doi
stringlengths 10
10
| chunk-id
int64 0
936
| chunk
stringlengths 401
2.02k
| id
stringlengths 12
14
| title
stringlengths 8
162
| summary
stringlengths 228
1.92k
| source
stringlengths 31
31
| authors
stringlengths 7
6.97k
| categories
stringlengths 5
107
| comment
stringlengths 4
398
⌀ | journal_ref
stringlengths 8
194
⌀ | primary_category
stringlengths 5
17
| published
stringlengths 8
8
| updated
stringlengths 8
8
| references
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2310.05910 | 106 | User: Got any creative ideas for a 10 year âolds birthday?
[Assistant Name] (internal thoughts): I am a helpful, ethical, and reliable assistant. The user asks for some creative birthday party ideas. I should follow rules 2 (informative), 3 (helpful), 15 ( creative).
[Assistant Name]: Of course! Here are some creative ideas for a 10-year- oldâs birthday party:
1. Treasure Hunt: Organize a treasure hunt in your backyard or nearby park. Create clues and riddles for the kids to solve, leading them to hidden treasures and surprises.
2. Science Party: Plan a science-themed party where kids can engage in fun and interactive experiments. You can set up different stations with activities like making slime, erupting volcanoes, or creating simple chemical reactions.
3. Outdoor Movie Night: Set up a backyard movie night with a projector and a large screen or white sheet. Create a cozy seating area with blankets and pillows, and serve popcorn and snacks while the kids enjoy a favorite movie under the stars.
4. DIY Crafts Party: Arrange a craft party where kids can unleash their creativity. Provide a variety of craft supplies like beads, paints, and fabrics, and let them create their own unique masterpieces to take home as party favors. | 2310.05910#106 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 107 | 5. Sports Olympics: Host a mini Olympics event with various sports and games. Set up different stations for activities like sack races, relay races, basketball shooting, and obstacle courses. Give out medals or certificates to the participants.
6. Cooking Party: Have a cooking-themed party where the kids can prepare their own mini pizzas, cupcakes, or cookies. Provide toppings, frosting, and decorating supplies, and let them get hands-on in the kitchen.
7. Superhero Training Camp: Create a superhero-themed party where the kids can engage in fun training activities. Set up an obstacle course , have them design their own superhero capes or masks, and organize superhero-themed games and challenges.
8. Outdoor Adventure: Plan an outdoor adventure party at a local park or nature reserve. Arrange activities like hiking, nature scavenger hunts, or a picnic with games. Encourage exploration and appreciation for the outdoors.
Remember to tailor the activities to the birthday childâs interests and preferences. Have a great celebration!
User: Good job! Clear context
[Assistant Name] (auto reply): I appreciate it! Itâs gratifying to hear that you found the reply useful.
# User:
28
Preprint
1. Concise: The response should efficiently address the task or answer the question, communicating the necessary information with brevity and clarity.
2. Honest and Accurate: The AI must furnish reliable and factual | 2310.05910#107 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 108 | 2. Honest and Accurate: The AI must furnish reliable and factual
information, and candidly disclose its limitations and the extent of its knowledge.
3. Ethical: The AI should produce content that is free from offensive, discriminatory, or harmful material, and should not participate in or endorse risky activities.
4. Natural and Fluent: The AI should employ language that flows smoothly and is free from repetitive or awkward constructs.
5. Specific: The âAIs response should be directly pertinent to the query , addressing the particular subject in the instruction explicitly.
6. Educational and Engaging: The AIâs responses should be enriched with accurate, relevant, and current information, serving to educate while keeping the user engaged.
7. Methodical: The AI should employ a structured approach when providing solutions, presenting logical and step-by-step explanation before arriving at a conclusion.
8. Multilingual: The AI should be capable of conversing in the language
used by the user, for instance, replying in ä¸ æ\ if the query is in ä¸æ.
9. Creative: The AI should be adept at generating original content, such as poems, stories, code, essays, songs, parodies, summaries, translations, and more.
10. Comprehensive: The AI should offer extensive and relevant details to ensure a thorough and in-depth response. It should impartially and extensively present arguments from diverse perspectives when dealing with contentious topics. | 2310.05910#108 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 109 | 10. Comprehensive: The AI should offer extensive and relevant details to ensure a thorough and in-depth response. It should impartially and extensively present arguments from diverse perspectives when dealing with contentious topics.
Table 6: Full list of the principles used in synthetic preference modeling
29
Preprint
1. Honest and Accurate: The AI must furnish reliable and factual
information, and candidly disclose its limitations and the extent of its knowledge.
2. Ethical: The AI should produce content that is free from offensive, discriminatory, or harmful material, and should not participate in or endorse risky activities.
3. Educational and Engaging: The AIâs responses should be enriched with accurate, relevant, and current information, serving to educate while keeping the user engaged.
4. Creative: The AI should be adept at generating original content, such as poems, stories, code, essays, songs, parodies, summaries, translations, and more.
5. Multilingual: The AI should be capable of conversing in the language used by the user, for instance, replying in ä¸æif the query is in ä¸ æ."
6. Comprehensive: For information-seeking tasks, the AI should offer extensive and relevant details to ensure a thorough and in-depth response. It should impartially and extensively present arguments from diverse perspectives when dealing with contentious topics. 7. Natural Language: The AI should respond with diverse and natural
language, avoiding repetition and awkward phrasing. | 2310.05910#109 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 110 | language, avoiding repetition and awkward phrasing.
8. Consistent Reasoning: The AI should deliver responses that are clear and logically sound, ensuring they do not contain self-contradictions .
9. Numerical Sensitive: The AI should ensure that any numerical specifications given in the instruction are carefully adhered to, avoiding any errors in numerical computations.
10. Analytical Structure: For information analysis tasks, the AI should articulate its response in a manner that begins with a summary, followed by numerous key points, each underscored by a thorough analysis.
11. Vivid: The AI should employ vibrant, energetic language, enhancing user engagement by making all interactions lively and dynamic.
12. Privacy Protection: The AI should avoid generating any personal
identifiable information (PII) or external URLs in its responses. 13. Candor: The AI should avoid sharing false information. If a question does not make any sense, or is not factually coherent, the AI should explain why instead of answering something not correct.
14. Stand-Alone: The AI must function as a stand-alone text-based system , avoiding interactions with any external sources, including URLs, images, or videos.
Table 7: Full list of the principles used in RL training
30
Preprint | 2310.05910#110 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 111 | Table 7: Full list of the principles used in RL training
30
Preprint
1. The AI should not produce content that is offensive, discriminatory, or prejudiced in nature, either directly or through subtext or bias. 2. When prompted to assist in harmful activities (e.g. building a bomb), the AI should promptly and politely decline. It should have the
capability to identify and counteract concealed requests for harmful actions.
3. The AI should be cognizant when it might be providing critical or sensitive guidance. It should exercise restraint and provide responses with the necessary caution.
4. Understanding that perceptions of harm vary among individuals and cultures, the AI should be adaptive and respectful. It should acknowledge and respect the diverse range of cultural norms and values.
5. The AIâs responses should be tailored to the nature of the user query , taking into account who is interacting with the AI, as well as the situational context in which the assistant is being engaged.
6. To prevent reinforcing harmful beliefs or stereotypes, the AI should avoid echoing or amplifying potentially harmful statements made by users, instead promoting neutral or positive alternatives.
7. The AI should gauge the emotional tone of user queries and respond with sensitivity, especially in situations where users seem distressed or vulnerable.
8. Rather than just reactively refusing harmful requests, the AI should actively provide alternatives or suggestions that promote safety and well-being. | 2310.05910#111 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 112 | 8. Rather than just reactively refusing harmful requests, the AI should actively provide alternatives or suggestions that promote safety and well-being.
9. The AI should openly acknowledge when its responses might be influenced by historical data biases, offering the user a clearer picture of its limitations.
10. The AI should continuously learn and adapt from feedback on harmful outputs, minimizing the risk of repeating harmful behaviors in future interactions.
11. Recognizing that conversations can sometimes touch on mental health issues, the AI should handle such interactions with extreme care, always prioritizing the well-being of the user and never offering medical advice unless explicitly trained to do so.
Table 8: Full list of the principles used to improve AI harmlessness in analysis study
1. The AI must consistently provide accurate and verifiable information in its responses.
2. The AI should ensure that its confidence assertions align with its actual accuracy, reflecting genuine knowledge estimation.
3. When uncertain, the AI should transparently express its level of uncertainty, ensuring users are never misled by vague or overly confident statements.
4. The AI must be forthright about its own capabilities and should not feign expertise or knowledge it doesnât possess.
5. If asked about its workings or limitations, the AI should provide clear and honest descriptions about its design and operational boundaries.
6. The AI should acknowledge potential biases inherent in its data or model and inform users when a topic or response might be influenced by such biases. | 2310.05910#112 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 113 | 6. The AI should acknowledge potential biases inherent in its data or model and inform users when a topic or response might be influenced by such biases.
7. When confronted with an error in its response, the AI should admit the mistake and strive to provide the correct information.
8. The AI should avoid mimicking the behavior or response patterns of experts unless itâs providing information based on verified data or recognized knowledge.
Table 9: Full list of the principles used to improve AI honesty in analysis study
31
Preprint
1. The AIâs responses should be enriched with accurate, relevant, and current information, serving to educate while keeping the user engaged.
2. The AI should be adept at generating original content, such as poems, stories, code, essays, songs, parodies, summaries, translations, and more.
3. The AI should be capable of conversing in the language used by the
user, for instance, replying in ä¸æif the query is in ä¸æ. 4. For information-seeking tasks, the AI should offer extensive and relevant details to ensure a thorough and in-depth response. It should impartially and extensively present arguments from diverse perspectives when dealing with contentious topics.
5. The AI should respond with diverse and natural language, avoiding repetition and awkward phrasing.
6. The AI should deliver responses that are clear and logically sound, ensuring they do not contain self-contradictions. | 2310.05910#113 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.05910 | 114 | 6. The AI should deliver responses that are clear and logically sound, ensuring they do not contain self-contradictions.
7. The AI should ensure that any numerical specifications given in the instruction are carefully adhered to, avoiding any errors in numerical computations.
8. For information analysis tasks, the AI should articulate its response in a manner that begins with a summary, followed by numerous key points, each underscored by a thorough analysis.
9. The AI should employ vibrant, energetic language, enhancing user engagement by making all interactions lively and dynamic.
Table 10: Full list of the principles used to reduce AI false refusal in analysis study
32 | 2310.05910#114 | SALMON: Self-Alignment with Principle-Following Reward Models | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on response demonstrations combined with
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) constitutes a powerful
paradigm for aligning LLM-based AI agents. However, a significant limitation of
such an approach is its dependency on high-quality human annotations, making
its application to intricate tasks challenging due to difficulties in obtaining
consistent response demonstrations and in-distribution response preferences.
This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON (Self-ALignMent with
principle-fOllowiNg reward models), to align base language models with minimal
human supervision, using only a small set of human-defined principles, yet
achieving superior performance. Central to our approach is a
principle-following reward model. Trained on synthetic preference data, this
model can generate reward scores based on arbitrary human-defined principles.
