Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-1 of 1
Nicholas Meade
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2024) 12: 681–699.
Published: 16 May 2024
FIGURES
| View All (6)
Abstract
View article
PDF
Instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for question answering (QA). By simply prepending relevant documents and an instruction to their input, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional training. However, these models tend to produce verbose responses with supplementary information, which makes traditional QA metrics like exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we evaluate instruction-following models along two fronts: 1) how well they satisfy user’s information need (correctness), and 2) whether they disseminate information supported by the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness and propose simple token-overlap metrics that correlate highly with human judgments. Our analysis reveals that for correctness, instruction-following models perform comparably to models specifically fine-tuned for that task. However, they struggle to accurately judge the relevance of the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and human annotation data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa .