorts Annotation, Evaluation, and Benchmarking Synthius-Mem: Brain-Inspired Hallucination-Resistant Persona Memory Achieving 94.4% Memory Accuracy and 99.6% Adversarial Robustness on LoCoMo Time is Not a Label: Continuous Phase Rotation for Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Agentic Memory NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment Policy Split: Incentivizing Dual-Mode Exploration in LLM Reinforcement with Dual-Mode Entropy Regularization METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models Think Before you Write: QA-Guided Reasoning for Character Descriptions in Books METRO: Towards Strategy Induction from Expert Dialogue Transcripts for Non-collaborative Dialogues Retrieval as Generation: A Unified Framework with Self-Triggered Information Planning Do LLMs Know Tool Irrelevance? Demystifying Structural Alignment Bias in Tool Invocations Enhancing Multimodal Large Language Models for Ancient Chinese Character Evolution Analysis via Glyph-Driven Fine-Tuning Polyglot Teachers: Evaluating Language Models for Multilingual Synthetic Data Generation Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method CocoaBench: Evaluating Unified Digital Agents in the Wild MathAgent: Adversarial Evolution of Constraint Graphs for Mathematical Reasoning Data Synthesis Evaluating Memory Capability in Continuous Lifelog Scenario How Robust Are Large Language Models for Clinical Numeracy? An Empirical Study on Numerical Reasoning Abilities in Clinical Contexts Efficient Training for Cross-lingual Speech Language Models Shared Emotion Geometry Across Small Language Models: A Cross-Architecture Study of Representation, Behavior, and Methodological Confounds A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of Persona Steering on LLM Capabilities Uncertainty-Aware Web-Conditioned Scientific Fact-Checking When Valid Signals Fail: Regime Boundaries Between LLM Features and RL Trading Policies When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection Mem$^2$Evolve: Towards Self-Evolving Agents via Co-Evolutionary Capability Expansion and Experience Distillation AOP-Smart: A RAG-Enhanced Large Language Model Framework for Adverse Outcome Pathway Analysis OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation Advancing Polish Language Modeling through Tokenizer Optimization in the Bielik v3 7B and 11B Series
Is Our Chatbot Telling Lies? Assessing Correctness of an ...
2024-10-29 · via cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Companies support their customers using live chats and chatbots to gain their loyalty. AFAS is a Dutch company aiming to leverage the opportunity large language models (LLMs) offer to answer customer queries with minimal to no input from its customer support team. Adding to its complexity, it is unclear what makes a response correct, and that too in Dutch. Further, with minimal data available for training, the challenge is to identify whether an answer generated by a large language model is correct and do it on the fly. This study is the first to define the correctness of a response based on how the support team at AFAS makes decisions. It leverages literature on natural language generation and automated answer grading systems to automate the decision-making of the customer support team. We investigated questions requiring a binary response (e.g., Would it be possible to adjust tax rates manually?) or instructions (e.g., How would I adjust tax rate manually?) to test how close our automated approach reaches support rating. Our approach can identify wrong messages in 55\% of the cases. This work demonstrates the potential for automatically assessing when our chatbot may provide incorrect or misleading answers. Specifically, we contribute (1) a definition and metrics for assessing correctness, and (2) suggestions to improve correctness with respect to regional language and question type.