← Back to all news
arXiv Computation and Language

How Human-Like Are Large Language Models? A Register-Aware Linguistic Evaluation Framework

The paper introduces a register-aware framework to evaluate how human-like large language models (LLMs) are, focusing on linguistic feature distributions rather than factual correctness. It uses Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and 67 Biber lexico‑grammatical features to compare LLM‑generated texts with human reference corpora across different registers. Experiments on seven instruction‑tuned, open‑source models across five English datasets show that all LLMs deviate from human baselines, with closeness to human language varying by register and not by model size.

Related stories

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9

Large Language Models for Machine Translation Quality Annotation: Humans and Models Are Both Challenged

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being tested as a cost‑effective alternative to human judgment for evaluating machine translation (MT). This study compares LLM agreement with human annotators on two MT quality schemes—Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) and Error Span Annotation (ESA)—across 70 language pairs and public WMT23/25 data. Results show that while LLMs sometimes match or exceed human agreement, performance varies widely by scheme, language, and domain, and remains unreliable in many settings. The work also identifies specific challenges for both humans (e.g., fine‑grained MQM, low‑resource languages) and LLMs (e.g., minor errors, wrong language variants, span annotation).

By Hala Almaghout, Christian Federmann, Qin Gao
llmsnlp
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 10

Do LLMs Make More Mistakes If They Do Not Believe the Input Data?

The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are more prone to errors when they doubt the plausibility of input data, a phenomenon termed context‑memory conflict. Using non‑English and low‑resource language datasets, the authors generate text from factual, counterfactual, and fictional RDF triples in English, Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian, and evaluate faithfulness with both human annotations and an LLM judge (Kimi K3). Contrary to expectations, the results show only a weak context‑memory conflict: counterfactual inputs receive slightly lower faithfulness scores than factual ones, and the choice of LLM judge can significantly affect perceived conflict strength.

By Peter Kochelka, Ale\v{s} Manuel Pap\'a\v{c}ek, Vojt\v{e}ch Dvo\v{r}\'ak, Ond\v{r}ej Du\v{s}ek
llmsrag
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 2

Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions

The paper "Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions" examines the difficulties of assessing text that is tailored to individual users’ styles. It critiques common metrics such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLM-as-judges, and introduces a style discrimination benchmark covering domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized versus non-personalized discrimination across eight writing tasks. The study finds that ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics outperform single-evaluator approaches and offers guidance for reliable assessment of style-personalized generation.

By Anubhav Jangra, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Silviu Cucerzan, Adrian de Wynter, Sujay Kumar Jauhar
llmsragbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Human or Machine? A Preliminary Turing Test for Speech-to-Speech Interaction

The paper reports the first Turing test for speech‑to‑speech systems, gathering 2,968 human judgments on conversations between nine state‑of‑the‑art S2S systems and 28 humans. None of the evaluated systems passed the test, highlighting a clear gap in human‑likeness. The authors diagnose the failure with an 18‑dimension taxonomy, finding that paralinguistic cues, emotional expressivity, and conversational persona—not semantic understanding—are the main bottlenecks, and they propose an interpretable model for automatic human‑vs‑machine discrimination.

By Xiang Li, Jiabao Gao, Sipei Lin, Xuan Zhou, Chi Zhang, Bo Cheng, Jiale Han, Benyou Wang
agentsbenchmarks
More like this →