Papers by Mingqi Gao
Reference Matters: Benchmarking Factual Error Correction for Dialogue Summarization with Fine-grained Evaluation Framework (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current evaluations of FEC models that depend on factuality metrics are not reliable and detailed enough. |
| Approach: | They propose a fine-grained evaluation framework that automatically evaluates FEC models on different error categories. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation framework compares models on different error categories and finds the best training modes and significant differences in the performance of existing models. |
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. |
Themis: A Reference-free NLG Evaluation Language Model with Flexibility and Interpretability (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for evaluation of natural language generation tasks lack reliable data. |
| Approach: | They propose to use annotations from human and GPT-4 to construct a corpus for NLG evaluation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed corpus can perform flexible and interpretable evaluations without references and surpasses existing models. |
Are LLM-based Evaluators Confusing NLG Quality Criteria? (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies show that LLMs confuse evaluation criteria, which reduces their reliability. |
| Approach: | They propose a hierarchical classification system for 11 common aspects with corresponding different evaluation criteria. |
| Outcome: | The proposed system is based on 11 common aspects with different evaluation criteria. |
Is Summary Useful or Not? An Extrinsic Human Evaluation of Text Summaries on Downstream Tasks (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study focused on intrinsic evaluation, which assesses the quality of summaries, e.g. coherence, fluency, and informativeness, but it focused on task-based extrinsic evaluation to determine the usefulness of summarizations. |
| Approach: | They incorporate three downstream tasks to measure the usefulness of summaries . they find that fine-tuned models produce more useful summary across all three tasks . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model produces more useful summaries across all three tasks compared to zero-shot models . human evaluation provides more reliable performance assessment compared with automatic methods . |
A Dual-Perspective NLG Meta-Evaluation Framework with Automatic Benchmark and Better Interpretability (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics are insufficient to meet requirements for natural language generation. |
| Approach: | They propose a dual-perspective NLG meta-evaluation framework that focuses on different evaluation capabilities and a method of automatically constructing benchmarks without requiring new human annotations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves interpretability and provides better performance for 16 representative LLMs. |
Minos: A Multimodal Evaluation Model for Bidirectional Generation Between Image and Text (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation models struggle to achieve consistent performance across image-to-text (I2T) and text-to image (T2I) tasks. |
| Approach: | They construct a multimodal evaluation model using a large multimodal dataset and rigorous quality control strategies to train it. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves state-of-the-art evaluation performance across 16 out-of domain datasets covering both I2T and T2I tasks among all open-source multimodal evaluation models and remain competitive with closed-source models. |
Evaluating Factuality in Cross-lingual Summarization (2023.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics for monolingual summarization require translation to evaluate the factuality of cross-lingual summmarization. |
| Approach: | They propose to analyze cross-lingual factuality by collecting annotations and generated summaries from models at summary level and sentence level. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset shows that over 50% of generated summaries contain factual errors with different characteristics from monolingual summarization. |
Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluating and ranking the capabilities of different LLMs is crucial for understanding their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
| Approach: | They propose a system-level evaluation framework that ranks LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework aims to rank LLMs based on their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
DialSummEval: Revisiting Summarization Evaluation for Dialogues (2022.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current models for dialogue summarization have flaws that may not be well exposed by frequently used metrics such as ROUGE. |
| Approach: | They propose to re-evaluate 18 categories of metrics in terms of four dimensions: coherence, consistency, fluency and relevance, as well as a unified human evaluation of various models for the first time. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset will be used to evaluate 18 categories of metrics in terms of coherence, consistency, fluency and relevance, and a unified human evaluation of various models for the first time. |
Analyzing and Evaluating Correlation Measures in NLG Meta-Evaluation (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies have not investigated the differences between different correlation measures in meta-evaluation. |
| Approach: | They analyze 12 common correlation measures using real-world data from six widely-used NLG evaluation datasets and 32 evaluation metrics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed measures exhibit the best performance in discriminative power and ranking consistency . the measures using system-level grouping or Kendall correlation are the least sensitive to score granularity . |