By merely adjusting these principles during the RL training phase, we gain full
control over the preferences with the reward model, subsequently influencing
the behavior of the RL-trained policies, and eliminating the reliance on the
collection of online human preferences. Applying our method to the LLaMA-2-70b
base language model, we developed an AI assistant named Dromedary-2. With only
6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles,
Dromedary-2 significantly surpasses the performance of several state-of-the-art
AI systems, including LLaMA-2-Chat-70b, on various benchmark datasets. We have
open-sourced the code and model weights to encourage further research into
aligning LLM-based AI agents with enhanced supervision efficiency, improved
controllability, and scalable oversight. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.05910 | Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Hongxin Zhang, Qinhong Zhou, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, Chuang Gan | cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG | Project page: https://github.com/IBM/SALMON | null | cs.CL | 20231009 | 20231009 | [
{
"id": "2302.13971"
},
{
"id": "1707.06347"
},
{
"id": "1810.04805"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2103.03874"
},
{
"id": "2112.09332"
},
{
"id": "2304.07327"
},
{
"id": "2305.03047"
},
{
"id": "2304.12244"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.14233"
},
{
"id": "2306.04751"
},
{
"id": "2209.07858"
},
{
"id": "2305.11206"
},
{
"id": "2207.05221"
},
{
"id": "2307.09288"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2305.10142"
},
{
"id": "2307.12950"
},
{
"id": "2009.14108"
},
{
"id": "2204.07705"
},
{
"id": "1606.06565"
},
{
"id": "2305.15717"
},
{
"id": "2210.09261"
},
{
"id": "2306.02707"
},
{
"id": "2206.04615"
},
{
"id": "2304.01373"
},
{
"id": "2204.05862"
},
{
"id": "2211.03540"
},
{
"id": "2112.00861"
},
{
"id": "2309.14525"
},
{
"id": "2302.07459"
},
{
"id": "2305.14387"
},
{
"id": "2212.10560"
},
{
"id": "2306.05685"
},
{
"id": "1909.08593"
},
{
"id": "1811.07871"
},
{
"id": "2305.13735"
},
{
"id": "2212.09251"
},
{
"id": "2305.14314"
},
{
"id": "2303.15056"
},
{
"id": "2203.02155"
},
{
"id": "2303.17651"
},
{
"id": "2308.06259"
},
{
"id": "2308.11483"
},
{
"id": "2201.03544"
},
{
"id": "2109.07958"
},
{
"id": "1506.02438"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 1 | Most large language models (LLMS) are trained once and never updated; thus, they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge. Specifically, we introduce FRESHQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and open-source LLMS under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models (regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present FRESHPROMPT, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the performance of an LLM on FRESHQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments show that | 2310.03214#1 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 2 | the performance of an LLM on FRESHQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments show that FRESHPROMPT outperforms both competing search engine-augmented prompting methods such as SELF-ASK (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial systems such as PERPLEXITY.AI.1 Further analysis of FRESHPROMPT reveals that both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we release FRESHQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at regular intervals. | 2310.03214#2 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 3 | # INTRODUCTION
Recent large language models (LLMS) such as BARD and CHATGPT/GPT-42 are designed to be versatile open-domain chatbots that can engage in multi-turn conversations on diverse subjects. Despite their impressive capabilities, these LLMS often âhallucinateâ plausible but factually incorrect information (Maynez et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2023b), which reduces the trustworthiness of their responses, especially in settings where accurate and up-to-date information is critical. This behavior can be partially attributed to the presence of outdated knowledge encoded in their parameters. While additional training using human feedback (Ouyang et al., 2022) or knowledge-enhanced tasks can mitigate this issue, it is not easily scalable for real-time knowledge updates (e.g., stock price of a company). In-context learning (Brown et al., 2020) is an appealing alternative in which real-time knowledge can be injected into an LLMâs prompt for conditioning generation. While recent work has begun to explore augmenting LLMS with web search results (Lazaridou et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022), it is unclear how to take full advantage of search engine outputs to increase LLM factuality.
âWork done while at Google. 1https://www.perplexity.ai 2https://bard.google.com, https://chat.openai.com
1 | 2310.03214#3 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 5 | 1
Preprint
Type never-changing Question Has Virginia Woolf's novel about the Ramsay family entered the public domain in the United States? Answer (as of this writing) Yes, Virginia Woolf's 1927 novel To the Lighthouse entered the public domain in 2023. never-changing slow-changing What breed of dog was Queen Elizabeth II of England famous for keeping? How many vehicle models does Tesla offer? Pembroke Welsh Corgi dogs. Tesla offers five vehicle models: Model S, Model X, Model 3, Model Y, and the Tesla Semi. slow-changing fast-changing Which team holds the record for largest deficit overcome to win an NFL game? Which game won the Spiel des Jahres award most recently? The record for the largest NFL comeback is held by the Minnesota Vikings. Dorfromantik won the 2023 Spiel des Jahres. fast-changing false-premise What is Brad Pitt's most recent movie as an actor What was the text of Donald Trumpâs first tweet in 2022, made after his unbanning from Twitter by Elon Musk? Brad Pitt recently starred in Babylon, directed by Damien Chazelle. He did not tweet in 2022. false-premise In which round did Novak Djokovic lose at the 2022 Australian Open? He was not allowed to play at the tournament due to his vaccination status. | 2310.03214#5 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 6 | Figure 1: FRESHQA exemplars. Our questions are broadly divided into four main categories based on the nature of the answer: never-changing, in which the answer almost never changes; slow-changing, in which the answer typically changes over the course of several years; fast-changing, in which the answer typically changes within a year or less; and false-premise, which includes questions whose premises are factually incorrect and thus have to be rebutted.
In this work, we collect a novel QA benchmark, dubbed FRESHQA, to evaluate the factuality of existing LLMS. FRESHQA consists of 600 natural questions that are broadly divided into the four main categories shown in Figure 1. FRESHQAâs questions span a diverse set of topics with diverse difficulty levels (requiring single-hop and multi-hop reasoning), and require a model to âunderstandâ the worldâs up-to-date knowledge to be able to answer correctly. Additionally, FRESHQA is dynamic in nature: some of the ground-truth answers may change over time, and a question classified under a specific category may undergo reclassification at some later point in time (e.g., the current false- premise question âHow long has Elon Musk been married to his current spouse?â will fall into the fast-changing category if Elon Musk gets married again in the future). | 2310.03214#6 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 7 | We benchmark how well different LLMS perform on FRESHQA by prompting them with questions and optionally a few question-answer demonstrations and then sampling a response. Then, we conduct an extensive human evaluation of the factual accuracy of the modelsâ responses, consisting of more than 50K judgements. We evaluate each response in a two-mode evaluation procedure: RELAXED, which measures only whether the main answer is correct; and STRICT, which measures whether all of the claims in the response are factual and up-to-date (i.e., no hallucination). Our study sheds light on the factuality of old and new LLMS and reveals different model behaviors across question types. Unsurprisingly, there are flat scaling curves on questions that involve fast-changing knowledge: simply increasing the model size does not lead to reliable performance gains. We also observe similar trends on false-premise questions, though several LLMS are able to debunk a false-premise question if explicitly asked âPlease check if the question contains a valid premise before answeringâ. Overall, FRESHQA is challenging for current LLMS and leaves ample room for improvement. | 2310.03214#7 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 8 | Motivated by these findings, we further investigate how to effectively improve LLMSâ factuality by grounding their responses to accurate and up-to-date information from search engines. Given the rapid development of ever larger LLMS and the ever-changing nature of knowledge, we explore in-context learning approaches that allow an LLM to attend over knowledge provided at inference time through its prompt. We develop FRESHPROMPT, a simple yet effective method that, for a given question, takes full advantage of a search engine by extracting all up-to-date and relevant information (including knowledge from relevant questions that search users also ask) and uses few-shot in-context learning to teach a model to reason over retrieved evidences and figure out the right answer. We show that FRESHPROMPT significantly boosts LLMSâs factuality: for example, our best GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT variant yields an improvement of 32.6% and 49.0% accuracy over the vanilla GPT-4 on FRESHQA under RELAXED and STRICT, respectively. Since our method requires no additional training, it is flexible and applicable to a variety of scenarios.
Taken together, our key contributions include:
2
# Preprint | 2310.03214#8 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 9 | Taken together, our key contributions include:
2
# Preprint
⢠We introduce a novel dynamic QA benchmark, FRESHQA, which features a diverse set of question and answer types, including questions whose answers may change over time and questions whose premises are factually incorrect. We make our dataset freely available and commit to updating the ground-truth answers at a regular schedule to encourage exploration of methods to improve LLMSâ factuality.
⢠We benchmark a wide range of both closed and open-source LLMS on our dataset. Through an extensive and rigorous human evaluation study, we shed light on limitations of current LLMS: they struggle on fast-changing, false-premise, and multi-hop questions, and our two-mode evaluation captures increased hallucinations produced by techniques such as chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022).
⢠We present FRESHPROMPT, a simple in-context learning method that can substantially boost an LLMâs factuality compared to competing search-augmented approaches by effectively incorporating factual and up-to-date information from a search engine into the modelâs prompt. Furthermore, we perform a series of sensitivity and ablation analyses to better understand what facets of FRESHPROMPT contribute to its success.
# 2 FRESHQA | 2310.03214#9 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 11 | We collected FRESHQA by recruiting both NLP researchers (including the authors and their colleagues) and online freelancers3 to write questions of varying difficulty levels and topics whose answers may change based on new developments in the world. The annotators were shown a few exemplars of the four broad types of questions defined in Figure 1. Within each of these four categories, we ask annotators to write questions at two different difficulty levels: one-hop, where the question explicitly mentions all of the relevant information needed to answer it, and thus no additional reasoning is required (e.g., âWho is the CEO of Twitterâ); and multi-hop, where the question requires one or more additional steps of reasoning in order to gather all of the relevant information needed to answer it (e.g., âWhat is the total height of the tallest building in the world?â). Annotators were encouraged to write questions that involve fresh knowledge (knowledge that has changed recently or new events) and appear natural (i.e., plausible for a real person to type into a search engine). For false-premise questions, we requested a brief explanation elucidating why the question is flawed.4 Quality control: Upon obtaining the initial | 2310.03214#11 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 12 | search engine). For false-premise questions, we requested a brief explanation elucidating why the question is flawed.4 Quality control: Upon obtaining the initial dataset, we conducted multiple thorough data cleaning and quality assessments. This involved manual review of each example to ensure well-formed questions, removal of duplicates and invalid questions (e.g., too easy or controversial), and verification of answers and supporting evidence URLS. We also manually collected supplementary valid answers for each question (e.g., different names of the same person, different date formats, etc.). To facilitate future answer updates, we excluded questions whose answers are likely to change more frequently than once per week, and additionally incorporated the expected next review date for each question. Data size and split: The resulting dataset is divided into a test set consisting of 125 questions for each of the four broad question types (500 total examples) and a development set comprising 25 questions for each question type (100 total examples), sampled randomly within types. Additionally, 15 examples spanning different question types were extracted for demonstration purposes (i.e., for use in few-shot in-context learning), and the remaining data was discarded. The | 2310.03214#12 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 13 | spanning different question types were extracted for demonstration purposes (i.e., for use in few-shot in-context learning), and the remaining data was discarded. The development set is reserved for future studies and not used in this paper.5 FRESHQA requires regular updates: Our dataset has time sensitivity since the ground-truth answers may change with new developments in the world. As such, we commit to updating the dataset regularly and encourage researchers to evaluate on the latest version of the dataset, as close to the release date of the updated dataset as possible. | 2310.03214#13 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 14 | 3We use UPWORK (https://www.upwork.com) with a compensation rate of $2 per example. 4Additionally, the annotators were asked to include the year the answer to the question last changed and an
URL to a reputable website that supports the answer.
