In plain words: They tested ChatGPT on English and Persian questions, with and without a passage to answer from, against models built just for answering questions. It was less accurate than those models, did better when given the passage, and sometimes invented answers the passage never gave.
Abstract · Evaluating ChatGPT as a Question Answering System: A Comprehensive Analysis and Comparison with Existing Models
In the current era, a multitude of language models has emerged to cater to user inquiries. Notably, the GPT-3.5 Turbo language model has gained substantial attention as the underlying technology for ChatGPT. Leveraging extensive parameters, this model adeptly responds to a wide range of questions. However, due to its reliance on internal knowledge, the accuracy of responses may not be absolute. This article scrutinizes ChatGPT as a Question Answering System (QAS), comparing its performance to other existing QASs. The primary focus is on evaluating ChatGPT's proficiency in extracting responses from provided paragraphs, a core QAS capability. Additionally, performance comparisons are made in scenarios without a surrounding passage. Multiple experiments, exploring response hallucination and considering question complexity, were conducted on ChatGPT. Evaluation employed well-known Question Answering (QA) datasets, including SQuAD, NewsQA, and PersianQuAD, across English and Persian languages. Metrics such as F-score, exact match, and accuracy were employed in the assessment. The study reveals that, while ChatGPT demonstrates competence as a generative model, it is less effective in question answering compared to task-specific models. Providing context improves its performance, and prompt engineering enhances precision, particularly for questions lacking explicit answers in provided paragraphs. ChatGPT excels at simpler factual questions compared to "how" and "why" question types. The evaluation highlights occurrences of hallucinations, where ChatGPT provides responses to questions without available answers in the provided context.
Hossein Bahak, Farzaneh Taheri, Zahra Zojaji, Arefeh Kazemi
arXiv:2312.07592 · cs.CL, cs.AI · submitted Dec 11, 2023
abstract · pdf · html · 15 pages, 7 figures