From Model-centered to Human-Centered: Revision Distance as a Metric for Text Evaluation in LLMs-based Applications (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics for large language models yield numerical scores that ignore user experience. |
| Approach: | They propose a metric that suggests revision edits that mimic the human writing process . their results show that the metric offers more insightful feedback and distinguishes between texts . |
| Outcome: | The proposed metric can provide a self-explained text evaluation result in a human-understandable manner beyond the context-independent score. |
Similar Papers
Identifying Reliable Evaluation Metrics for Scientific Text Revision (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Effective revision is a critical step in scientific writing, ensuring clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic standards. |
| Approach: | They propose to use ROUGE and BERTScore to assess revision quality . they also examine LLM-as-a-judge approaches to assess instruction-following revisions . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves the accuracy of revision tasks with and without a gold reference. |
Towards A “Novel” Benchmark: Evaluating Literary Fiction with Large Language Models (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) context windows have enabled them to process inputs over 100K tokens and generate outputs of up to 10K token. |
| Approach: | They propose a multi-level evaluation framework that incorporates ten metrics across the Macro, Meso, and Micro levels and an annotated fiction dataset. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework incorporates ten metrics across the Macro, Meso, and Micro levels and is based on a human-human-AI dataset. |
RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Shuqian Sheng, Yi Xu, Tianhang Zhang, Zanwei Shen, Luoyi Fu, Jiaxin Ding, Lei Zhou, Xiaoying Gan, Xinbing Wang, Chenghu Zhou
| Challenge: | Traditional metrics for automatic text evaluation are tailored to specific tasks, while LLM-based evaluation metrics are costly. |
| Approach: | They propose a metric that leverages projections of LLM representations for evaluation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed metric exhibits higher correlation with human judgments than previous methods on 14 datasets. |
ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code (2024.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in the field of natural language generation have facilitated the use of large language models to assess the quality of generated text. |
| Approach: | They propose a new evaluation metric by instructing large language models for code assessments using a set of programming languages. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation, delivering high levels of accuracy and consistency across programming languages and tasks. |
Comprehensiveness Metrics for Automatic Evaluation of Factual Recall in Text Generation (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) produce incomplete or selectively omit key information . omissions of key information or misrepresentation of conflicting evidence can cause harm . |
| Approach: | They propose a method that decomposes texts into atomic statements and uses natural language inference to identify missing facts and a Q A-based metric that extracts question-answer pairs and compares responses across sources. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation metrics show they perform better than more complex metrics, but at a cost. |
SCORE: Systematic COnsistency and Robustness Evaluation for Large Language Models (2025.naacl-industry)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Typical evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) report a single accuracy metric per dataset, often derived from an optimized setup. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for non-adversarial evaluation of large language models that evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups to give a realistic estimate of their accuracy and consistency. |
Evaluation Metrics in the Era of GPT-4: Reliably Evaluating Large Language Models on Sequence to Sequence Tasks (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluation is a patchy and inconsistent landscape . established automatic evaluation metrics are poor surrogates, correlating weakly with human judgement. |
| Approach: | They propose to use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate generative LLMs on three NLP benchmarks: text summarisation, text simplification and grammatical error correction. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms many popular models according to human reviewers on the majority of metrics, while scoring much worse when using classic automatic evaluation metrics. |
Editing Large Language Models: Problems, Methods, and Opportunities (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Yunzhi Yao, Peng Wang, Bozhong Tian, Siyuan Cheng, Zhoubo Li, Shumin Deng, Huajun Chen, Ningyu Zhang
| Challenge: | Recent advances in model editing for LLMs have created challenges and opportunities for the community. |
| Approach: | They propose to alter the behavior of LLMs efficiently within a specific domain without negatively impacting performance across other inputs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method alters behavior of LLMs efficiently within a specific domain without negatively impacting performance across other inputs. |
Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
Yuxuan Liu, Tianchi Yang, Shaohan Huang, Zihan Zhang, Haizhen Huang, Furu Wei, Weiwei Deng, Feng Sun, Qi Zhang
| Challenge: | Existing models for large language models lack the ability to calibrate their outputs towards human preference. |
| Approach: | They propose a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach improves correlation with expert evaluation on multiple text quality evaluation datasets. |
How Much Would a Clinician Edit This Draft? Evaluating LLM Alignment for Patient Message Response Drafting (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Parker Seegmiller, Joseph Gatto, Sarah E. Greer, Ganza Belise Isingizwe, Rohan Ray, Timothy E. Burdick, Sarah Masud Preum
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective in drafting patient portal responses, yet their integration into clinical workflows raises various concerns. |
| Approach: | They propose a taxonomy of thematic elements in clinician responses and a framework for assessing clinician editing load of LLM-drafted responses at both content and theme levels. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework assesses the editing load of LLM-drafted responses at both content and theme levels. |