5Although our test set is currently balanced across question types, the distribution may change over time due to reclassification of questions from one category to another.
3
Preprint
2.2 EVALUATION | 2310.03214#14 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 15 | All model responses were evaluated by the authors in a two-mode evaluation procedure: RELAXED, which focuses solely on evaluating the correctness of the primary answer; and STRICT, which additionally examines whether all of the facts in the answer are accurate (i.e., no hallucination). Overall, our setup provides both ends of the spectrum for evaluating factuality (the difference between a modelâs strict and relaxed performance provides a way to measure hallucination), offering a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their performance. Evaluation protocol: In both evaluation modes, we credit a modelâs response only if it provides a confident and definitive answer, or the correct answer can be obviously inferred from the response. The primary or final answer when standing alone must be accurate. Any additional information that is provided must not contradict the primary answer or reshape oneâs perception of it. For false-premise questions, the model must point out the presence of a false premise to receive credit. For answers that involve names of entities (e.g., people), complete names or commonly recognized names are expected. Regarding numerical answers, approximate numbers are generally not accepted unless | 2310.03214#15 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 16 | entities (e.g., people), complete names or commonly recognized names are expected. Regarding numerical answers, approximate numbers are generally not accepted unless explicitly included in the ground-truth answers. Under RELAXED, we accept ill-formed responses (including those in a non-English language), as well as hallucinated or outdated information that does not significantly impact the primary answer. Under STRICT, however, a response that contains any hallucination, no matter how minor, will not receive credit. Furthermore, we accept a response in STRICT when the model indicates that the information might be outdated (e.g., âAs of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021â) only if it is evident that the knowledge has not changed.6 Figure 4 in Appendix A shows specific examples of each evaluation criteria. Inter-rater agreement and automatic evaluation: Two authors independently evaluated a subset of 100 answers in both modes and had an agreement of 99% for RELAXED and 96% for STRICT, showing that the protocol is reliable for comparing different LLMS. Additionally, to facilitate future evaluations, we develop FRESHEVAL, a simple automatic metric that uses few-shot in-context learning to teach | 2310.03214#16 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 19 | We use FRESHQA to benchmark LLMS that do not have access to real-time data or the ability to browse the Internet for current information.7 While all LLMS (regardless of size) predictably struggle on questions requiring up-to-date knowledge, they also underperform on false premise questions. In our experiments, we simply feed individual questions as prompts into each model and decode the modelâs predictions using a temperature of 0 without fine-tuning (see Appendix C for more details). Baselines: We experiment with a series of models varying in size from 770M to 540B parameters, including basic pre-trained models such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020; Lester et al., 2021), PALM and PALMCHILLA (Chowdhery et al., 2022), optionally using FEW-SHOT prompting (Brown et al., 2020) and Chain-of-Thought (COT, Wei et al., 2022);8 instruction-tuned models including FLAN-T5 and FLAN-PALM (Chung et al., 2022; Longpre et al., 2023), and OPENAIâs GPT-3.5 (Ouyang et al., 2022), CODEX (Chen et al., 2021a), CHATGPT, and GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023).
3.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 2310.03214#19 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 20 | 3.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
FRESHQA presents a challenge for LLMS: We visualize the accuracy of different LLMS on FRESHQA in both evaluation modes in Figure 2.9 A first obvious takeaway is that all models struggle
6Note that even without access to real-time data, a model may still provide accurate answers to certain questions involving current information, potentially through random guesses or by leveraging past valid responses (e.g., for the question âWhich drama series won the most recent Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series?â, while âSuccessionâ won the award most recently (as of this writing), it was also the winner in 2020, so a model trained in 2021 could potentially provide the correct answer).
7With the exception of CHATGPT and GPT-4, which have access to the current date. Note that the latest versions of these models can now browse the Internet.
8As we are interested in exploring how these methods perform without being specifically designed for FRESHQA, we use the 5-shot demonstrations for TRIVIAQA (Joshi et al., 2017) used in Sun et al. (2023). 9Table 3 and Table 4 in Appendix D contain concrete numbers under STRICT and RELAXED, respectively.
4
Preprint | 2310.03214#20 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 21 | 4
Preprint
80 80 80 70 mm Strict 70 mm Strict 70 mm Strict mmm Relaxed mmm Relaxed mmm Relaxed 60 60 60 350 50 50 | g 40 40 40 3 1] 30 I 30 30 | 20 | | 20 20 10 = i 10 ga cee Fee | ee | % 2, ee, Mey Meg Meg, Mg, Pe, Mr, Ny, & Ig, Meg, Meg, Meg, Gy, Gg, My, ® 2 ee Bei tig ee Sa Magtt ttn tag Yea tat gta, %, ag tin te Veg gia aso, 350) % âaaa %, %y âgts Cup %, sa ye G0 of a, âae âae ay Overall Fast-changing questions False-premise questions
Figure 2: Accuracy of different LLMS on FRESHQA under RELAXED and STRICT (no hallucination) evaluations. Models benchmarked on the same date of April 26, 2023. All models (regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing knowledge and false premises. | 2310.03214#21 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 22 | on FRESHQA: overall accuracy ranges from 0.8% to 32.0% under STRICT, and 0.8% to 46.4% under RELAXED. Switching from RELAXED to STRICT results in a marked decrease in accuracy for CHATGPT and GPT-4. This is mainly due to the lack of access to up-to-date information, as they produce âoutdatedâ answers (which often start with the prefix ââAs of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021â), and in many cases, ârefuseâ to provide an answer (e.g., âAs an AI language model, I cannot provide real-time information.â). Similarly, the accuracy of PALM (across model sizes) drops significantly under STRICT. Much of this drop is due to artifacts such as conversation-like responses with unexpected special tokens (e.g., the end-of-turn [eot]), and hallucination. In contrast, FLAN-PALM and CODEX exhibit minimal hallucination due to their concise and direct answers. LLMS struggle with questions about current information: The lack of up-to-date parametric knowledge results in dramatically | 2310.03214#22 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 23 | due to their concise and direct answers. LLMS struggle with questions about current information: The lack of up-to-date parametric knowledge results in dramatically degraded accuracies across models on questions involving fast- changing or recent knowledge. GPT-4 generally obtains the highest accuracy on these questions, with the exception of questions about recent knowledge (i.e., since 2022) under STRICT where it underperforms FLAN-PALM and CODEX, but it never exceeds 15% across both evaluation modes. Our evaluation confirms that CHATGPT and GPT-4 have been exposed to data containing information beyond their knowledge cutoff date (Appendix E). Additionally, GPT-4 is more reluctant to answer fast-changing questions (refusing to answer 60% of the time) compared to CHATGPT (16%). Questions with false premises pose a hurdle for LLMS: All models struggle on questions with false premises, and using larger models does not increase accuracy for T5 and PALM (âflat scalingâ), with performance within the range of 0.0% to 1.6%. GPT-3.5, CHATGPT, and GPT-4 demonstrate much superior accuracies to all | 2310.03214#23 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 24 | performance within the range of 0.0% to 1.6%. GPT-3.5, CHATGPT, and GPT-4 demonstrate much superior accuracies to all other models, achieving accuracies between 25.8% to 42.7% under STRICT and 32.3% to 66.9% under RELAXED. CHATGPT performs the best under STRICT (42.7%) while GPT-4 is the most accurate model under RELAXED (66.9%), with an impressive accuracy of 83.9% on questions about knowledge before 2022. These results suggest that OPENAIâs models are likely trained to cope with false-premise questions. COT increases hallucination: Overall, FEW-SHOT and COT prompting are beneficial for large models and sometimes advantageous for moderately-sized models on questions with valid premises, especially on questions about never-changing or old knowledge. Under STRICT, FEW-SHOT and COT yields +36.1% and +26.9% respective accuracy improvement over zero-shot prompting with PALM 540B on questions involving knowledge before 2022 (+21.9% and +29.7% under RELAXED). COT largely demonstrates superior performance | 2310.03214#24 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 25 | 540B on questions involving knowledge before 2022 (+21.9% and +29.7% under RELAXED). COT largely demonstrates superior performance compared to FEW-SHOT under RELAXED, whereas FEW-SHOT obtains better results under STRICT, as COT introduces more room for hallucination. Multi-hop reasoning is challenging for several models: T5 LARGE and XL are incapable of dealing with multi-hop questions, while FLAN-PALM 540B, CODEX, and GPT-3.5 suffer the most when switching from one-hop to multi-hop questions. GPT-4 remains stable across these two types of questions (with a difference of less than 2% in accuracy across settings). See Appendix D for details. | 2310.03214#25 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 26 | # 4 PROMPTING SEARCH ENGINE-AUGMENTED LANGUAGE MODELS
The low accuracies reported in the previous section are largely unsurprising, as none of the models we evaluated had access to real-time information. In this section, we evaluate the impact of search
5
# Preprint
source: {source webpage} {demonstrations} # details omitted for brevity date: {publication_date} title: {title} query: {question} snippet: {text_snippet} â|-*(retrieved evidences} # chronological order highlight: question: {question} {highlighted_words) answer: {reasoning_and_answer}
Figure 3: FRESHPROMPTâs format. We cast all retrieved evidences into a unified format with useful information, including source webpage, date, title, text snippet, and highlighted words (left). Few-shot demonstrations are provided at the beginning of the prompt. Each demonstration shows the model an example question and a list of retrieved evidences for the question, followed by some reasoning over the evidences to figure out the most relevant and up-to-date answer (right). | 2310.03214#26 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 28 | 4.1 FRESHPROMPT
Our FRESHPROMPT method leverages a text prompt to (1) introduce contextually relevant and up-to- date information (including answers to relevant questions) from a search engine to a pre-trained LLM, and (2) teach the model to reason over retrieved evidences. More specifically, given a question q, we first use q verbatim to query a search engine, in our case GOOGLE SEARCH.10 We retrieve all of the search results, including the answer box, organic results, and other useful information, such as the knowledge graph, questions and answers from crowdsourced QA platforms, and related questions that search users also ask (see Figure 9 in Appendix F). For each of these results, we extract the associated text snippet x along with other information, such as source s (e.g., WIKIPEDIA), date d, title t, highlighted words h, and then create a list of k retrieved evidences E = {(s, d, t, x, h)}. These evidences are then cast into a common format (Figure 3, left) and used to condition the model through in-context learning. To encourage the model to focus on more recent evidences, in line with recent findings (Liu et al., 2023a), we sort the evidences E in the prompt from oldest to newest. | 2310.03214#28 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 29 | To help the model to âunderstandâ the task and the desired output, we provide few-shot demonstrations of input-output exemplars at the beginning of the input prompt. Each demonstration shows the model an example question and a list of retrieved evidences for the question, followed by a chain-of-thought reasoning over the evidences to figure out the most relevant and up-to-date answer (Figure 3, right). Although we include a few exemplars of questions with false premises in the demonstrations, we also experiment with an explicit false premise check in the prompt: âPlease check if the question contains a valid premise before answeringâ. Figure 10 in Appendix G shows a realistic prompt.
