Prompt Engineering

Combining deterministic NLP with LLM-as-Judge for robust evaluation Summary Evaluation Challenges Summary evaluation metrics sometimes fall short in capturing the qualities most relevant to assessing summary quality. Traditional machine learning for natural language processing (NLP) has covered a lot of ground in this area. Widely used measures such as ROUGE focus on surface-level token overlap and n-gram matches. While effective for evaluating lexical similarity, these approaches offer limited insight into aspects such as factual accuracy or semantic completeness [1]. ...

Large foundation models like GPT can classify text according to a well-crafted prompt instruction, and it’s remarkable how well they can do this, considering there has been no explicit training with labeled datasets. This has traditionally been done using machine learning models and logistic regression techniques. However, with generative model classification, we lose the ‘confidence level’ or the probability score of the prediction available in logistic regression. Traditional models like logistic regression provide a probability score for each class, indicating the model’s confidence level in its predictions. This confidence score is not just valuable; it’s essential for decision-making, as it helps users gauge how confident the model is about its classifications. While generative model responses may align well with the intended classification, we don’t directly get an explicit probability for each class. This can be a limitation, particularly in high-stakes applications where knowing the model’s confidence level is crucial. ...