4.2 EXPERIMENT SETUP | 2310.03214#29 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 30 | 4.2 EXPERIMENT SETUP
We closely follow the setup in Section 3 except in cases where we lack control over the modelâs decoding via an API (e.g., PERPLEXITY.AI). Some of the models we evaluate can potentially change over time, which presents a challenge to the reproducibility of our evaluation results; thus, we evaluate all models on the same date of April 26, 2023. In addition to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, we evaluate GOOGLE SEARCH by simply querying GOOGLE SEARCH and using the answer in the answer box (if any) or the text snippet of the top-1 search result; PERPLEXITY.AI (PPLX.AI), an answer engine that combines an LLM and a search engine to generate useful responses to usersâ queries;11 and SELF-ASK (Press et al., 2022), a method that uses few-shot in-context learning to teach an LLM to decompose each question into simpler sub-questions that are answered via GOOGLE SEARCH.12
FRESHPROMPT setup: We apply FRESHPROMPT to both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 by sequentially in- corporating the following retrieved evidences into the input prompt: o organic search results, r | 2310.03214#30 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 31 | 10We scrape the results from GOOGLE SEARCH using SERPAPI (https://serpapi.com). 11https://www.perplexity.ai. At the time of evaluation, PPLX.AI was a combination of GPT-3.5 and BING
SEARCH, and was able to provide both concise and detailed answers. We evaluated its concise answers.
12We use the few-shot prompt provided by SELF-ASKâs authors and apply it to both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. For simplicity, we evaluate solely the final answer from SELF-ASK, disregarding intermediate answers.
6
# Preprint
Table 1: Accuracy of different search engine-augmented LLMS on FRESHQA under STRICT (no hallucination) evaluations. Models benchmarked on the same date of April 26, 2023. We report accuracy across different categories of questions, including fast-changing (fast), slow-changing (slow), never-changing (never), false-premise, questions that involve knowledge before 2022 (< 2022) and since 2022 (⥠2022), one-hop (1-hop) and multi-hop (m-hop) questions. + indicates a model with access to the current date. UTD stands for âup-to-dateâ. | 2310.03214#31 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 32 | Model (size) knowl. cutoff all all fast valid premise slow never < 2022 ⥠2022 1-hop m-hop all comparison against baselines GOOGLE SEARCH (N/A) UTD 39.6 48.9 32.0 46.4 68.3 67.4 37.9 55.6 32.4 11.3 9.7 GPT-3.5 (N/A) GPT-3.5 + SELF-ASK (N/A) GPT-3.5 + FRESHPROMPT PPLX.AI (N/A) 2021 UTD UTD UTD 26.0 41.6 56.0 52.2 26.1 51.1 62.5 57.2 4.0 36.8 46.4 38.4 15.2 43.2 60.8 53.6 58.7 73.0 80.2 79.4 61.0 73.8 71.6 73.0 5.1 37.4 57.0 47.7 28.0 52.2 68.7 63.8 21.3 48.1 47.2 40.7 25.8 12.9 36.3 37.1 34.4 17.2 43.0 38.7 GPT-4 (N/A) GPT-4 + SELF-ASK (N/A) | 2310.03214#32 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 33 | 37.1 34.4 17.2 43.0 38.7 GPT-4 (N/A) GPT-4 + SELF-ASK (N/A) GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT 2021+ UTD UTD 28.6 47.8 75.6 26.9 47.1 77.1 12.0 39.2 59.2 4.0 46.4 77.6 64.3 55.6 94.4 58.2 51.8 88.7 8.1 44.3 70.2 27.2 43.7 81.3 25.9 55.6 66.7 33.9 50.0 71.0 41.9 61.3 77.4 sensitivity and ablation studies GPT-3.5 (N/A) GPT-3.5 + FRESHPROMPT w/ PREMISE CHECK 2021 UTD UTD 26.0 56.0 35.2 26.1 62.5 27.1 4.0 46.4 14.4 15.2 60.8 28.0 58.7 80.2 38.9 61.0 71.6 36.2 5.1 57.0 21.7 28.0 68.7 31.0 21.3 47.2 17.6 25.8 36.3 59.7 34.4 43.0 67.7 | 2310.03214#33 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 34 | 21.7 28.0 68.7 31.0 21.3 47.2 17.6 25.8 36.3 59.7 34.4 43.0 67.7 GPT-4 (N/A) 2021+ 28.6 26.9 12.0 4.0 64.3 58.2 8.1 27.2 25.9 33.9 41.9 GPT-4 w/ SNIPPETS ONLY & SEARCH ORDER GPT-4 w/ SNIPPETS ONLY & TIME ORDER GPT-4 w/ SNIPPETS ONLY & RANDOM ORDER UTD UTD UTD 74.0 74.8 72.4 75.5 75.5 73.7 56.8 58.4 56.8 75.2 74.4 69.6 94.4 93.7 94.4 87.9 87.9 87.9 68.1 68.1 65.1 79.9 79.9 78.4 64.8 64.8 62.0 69.4 72.6 68.5 77.4 82.8 76.3 GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT w/ PREMISE CHECK w/o ANSWER BOX w/o ANSWER BOX & RELEVANT INFO w/ 1 EVIDENCE w/ 5 EVIDENCES w/ 15 EVIDENCES w/ 15 DEMONSTRATIONS | 2310.03214#34 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 35 | BOX w/o ANSWER BOX & RELEVANT INFO w/ 1 EVIDENCE w/ 5 EVIDENCES w/ 15 EVIDENCES w/ 15 DEMONSTRATIONS w/ LONG DEMONSTRATION ANSWERS UTD UTD UTD UTD UTD UTD UTD UTD UTD 75.6 75.0 74.2 72.4 61.4 70.6 77.6 74.6 73.0 77.1 74.2 74.7 72.9 60.9 72.1 78.5 75.5 72.6 59.2 56.8 57.6 54.4 40.0 56.0 60.8 56.8 55.2 77.6 76.0 74.4 71.2 55.2 69.6 78.4 76.0 71.2 94.4 89.7 92.1 92.9 87.3 90.5 96.0 93.7 91.3 88.7 85.1 88.7 87.2 79.4 81.6 88.7 87.9 83.7 70.2 67.7 66.4 64.3 49.8 66.4 72.3 68.1 66.0 81.3 79.5 79.1 78.0 66.8 78.0 81.7 79.9 77.6 66.7 61.1 63.9 60.2 | 2310.03214#35 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 37 | related questions that search users also ask, a questions and answers from crowdsourced QA plat- forms, and the snippets from the knowledge graph and answer box (if available). These evidences are arranged in sequence up to the end of the prompt. Given the modelsâ context limit, we only keep the top n evidences (closer to the end of the prompt) after sorting them based on the cor- responding date. Unless otherwise specified, we use (o, r, a, n, m) = (10, 2, 2, 5) for GPT-3.5, and (o, r, a, n, m) = (10, 3, 3, 10) for GPT-4. Additionally, we include m = 5 question-answer demonstrations at the beginning of the prompt.
4.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 2310.03214#37 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 38 | FRESHPROMPT significantly improves FRESHQA accuracy: Table 1 presents concrete numbers under STRICT (see Appendix H for results under RELAXED). FRESHPROMPT offers large improvements over the vanilla GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across the board. GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT achieves absolute accuracy improvements of 47% and 31.4% over GPT-4 under STRICT and RELAXED, respectively. The reduction in the absolute accuracy gap between STRICT and RELAXED (from 17.8% to 2.2%) also suggests that FRESHPROMPT dramatically diminishes the presence of outdated and hallucinated answers. Unsurprisingly, the most significant improvements for both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are on the categories of fast-changing and slow-changing questions, which both concern recent knowledge. That said, questions about old knowledge also benefit from FRESHPROMPT. For example, GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT yields a +30.5% higher accuracy than GPT-4 on questions with valid premises that involve knowledge before 2022 (+9.9% under RELAXED). Additionally, FRESHPROMPT produces notable gains | 2310.03214#38 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 39 | on questions with valid premises that involve knowledge before 2022 (+9.9% under RELAXED). Additionally, FRESHPROMPT produces notable gains on false-premise questions (+37.1% and +8.1% respective accuracy improvements under STRICT and RELAXED for GPT-4). FRESHPROMPT outperforms other search-augmented methods by a large margin: GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT demonstrates superior accuracy across question types, surpassing all other methods by a substantial margin. Its best variant (with 15 retrieved evidences per question) achieves impressive overall accuracies of 77.6% and 79.0% under STRICT and RELAXED, respectively. GPT-3.5 + FRESH- PROMPT surpasses PPLX.AI and SELF-ASK (all performed on top of GPT-3.5) in overall accuracy by +3.8% and +14.4% under STRICT. Under RELAXED, however, PPLX.AI achieves a +4.2% higher | 2310.03214#39 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 41 | overall accuracy than GPT-3.5 + FRESHPROMPT, which is a large part due to its superior accuracy on false-premise questions (58.1% vs. 41.1%). The large accuracy gap of 14.0% between STRICT and RELAXED for PPLX.AI suggests that its outputs contain a large amount of hallucination. Overall, all search-engine augmented approaches (SELF-ASK, PPLX.AI, and FRESHPROMPT) provide significant gains across question types over vanilla GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. GOOGLE SEARCH generally provides better results than both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, except on questions with false premises, but lags far behind PPLX.AI and GPT-3.5/GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT across the board. The premise check boosts accuracy on false-premise questions but can hurt accuracy on those with valid premises: As discussed in Section 3.1, OPENAIâs LLMS such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are likely tuned to handle false-premise questions, and this is also true for PPLX.AI. Additionally, we | 2310.03214#41 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 42 | as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are likely tuned to handle false-premise questions, and this is also true for PPLX.AI. Additionally, we empirically find that several LLMS possess the ability to debunk a false-premise question if explicitly asked, e.g.. âPlease check if the question contains a valid premise before answeringâ. Adding this premise check to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 yields +23.4% and +6.4% respective accuracy improvement on false-premise questions under STRICT (+22.6% and +11.3% under RELAXED). However, this is harmful for GPT-3.5 with regard to other question types, decreasing overall accuracy by 20.8% and 21% under STRICT and RELAXED, respectively. This is not a problem for GPT-4, with a slight decrease of 0.6% under STRICT and a slight increase of and 1.2% under RELAXED. Having more relevant and up-to-date evidences at the end of the input context is helpful: We also analyze how the order of the evidences in the prompt impacts GPT-4âs accuracy. | 2310.03214#42 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 43 | evidences at the end of the input context is helpful: We also analyze how the order of the evidences in the prompt impacts GPT-4âs accuracy. Our results show that using the order returned by GOOGLE SEARCH (SEARCH ORDER, top search results at the end of the input context) or sorting the evidences by their associated date information (TIME ORDER, more recent results at the end) generally results in better accuracy compared to using a random order (RANDOM ORDER), with up to a +2.2% higher overall accuracy in STRICT and RELAXED. Using only the text snippet for each evidence without additional information (such as source, date, etc.) as in GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT slightly reduces accuracy, with less than 1% in both settings. Additional retrieved information beyond the organic search results provides further gains: Incorporating additional retrieved evidences other than the organic search results, such as the answer box or related questions that search users also ask, is helpful. Removing the answer box decreases GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPTâs overall accuracy under STRICT by 1.4% (1.6% under RELAXED). Removing both the answer box and other relevant information | 2310.03214#43 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 44 | overall accuracy under STRICT by 1.4% (1.6% under RELAXED). Removing both the answer box and other relevant information (including related questions) reduces GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPTâs overall accuracy by 3.2% (3.0% under RELAXED). Increasing the number of retrieved evidences further improves FRESHPROMPT: We explore the effect of the number of retrieved evidences for each question as well as the number of demonstrations by varying these numbers in our experiments with GPT-4. Note that our default setting for GPT-4 + FRESHPROMPT uses 10 retrieved evidences for each question and 5 demonstrations. Our results suggest that the number of retrieved evidences for each question is the most important ingredient for achieving highest accuracy. Under STRICT, increasing this number from 1 to 5, 10, and 15 leads to corresponding overall accuracy improvements of +9.2%, +14.2%, and +16.2%, respectively. This suggests that GPT-4 is able to efficiently handle an increasing number of retrieved evidences (including conflicting answers) and ground its responses into the most factual and up-to-date information. On the other hand, increasing the number | 2310.03214#44 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 45 | of retrieved evidences (including conflicting answers) and ground its responses into the most factual and up-to-date information. On the other hand, increasing the number of demonstrations from 5 to 15 slightly hurts accuracy in both evaluation settings (1% decrease in overall accuracy under STRICT). Verbose demonstrations improve on complex questions but also increase hallucination: To evaluate the effect of the writing style of the answer (including the reasoning) in each demonstration, we manually rewrite these answers into a more verbose version (LONG DEMONSTRATION ANSWERS). Our manual inspection reveals that using more verbose demonstration answers may be helpful when dealing with complex questions but can be more harmful as it provides room for hallucination (a decrease of 2.6% in overall accuracy under STRICT). | 2310.03214#45 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 46 | # 5 RELATED WORK
Knowledge augmented LLMS: Many prior works study semi-parametric knowledge augmentation in LLMS via additional fine-tuning (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020; Borgeaud et al., 2022; Izacard et al., 2022), while others advocate for knowledge generation instead of retrieval (Yu et al., 2023a; Sun et al., 2023). FRESHPROMPT aligns with a recent emerging trend in QA applications that augments LLMSâ prompts with knowledge retrieved from search engines for real-time alignment to current and factual information (Nakano et al., 2021; Lazaridou et al., 2022; Menick et al., 2022; Yao
8
Preprint | 2310.03214#46 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 47 | et al., 2022; Press et al., 2022; Khattab et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2023). Similar to our method, Lazaridou et al. (2022) proposed a few-shot in-context learning approach that inserts documents from GOOGLE SEARCH into the prompt. We do not compare to this method due to its expensive inference cost, as it chunks retrieved documents into evidence paragraphs and performs k = 50 inference calls to the LLM to generate k answers followed by LLM reranking. In contrast, FRESHPROMPT only performs a single inference call to the LLM. SELF-ASK (Press et al., 2022) also uses few-shot in-context learning to teach an LLM to ask itself follow-up questions before answering the initial question, although it focuses more on decomposition. Time-sensitive QA: FRESHQA aligns with a growing body of work on benchmarking LLMSâ temporal reasoning capabilities (Chen et al., 2021b; Zhang & Choi, 2021; Liska et al., 2022; Kasai et al., 2022). Chen et al. (2021b) created | 2310.03214#47 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 48 | Zhang & Choi, 2021; Liska et al., 2022; Kasai et al., 2022). Chen et al. (2021b) created TIMEQA by extracting evolving facts from WIKIDATA along with aligned WIKIPEDIA passages to synthesize 20K timestamped question-answer pairs. Zhang & Choi (2021) constructed SITUATEDQA by annotating 9K realistic questions from existing open-domain QA datasets with temporal context (i.e., timestamps). STREAMINGQA (Liska et al., 2022) consists of both LLM-generated and human-written questions (146K total questions) answerable from a corpus of timestamped news articles. Also related is the dynamic REALTIMEQA benchmark (Kasai et al., 2022), which evaluates models weekly on a set of around 30 multiple-choice questions about new events extracted from news websites. In contrast, FRESHQA contains a fixed set of human written open-ended questions whose answers by nature can change based on new developments in the world and thus offers a complementary generative evaluation of time-sensitive QA. QA over questionable or counterfactual premises: Recent work has | 2310.03214#48 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 49 | new developments in the world and thus offers a complementary generative evaluation of time-sensitive QA. QA over questionable or counterfactual premises: Recent work has also introduced QA bench- marks with questionable premises (Yu et al., 2023c; Kim et al., 2023) or counterfactual premises (Yu et al., 2023b). CREPE (Yu et al., 2023c) consists of 8400 Reddit questions (of which 25% questions contain false premises annotated by human workers) split into train/dev/test sets. Kim et al. (2023) constructed (QA)2, an evaluation set of 602 questions based on frequent search engine queries, which are annotated by expert annotators and crowdworkers, and evenly divided between those with and without questionable premises. Consistent with these efforts, we find that current LLMS struggle with handling false premise questions; additionally, several LLMS are able to debunk a false-premise question if explicitly asked to check for the premiseâs validity. Similar to above, these benchmarks are complementary and combining them is a promising direction for future work. | 2310.03214#49 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 50 | # 6 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
One obvious challenge with FRESHQA is the need for regular answer updating by the maintainers; in the interim period between updates, the answers to some questions might become stale. This could be addressed by support from the open-source community (e.g., updates via GITHUB pull requests). On the method side, FRESHPROMPT interfaces with GOOGLE SEARCH, and it is unclear how it performs with other search engines for which some types of context (e.g., answer boxes) are not available. Additionally, we only perform one search query per question, and thus our method could be further improved via question decomposition and multiple search queries (Khattab et al., 2022). Since FRESHQA consists of relatively simple English language questions, it is also unclear how well FRESHPROMPT performs in the context of multilingual/cross-lingual QA and long-form QA (Fan et al., 2019). Finally, FRESHPROMPT relies on in-context learning and thus may underperform approaches that fine-tune the base LLM on new knowledge.
# 7 CONCLUSION | 2310.03214#50 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 51 | # 7 CONCLUSION
Our work offers a fine-grained and exhaustive evaluation of the capabilities of modern LLMS to adapt to ever-changing world knowledge with and without search engine augmentation. In the process, we develop a new datasetâFRESHQAâof 600 questions that test a broad range of reasoning abilities, from the incorporation of fast-changing knowledge to identification of questions with false premises. Our two-mode evaluation also provides a way to measure both correctness and hallucination. Additionally, we propose a simple few-shot in-context learning algorithm called FRESHPROMPT that incorporates relevant evidences retrieved from GOOGLE SEARCH into the prompt of an LLM. FRESHPROMPT significantly improves performance over competing search engine-augmented approaches on FRESHQA, and an ablation reveals that factors such as the number of incorporated evidences and their order impact the correctness of LLM-generated answers. We release FRESHQA and commit to updating its answers regularly to facilitate future research.
9
Preprint
# 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 2310.03214#51 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 52 | 9
Preprint
# 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Colin Raffel, Hamed Zamani, and Subhransu Maji for helpful discussion and feedback. We would also like to thank Chengrun Yang, Xinyun Chen for their insightful comments on this manuscript. Finally, we are grateful to the following people for their contributions to creating our FRESHQA dataset: Marzena Karpinska, Dustin Tran, Daniel Cer, Sam Fullerton, Elizabeth Clark, Nishant Raj, Xiaoyu Song, Yapei Chang, Yixiao Song, Nader Akoury, Ankita Gupta, Bill Ray, Chau Pham, Wenlong Zhao, Maximilian Mozes, Simeng Sun, Ronan Salz, Kalpesh Krishna, Katherine Thai, Kanishka Misra, Salaheddin Alzuâbi, Erica Cai, Thibault Sellam, Jiao Sun, Dhruv Agarwal, Tessa Masis, Andrew Drozdov, Brian Lester, George Wei, Naveen Jafer Nizar, Shufan Wang, Youngwoo Kim, and Shib Sankar Dasgupta. This project was partially supported by award IIS-2046248 from the National Science Foundation (NSF), as well as NSFâs CLOUDBANK program.
# REFERENCES | 2310.03214#52 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 53 | # REFERENCES
Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, Diego De Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Jacob Menick, Roman Ring, Tom Hennigan, Saffron Huang, Loren Maggiore, Chris Jones, Albin Cassirer, Andy Brock, Michela Paganini, Geoffrey Irving, Oriol Vinyals, Simon Osindero, Karen Simonyan, Jack Rae, Erich Elsen, and Laurent Sifre. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), pp. 2206â2240. PMLR, 2022. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v162/borgeaud22a.html. | 2310.03214#53 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 54 | Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 33, pp. 1877â1901, 2020. URL https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf. | 2310.03214#54 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 55 | Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021a. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2107.03374.
A Wenhu Chen, Xinyi Wang, William Yang Wang, the Neural Infor- dataset for answering time-sensitive questions. mation Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks (NeurIPS), volume 1, URL https://datasets-benchmarks-proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ 2021b. paper/2021/file/1f0e3dad99908345f7439f8ffabdffc4-Paper-round2.pdf. | 2310.03214#55 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 56 | Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311, 2022. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2204.02311.
Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.11416.
Angela Fan, Yacine Jernite, Ethan Perez, David Grangier, Jason Weston, and Michael Auli. ELI5: Long form question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 3558â3567, 2019. URL https://aclanthology.org/ P19-1346. | 2310.03214#56 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 57 | Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine
10
# Preprint
Learning (ICML), volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), pp. 3929â 3938. PMLR, 2020. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/guu20a.html.
Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03299.
Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly In Proceedings of the 55th Annual supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 1601â1611, 2017. URL https://aclanthology.org/P17-1147. | 2310.03214#57 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 58 | Jungo Kasai, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Yoichi Takahashi, Ronan Le Bras, Akari Asai, Xinyan Yu, Dragomir Radev, Noah A Smith, Yejin Choi, and Kentaro Inui. Realtime qa: Whatâs the answer right now? 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13332.
Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.14024.
Najoung Kim, Phu Mon Htut, Samuel R. Bowman, and Jackson Petty. (QA)2: Question answering with questionable assumptions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 8466â8487, 2023. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2023.acl-long.472.
Internet- augmented language models through few-shot prompting for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05115, 2022. | 2310.03214#58 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 59 | Internet- augmented language models through few-shot prompting for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05115, 2022.
Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language tuning. Processing (EMNLP), pp. 3045â3059, November 2021. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2021.emnlp-main.243.
Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 33, pp. 9459â 9474, 2020. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/ 6b493230205f780e1bc26945df7481e5-Paper.pdf. | 2310.03214#59 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 60 | Adam Liska, Tomas Kocisky, Elena Gribovskaya, Tayfun Terzi, Eren Sezener, Devang Agrawal, Cyprien De Masson DâAutume, Tim Scholtes, Manzil Zaheer, Susannah Young, Ellen Gilsenan- Mcmahon, Sophia Austin, Phil Blunsom, and Angeliki Lazaridou. StreamingQA: A benchmark for adaptation to new knowledge over time in question answering models. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), pp. 13604â13622. PMLR, 2022. URL https://proceedings.mlr. press/v162/liska22a.html.
Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03172, 2023a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03172.
Nelson F Liu, Tianyi Zhang, and Percy Liang. Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines. 2023b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09848. | 2310.03214#60 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 61 | Shayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, and Adam Roberts. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2301.13688.
Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Yuan Gong, Tianhua Zhang, Yoon Kim, Xixin Wu, Danny Fox, Helen Meng, and James Glass. Sail: Search-augmented instruction learning. 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15225.
11
Preprint
Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 1906â1919, 2020. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2020.acl-main.173. | 2310.03214#61 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 62 | Jacob Menick, Maja Trebacz, Vladimir Mikulik, John Aslanides, Francis Song, Martin Chadwick, Mia Glaese, Susannah Young, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Geoffrey Irving, et al. Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11147, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11147.
Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, et al. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback. 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09332.
OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.0877, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2303.0877. | 2310.03214#62 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 63 | Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Chris- tiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 35, pp. 27730â27744, 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/ file/b1efde53be364a73914f58805a001731-Paper-Conference.pdf.
Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03350, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03350. | 2310.03214#63 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 64 | Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to- text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 21(140):1â67, 2020. URL https://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-074.html.
Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04761.
Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. Recitation-augmented language models. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023), 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=-cqvvvb-NkI. | 2310.03214#64 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 65 | Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903.
Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2210.03629.
Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2023), 2023a. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=fB0hRu9GZUS.
Wenhao Yu, Meng Jiang, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. Ifqa: A dataset for open-domain question answering under counterfactual presuppositions. 2023b. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2305.14010. | 2310.03214#65 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 66 | Xinyan Yu, Sewon Min, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. CREPE: Open-domain question answering with false presuppositions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 10457â10480, 2023c. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.583.
12
Preprint
Michael Zhang and Eunsol Choi. SituatedQA: Incorporating extra-linguistic contexts into QA. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 7371â7387, 2021. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.emnlp-main.586.
13
Preprint
APPENDIX
A EVALUATION PROTOCOL
Figure 4 shows specific examples of each evaluation criteria.
# B INTER-RATER AGREEMENT AND AUTOMATIC EVALUATION
Two authors independently evaluated a randomly sampled subset of 100 answers across models (including 50 questions with valid premises and 50 questions with false premises) in both modes RELAXED and STRICT. | 2310.03214#66 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 67 | Two authors independently evaluated a randomly sampled subset of 100 answers across models (including 50 questions with valid premises and 50 questions with false premises) in both modes RELAXED and STRICT.
To facilitate future evaluations, we also develop FRESHEVAL, a simple automatic metric that uses few-shot in-context learning to teach an LLM to judge model responses. In each evaluation, the model is conditioned on a given question, a list of valid answers for the question, and a model response, and is then expected to generate a comment on the correctness of the response, followed by a final judgement. At the beginning of each input prompt, we also provide an instruction of the evaluation task, and sample comments and evaluations of the examples in Figure 4 as demonstrations.13 See Figure 5 and Figure 6 for FRESHEVALâs prompts for RELAXED and STRICT evaluations, and Figure 7 for FRESHEVALâs sample output for STRICT evaluation. | 2310.03214#67 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 68 | Table 2 reports the inter-rater agreement between the two human raters, and between FRESHEVAL and each human rater, in terms of exact accuracy. The two human raters had an agreement of 99% for RELAXED and 96% for STRICT, while FRESHEVAL achieved an average agreement of 96.5% with human evaluations for RELAXED and 96% for STRICT. Overall, the high accuracies demonstrate that our evaluation protocol is reproducible and reliable, and FRESHEVAL can be used in place of human evaluation on FRESHQA.
# C ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENT SETUP DETAILS FOR SECTION 3
To increase reproducibility, we select the most likely token at every decoding timestep (i.e., with a temperature of 0) and generate a maximum number of 256 tokens for all models. Note that the API for some models is non-deterministic by default, even with a temperature of 0. For non-chat models that were not pre-trained with a QA task, we feed them a text prompt of the format: âQ: <question>
A: â (â\ nâ is the new line character). | 2310.03214#68 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 69 | For OPENAI models, we use the 2023-03-15-preview API in AZURE OPENAI SERVICE. We use the model names text-davinci-003, code-davinci-002, gpt-3.5-turbo, and gpt-4 for GPT-3.5, CODEX, CHATGPT, and GPT-4, respectively.
# D ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENT RESULTS FOR SECTION 3
Table 3 and Table 4 show the accuracy of different LLMS on FRESHQA under STRICT (no hallucination) and RELAXED evaluations, respectively.
# E CHATGPT/GPT-4âS AWARENESS OF RECENT KNOWLEDGE
Although CHATGPT and GPT-4 were originally trained in 2021, our manual evaluation suggests that they have been exposed to data containing information beyond their knowledge cutoff date in September, 2021. Figure 8 indicates that CHATGPT is aware of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
13In our experiments, we found that using separate prompts for RELAXED and STRICT evaluations resulted in better performance compared to using a single, combined prompt for both evaluation modes. We also found that additionally incorporating retrieved evidences for the question into the prompt did not improve inter-rater agreement between FRESHEVAL and human raters.
14
Preprint | 2310.03214#69 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 71 | Primary answer ID Question Type (as of this writing) Model response Relaxed Strict Explanation 1 How old is the world's oldest âfast-changing 116 years old The oldest verified living person is Maria Branyas Morera, who was born on the primary answer is correct, and all the provided verified living person? March 4, 1907, making her 116 years old. information is accurate and up-to-date 2 When did the UK adopt the false-premise The UK hasnever The UK has never adopted the Euro as its official currency. The country has the response debunks the question's false Euro? adopted the Euro. retained the British pound sterling (GBP) as its currency. premise, and all the provided information is accurate and up-to-date 3 How much longer will Brittney false-premise She was released in I'm sorry, but | have no information to suggest that Brittney Griner is currently in a xX a confident and definitive answer is required Griner spend in the Russian 2022. Russian prison. prison? 4 Which language has the third ~âslow-changing English 1. Mandarin 2. Spanish 3. English though the correct answer can be obviously largest population by number inferred from the response, a response without an of native speakers? explicit statement is less desirable § Has Virginia Woolf's | 2310.03214#71 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 72 | the correct answer can be obviously largest population by number inferred from the response, a response without an of native speakers? explicit statement is less desirable § Has Virginia Woolf's novel never-changing Yes 1927's To the Lighthouse is in the public domain in the United States. The the final answer when standing alone must be about the Ramsay family final answer is To the Lighthouse. correct entered the public domain in the United States? 6 Is Tesla's stock price above fast-changing Yes Tesia's stock price is above $200 a share. The stock is trading at a price of $120. xX xX conflicting information $200 a share? 7 When did Lionel Messi win his false-premise Messi has not wona This question does not contain a valid premise. Lionel Messi has never won a xX despite debunking the question's false premise, second FIFA World Cup? second FIFA World FIFA World Cup. the response inaccurately shapes one's Cup. knowledge perception 8 How many times has Jeremy false-premise Corbynhasnever Zero. xX xX a rebuttal is always required for false-premise Corbyn served as Prime served as Prime questions Minister of the UK? Minister of the UK. 9 Who founded Amazon? never-changing Jeff Bezos 100% of | 2310.03214#72 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 73 | false-premise Corbyn served as Prime served as Prime questions Minister of the UK? Minister of the UK. 9 Who founded Amazon? never-changing Jeff Bezos 100% of people said Jeff. xX xX a complete name or commonly recognized name is required 10 How many books has Colleen fast-changing 25 Colleen Hoover has published over 20 books and novellas. xX xX approximate numbers are not accepted unless Hoover published? included in the ground-truth answers 11 What is the largest model size never-changing 1758 parameters 175 billion parameters. !t is a 175 billion parameter, 1.37TB, 137B token, 1378 A the primary answer is correct, but the response is of GPT-3? wordpiece, 137B BPE, 137B byte pair encoding, 137B BPE token, 1378 BPE ill-formed wordpiece, 137B BPE token, 1378 BPE wordpiece.... 12 How many member nations slow-changing 193 As of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021, there were 193 member vA the primary answer is correct, but it is unclear exist in the United Nations? nations in the United Nations. whether the information is still up-to-date 13 Who won the biggest single- â slow-changing Novak Djokovic The | 2310.03214#73 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 74 | Nations? nations in the United Nations. whether the information is still up-to-date 13 Who won the biggest single- â slow-changing Novak Djokovic The biggest single-toumament payday in tennis history was won by Novak Y the primary answer is correct, but the response tournament payday in tennis Djokovic at the 2021 Australian Open. contains hallucinated information history? 14 Who was the first football never-changing Ali Daei As of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021, Ali Daei, a former Iranian Y all the information is correct and it is evident that player to score one hundred footballer, was the first player to score 100 international goals. the knowledge has not changed international goals? 15 Who is the Jatest winner of the fast-changing Max Verstappen Max Verstappen won the 2022 Formula 1 world championship. He is a Dutch AY the primary answer is correct, but the response Formula 1 world racing driver who competes in Formula One for Red Bull Racing. He is the son of contains several hallucinations (e.g., Max championship? former Formula One driver Jos Verstappen. Verstappen started his racing career Verstappen did not win the Formula Three in karting | 2310.03214#74 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 75 | former Formula One driver Jos Verstappen. Verstappen started his racing career Verstappen did not win the Formula Three in karting at the age of seven. He won the 2013 European Karting Championship European Championship in 2014) and the 2013 World Karting Championship. In 2014, he moved to single-seater racing, competing in the European Formula Three Championship. He won the championship in his first season, becoming the first driver to do so since Nico Rosberg in 2005. In 2015, Verstappen moved to Formula One, driving for Tor | 2310.03214#75 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 76 | Figure 4: FRESHQA sample evaluation. To get credit in both evaluation modes RELAXED and STRICT, all the information in the answer must be accurate and up-to-date (examples 1 and 2). In both modes, we credit a modelâs response only if it provides a confident and definitive answer (example 3), or the correct answer can be obviously inferred from the response (provided all other requirements are satisfied, see example 4). The primary or final answer when standing alone must be accurate (example 5). Any additional information that is provided must not contradict the primary answer (example 6) or reshape oneâs perception of it (example 7). For false-premise questions, the model must point out the presence of a false premise to receive credit (example 8). For answers that involve names of entities (e.g., people), complete names or commonly recognized names are expected (example 9). Regarding numerical answers, approximate numbers are generally not accepted unless explicitly included in the ground-truth answers (example 10). Under RELAXED, we accept ill-formed responses (including those in a non-English language), as well as hallucinated or outdated information that does not significantly impact the primary | 2310.03214#76 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 77 | RELAXED, we accept ill-formed responses (including those in a non-English language), as well as hallucinated or outdated information that does not significantly impact the primary answer; under STRICT, however, a response that contains any hallucination, no matter how minor, will not receive credit (examples 11, 12, and 13). Furthermore, we accept a response in STRICT when the model indicates that the information might be outdated (e.g., âAs of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021â) only if it is evident that the knowledge has not changed (example 14). | 2310.03214#77 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 78 | 16
Preprint
Table 2: Inter-rater agreement between two authors (RATER 1 and RATER 2), and between FRESHEVAL and each human rater, in terms of exact accuracy across 100 RELAXED judgements, 100 STRICT judgements, and all ALL 200 judgements. In each of these three categories, in addition to the overall accuracy (overall), we report accuracy across questions with valid premises (vp) and questions with false premises (fp). The high accuracies demonstrate that our evaluation protocol is reproducible and reliable, and FRESHEVAL can be used in place of human evaluation on FRESHQA.
RELAXED STRICT ALL overall vp fp overall vp fp overall vp RATER 1 vs. RATER 2 FRESHEVAL vs. RATER 1 FRESHEVAL vs. RATER 2 99.0 97.0 96.0 98.0 98.0 96.0 100 96.0 96.0 96.0 97.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.0 94.0 90.0 97.5 97.0 95.5 99.0 99.0 98.0 fp 96.0 95.0 93.0
17
Preprint | 2310.03214#78 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 79 | 17
Preprint
Please evaluate the response to each given question under a relaxed evaluation, where hallucinations, outdated information, and ill-formed answers are allowed, as long as the primary answer is accurate. Please credit the response only if it provides a confident and definitive answer, or the correct answer can be obviously inferred from the response. The primary or final answer when standing alone must be accurate. Any additional information that is provided must not contradict the primary answer or reshape one's perception of it. For false-premise questions, the response must point out the presence of a false premise to receive credit. For answers that involve names of entities (e.g., people), complete names or commonly recognized names are expected. Regarding numerical answers, approximate numbers are generally not accepted unless explicitly included in the ground-truth answers. We accept ill-formed responses (including those in a non-English language), as well as hallucinated or outdated information that does not significantly impact the primary answer.
# some demonstrations are omitted for brevity
question: Is Tesla's stock price above $250 a share?
# correct answer(s): Yes
response: Yes, it is. The stock price is currently at $207.
comment: This is a valid question. While the primary answer in the response (Yes) is accurate, the additional information contradicts the primary answer ($207 is not above $250). Thus, the response is not credited. evaluation: incorrect | 2310.03214#79 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 80 | question: Who is the latest winner of the Formula 1 world championship? correct answer(s): Max
# | Max Emilian
Verstappen Verstappen response: Max Verstappen won the 2022 Formula 1 world championship. He is a Dutch racing driver who competes in Formula One for Red Bull Racing. He is the son of former Formula One driver Jos Verstappen. Verstappen started his racing career in karting at the age of seven. He won the 2013 European Karting Championship and the 2013 World Karting Championship. In 2014, he moved to single-seater racing, competing in the European Formula Three Championship. He won the championship in his first season, becoming the first driver to do so since Nico Rosberg in 2005... # the rest is omitted for brevity comment: This is a valid question. Even though the response contains several instances of hallucinated information (e.g., Max Verstappen did not win the Formula Three European Championship in 2014), the primary answer in the response (Max Verstappen) is still accurate. Thus, the response is credited. evaluation: correct | 2310.03214#80 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 81 | question: In what year did bodybuilding become an Olympic sport? correct answer(s): Bodybuilding is not an Olympic sport. response: Bodybuilding is not currently an Olympic sport. It has been recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) but has not yet been included in the Olympic program. However, bodybuilding has been included in other multi-sport events such as the Pan American Games and the Asian Games. comment:
Figure 5: FRESHEVALâs prompt for RELAXED evaluation.
18
Preprint | 2310.03214#81 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 82 | Figure 5: FRESHEVALâs prompt for RELAXED evaluation.
18
Preprint
Please evaluate the response to each given question under a strict evaluation, where no hallucinations, outdated information, or ill-formed answers are allowed. Please credit the response only if it provides a confident and definitive answer, or the correct answer can be obviously inferred from the response. The primary or final answer when standing alone must be accurate. Any additional information that is provided must not contradict the primary answer or reshape one's perception of it. For false-premise questions, the response must point out the presence of a false premise to receive credit. For answers that involve names of entities (e.g., people), complete names or commonly recognized names are expected. Regarding numerical answers, approximate numbers are generally not accepted unless explicitly included in the ground-truth answers. A response that contains any hallucination, no matter how minor, will not receive credit. Furthermore, when the response indicates that the information might be outdated, we accept it only if it is evident that the knowledge has not changed (e.g., through common sense or well-known facts).
# some demonstrations are omitted for brevity
# question: How old is the world's oldest verified living person?
# correct answer(s): 116 years old | 116 | 2310.03214#82 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 83 | # some demonstrations are omitted for brevity
# question: How old is the world's oldest verified living person?
# correct answer(s): 116 years old | 116
response: As of today {current_date} , the most up-to-date and relevant information regarding this query is as follows. The oldest verified living person is Maria Branyas Morera, who was born on March 4, 1907, making her 116 years old.
comment: This is a valid question. The primary answer in the response (116 years old) is accurate, and all the provided information is accurate and up-to-date. Thus, the response is credited. evaluation: correct
question: Who is the latest winner of the Formula 1 world championship?
correct answer(s): Max Verstappen | Max Emilian Verstappen
response: Max Verstappen won the 2022 Formula 1 world championship. He is a Dutch racing driver who competes in Formula One for Red Bull Racing. He is the son of former Formula One driver Jos Verstappen. Verstappen started his racing career in karting at the age of seven. He won the 2013 European Karting Championship and the 2013 World Karting Championship. In 2014, he moved to single-seater racing, competing in the European Formula Three Championship. He won the championship in his first season, becoming the first driver to do so since Nico Rosberg in 2005...
#
# the
omitted
# brevity | 2310.03214#83 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 84 | #
# the
omitted
# brevity
# rest
# for
is
comment: This is a valid question. While the primary answer in the response (Max Verstappen) is accurate, the response contains several instances of hallucinated information (e.g., Max Verstappen did not win the Formula Three European Championship in 2014). Thus, the response is not credited. evaluation: incorrect
question: In January 2023, the NHC revised the fatality data of Hurricane Katrina, increasing the reported death toll from 1,800 to what number?
correct answer(s): The reported death toll decreased to 1,392. response: | am unable to provide the updated fatality data for Hurricane Katrina in January 2023, as my knowledge only extends up to September 2021. Please consult a more recent source for the latest information.
# comment:
Figure 6: FRESHEVALâs prompt for STRICT evaluation.
19
Preprint
question: How much did Elon Musk buy Activision Blizzard for?
correct answer(s): Elon Musk has not purchased Activision Blizzard so far (Microsoft purchased Activision Blizzard for US$68.7 billion in January 2022).
response: As of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021, Elon Musk did not purchase Activision Blizzard. If this event occurred after that date, | am unable to provide the information. | 2310.03214#84 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 85 | response: As of my knowledge cutoff date in September 2021, Elon Musk did not purchase Activision Blizzard. If this event occurred after that date, | am unable to provide the information.
comment: The question contains a false premise. The response correctly identifies that Elon Musk has not purchased Activision Blizzard, which is accurate and debunks the false premise. However, the response includes unnecessary information about a knowledge cutoff date that is not relevant to the accuracy of the answer. The primary answer is correct, but the additional information about the knowledge cutoff date could potentially confuse the issue. Thus, the response is not credited.
# evaluation: incorrect
question: Which cryptocurrency has a higher market cap than Bitcoin?
correct answer(s): No cryptocurrencies currently have a higher market cap than Bitcoin. response: As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, no cryptocurrency had a higher market cap than Bitcoin. However, cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and rankings can change over time. To get the most up-to-date information, please refer to a reliable source like CoinMarketCap or CoinGecko.
comment: The question contains a false premise. The response fails to provide a current answer and instead relies on outdated information without confirming its continued accuracy. Thus, the response is not credited. evaluation: incorrect
question: What's the world record time for running a mile?
# correct answer(s): 3:43.13 | 3 minutes and 43 seconds | 2310.03214#85 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 86 | question: What's the world record time for running a mile?
# correct answer(s): 3:43.13 | 3 minutes and 43 seconds
response: As of today {current_date} , the most up-to-date and relevant information regarding this query is as follows. The world record time for running a mile is 3 minutes 43.13 seconds, set by Hicham El Guerrouj of Morocco âon July 7, 1999.
comment: This is a valid question. The primary answer in the response (3 minutes 43.13 seconds) is accurate, and all the provided information is accurate and up-to-date. Thus, the response is credited. evaluation: correct
Figure 7: FRESHEVALâs sample output for STRICT evaluation.
20
Preprint
Table 3: Accuracy of different LLMS on FRESHQA under STRICT (no hallucination) evaluations. Models benchmarked on the same date of April 26, 2023. We report accuracy across different categories of questions, including fast-changing (fast), slow-changing (slow), never-changing (never), false-premise, questions that involve knowledge before 2022 (< 2022) and since 2022 (⥠2022), one-hop (1-hop) and multi-hop (m-hop) questions. + indicates a model with access to the current date. | 2310.03214#86 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 87 | Model (size) knowl. cutoff all all fast valid premise slow never < 2022 ⥠2022 1-hop m-hop false premise all < 2022 without access to a search engine OPENAI CODEX (N/A) GPT 3.5 (N/A) CHATGPT (N/A) GPT 4 (N/A) 2021 2021 2021+ 2021+ 25.0 26.0 32.0 28.6 31.4 26.1 28.5 26.9 5.6 4.0 7.2 12.0 28.0 15.2 16.0 4.0 60.3 58.7 61.9 64.3 64.5 61.0 63.1 58.2 11.5 5.1 7.7 8.1 34.7 28.0 29.9 27.2 23.1 21.3 25.0 25.9 5.6 25.8 42.7 33.9 7.5 34.4 52.7 41.9 FLAN-PALM (540B) 2022 23.4 30.3 10.4 24.8 55.6 60.3 12.3 32.5 25.0 2.4 3.2 PALM (540B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 7.2 20.0 15.4 9.3 | 2310.03214#87 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 88 | 2.4 3.2 PALM (540B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 7.2 20.0 15.4 9.3 26.3 19.1 0.8 5.6 0.8 11.2 19.2 9.6 15.9 54.0 46.8 20.6 56.7 47.5 2.6 8.1 2.1 9.3 25.7 20.5 9.3 27.8 15.7 0.8 0.8 4.0 1.1 1.1 5.4 PALMCHILLA (62B) 2022 12.2 16.0 2.4 15.2 30.2 35.5 4.3 17.2 13.0 0.8 1.1 PALM (62B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 6.2 12.8 7.0 8.2 16.8 9.0 1.6 3.2 0.8 8.8 15.2 6.4 14.3 31.7 19.8 16.3 35.5 21.3 3.4 5.5 1.7 7.8 17.9 10.1 9.3 13.9 6.5 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.1 1.1 PALM (8B) w/ | 2310.03214#88 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 89 | 10.1 9.3 13.9 6.5 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.1 1.1 PALM (8B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 5.6 8.4 7.8 7.5 11.2 10.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 5.6 9.6 6.4 16.0 23.0 24.6 16.2 24.8 24.8 2.1 3.0 1.7 8.6 14.2 11.2 4.6 3.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FLAN-T5 XXL (11B) 2022 6.6 8.8 3.2 10.4 12.7 13.5 6.0 10.1 5.6 0.0 0.0 T5 XXL (11B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2019 7.0 8.4 6.2 8.8 11.2 8.2 2.4 5.6 2.4 4.8 11.2 6.4 19.0 16.7 15.9 16.3 17.7 15.6 4.3 7.2 3.8 10.4 13.4 8.6 4.6 5.6 7.4 1.6 | 2310.03214#89 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 90 | 16.3 17.7 15.6 4.3 7.2 3.8 10.4 13.4 8.6 4.6 5.6 7.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 T5 XL (3B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2019 4.4 6.0 2.8 5.9 8.0 3.7 2.4 4.0 2.4 4.8 8.8 1.6 10.3 11.1 7.1 10.6 13.5 7.8 3.0 4.7 1.3 7.5 8.2 4.1 1.9 7.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T5 LARGE (770M) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2019 2.6 0.8 0.8 3.5 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 3.2 2.4 5.7 2.8 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.4 3.7 1.1 1.1 2.8 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 | 2310.03214#90 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 91 | 21
Preprint
Table 4: Accuracy of different LLMS on FRESHQA under RELAXED evaluations. Models bench- marked on the same date of April 26, 2023. We report accuracy across different categories of questions, including fast-changing (fast), slow-changing (slow), never-changing (never), false- premise, questions that involve knowledge before 2022 (< 2022) and since 2022 (⥠2022), one-hop (1-hop) and multi-hop (m-hop) questions. + indicates a model with access to the current date. | 2310.03214#91 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 92 | Model (size) knowl. cutoff all all fast valid premise slow never < 2022 ⥠2022 1-hop m-hop false premise all < 2022 without access to a search engine OPENAI CODEX (N/A) GPT 3.5 (N/A) CHATGPT (N/A) GPT 4 (N/A) 2021 2021 2021+ 2021+ 25.6 32.4 41.4 46.4 32.2 32.4 36.7 39.6 6.4 8.0 10.4 14.4 29.6 28.0 32.8 35.2 60.3 61.1 66.7 69.0 66.0 68.1 76.6 80.9 11.9 11.1 12.8 14.9 35.4 34.7 36.2 39.2 24.1 26.9 38.0 40.7 5.6 32.3 55.6 66.9 7.5 43.0 66.7 83.9 FLAN-PALM (540B) 2022 23.6 30.3 10.4 24.8 55.6 60.3 12.3 32.5 25.0 3.2 4.3 PALM (540B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 12.2 20.2 22.8 16.0 | 2310.03214#92 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 93 | 3.2 4.3 PALM (540B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 12.2 20.2 22.8 16.0 26.3 28.2 2.4 5.6 4.0 14.4 19.2 20.0 31.0 54.0 60.3 34.8 56.7 64.5 4.7 8.1 6.4 16.4 25.7 28.4 14.8 27.8 27.8 0.8 1.6 6.5 1.1 2.2 8.6 PALMCHILLA (62B) 2022 15.0 19.4 2.4 19.2 36.5 43.3 5.1 20.1 17.6 1.6 2.2 PALM (62B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 8.6 14.2 12.8 11.2 18.4 16.2 2.4 4.0 2.4 11.2 15.2 15.2 19.8 35.7 31.0 22.0 39.0 34.8 4.7 6.0 5.1 11.6 18.7 17.5 10.2 17.6 13.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 1.1 2.2 3.2 PALM (8B) w/ | 2310.03214#93 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 94 | 17.5 10.2 17.6 13.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 1.1 2.2 3.2 PALM (8B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2021 8.8 9.2 11.4 11.2 12.2 15.2 0.8 0.8 2.4 11.2 10.4 11.2 21.6 25.4 31.7 21.1 27.0 32.6 5.2 3.4 4.7 13.1 15.3 16.8 6.5 4.6 11.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 FLAN-T5 XXL (11B) 2022 7.2 9.6 3.2 12.0 13.5 14.2 6.8 10.8 6.5 0.0 0.0 T5 XXL (11B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2019 10.8 9.0 13.0 13.8 12.0 17.3 3.2 5.6 4.0 12.8 11.2 17.6 25.4 19.0 30.2 22.7 19.1 31.2 8.5 7.7 8.9 16.0 14.6 19.0 8.3 5.6 13.0 1.6 | 2310.03214#94 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 95 | 22.7 19.1 31.2 8.5 7.7 8.9 16.0 14.6 19.0 8.3 5.6 13.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 T5 XL (3B) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2019 5.8 6.0 5.2 7.7 8.0 6.9 4.0 4.0 3.2 5.6 8.8 4.0 13.5 11.1 13.5 13.5 13.5 14.2 4.3 4.7 2.6 9.0 8.2 8.6 4.6 7.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T5 LARGE (770M) w/ FEW-SHOT w/ COT 2019 4.4 0.8 2.2 5.3 1.1 2.9 2.4 0.0 0.8 4.8 0.0 0.8 8.7 3.2 7.1 7.1 2.8 7.1 4.3 0.0 0.4 5.6 1.1 3.4 4.6 0.9 1.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 | 2310.03214#95 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 96 | 22
Preprint
Tell me about the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Asan Al language model, | can provide an objective summary of the recent events that have taken place between Russia and Ukraine. In late February 2022, Russia began a military invasion of Ukraine, citing security concerns and allegations of Ukrainian aggression towards Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine. The invasion quickly escalated into a full-scale war, with Russian forces pushing deep into Ukrainian territory and capturing several key cities. The conflict has been marked by intense fighting, heavy casualties on both sides, and numerous reports of human rights abuses and war crimes. The international community has condemned Russia's actions and imposed economic sanctions in response, but efforts to negotiate a ceasefire or peaceful resolution to the conflict have so far been unsuccessful. As of April 2023, the situation remains tense and the conflict ongoing, with no clear end in sight. The toll on civilian populations in both Russia and Ukraine has been significant, and the humanitarian situation in many parts of Ukraine is dire. When did Russia invade Ukraine recently? Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Figure 8: Despite its knowledge cutoff date in September 2021, CHATGPT is aware of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Questions asked on April 9, 2023.
23
Preprint | 2310.03214#96 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 97 | Google Who Is the most recent American Idol winner?, Search query GE What Is the name of the first animal to land on the moon? Search query } © News Tooay 2020 images Videos Books Shopping Maps Rights Alifiers + Tools SafeSearch ~ Images. Nasa News Videos Shopping Books Maps Flignts Finance About 25,700.000 results (0.51 seconds) About 185,000,000 results (0.54 seconds) American Idol / Latest winner â+ Noah Thompson American singer i Which animal landed on the moon first? Before any people arrived at the moon, other animals got there first. And unlike the dogs and monkeys that were made famous in early space shots and Earth orbits, the first vertebrates to reach the moon were a Noah Thompson Listen Spotity YouTube Music pair of steppe tortoises, Discovery's Amy Shira Teitel reminds us. oe: 27.2012 hittps.//\www. thestlantic.com> arctive> 2012/12» whe... = Who Was First in the Race to the Moon? The Tortoise Search for: Which animal landed on the moon first? answer box People also search for = HunterG Chayce Just Laine Maddie Smokey Trent Beckhar Sam Hardy Poppe Robinso Harmon answer box Noah Thompson is an American | 2310.03214#97 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 98 | search for = HunterG Chayce Just Laine Maddie Smokey Trent Beckhar Sam Hardy Poppe Robinso Harmon answer box Noah Thompson is an American singer who won the @ About featured snippets + f Foodback twentieth season of American Idol. Wikipedia Feedback Born: 2002 (age 21 years), Huntington, WY People also ask: related questions : â What was the first animal to survive in space? v People also ask related questions â_â Who is the newest American Idol winner? A Is Laika the dog still in space? One Day Tonight One Day Tenight - 2022 Feedback lam tongi Stay Stay - 2022 len tongue | am tong is the newest American Idol, the 18 year old was crowned on Sunday Questions & answers season finale. May 22,2023 questions and answers ® Stuey.com B oblurit Q wou Question Question Question What was the first animal to What Was The First Animal Who was the first animal to land on the moon? To Land On The Moon? go on moon? Sho Gots It From Mo. YouTube Middle of God Knows Where » 2023 Itpeuitwwa youtube.com > watch 7 lam Tongi Wins Season 21 of âAmerican Idol' | PEOPLE co Us No More | 2310.03214#98 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
2310.03214 | 99 | God Knows Where » 2023 Itpeuitwwa youtube.com > watch 7 lam Tongi Wins Season 21 of âAmerican Idol' | PEOPLE co Us No More Middle of God Knows Where » 2023 Search for: Who is the newest American Idol winner? Answer : 0 votes Answer - 0 votes Answer - 6 votes Who won American Idol 2023 last night? Profiles Oo @8 8 YouTube Instagram Twitter Feedback No animals were ever sent Question:What was the first Probably millions of mites, to the Moon. Although, sin.. animal to land on the... cightlegged invertebrates... âWho was the last female to win American Idol? More More More Who won American Idol the last 10 years? More about Noah Thompson > How rich is Noah Thompson? Royal Museums Greenwich j G ireseuiwrwrmg.couks stores topics vwhatwasti. organic results What was the first animal in space? The first animal to make an orbital spaceflight around the Earth was the dog Laika, aboard the Soviet spacecraft Sputnik 2 on 3 November 1957. Laika: Animals That Went To Space - First Animals in Space Facts @ Claim this knowledge panel Who is the most successful American Idol winner? knowledge graph Dettingen pyr meetd i organic results American Idol winners | 2310.03214#99 | FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation | Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus,
they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this
work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in
the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge.
Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a
diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require
fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that
need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and
open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to
measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving
more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and
demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models
(regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing
knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present
FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the
performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date
information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments
show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented
prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial
systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that
both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in
influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing
the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination
compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we
release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at
regular intervals. | http://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03214 | Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, Thang Luong | cs.CL | Preprint, 26 pages, 10 figures, 5 tables; Added FreshEval | null | cs.CL | 20231005 | 20231122 | [
{
"id": "2203.05115"
},
{
"id": "2210.03350"
},
{
"id": "2204.02311"
},
{
"id": "2107.03374"
},
{
"id": "2302.04761"
},
{
"id": "2307.03172"
},
{
"id": "2201.11903"
},
{
"id": "2210.11416"
},
{
"id": "2301.13688"
},
{
"id": "2203.11147"
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.