The paper introduces BASSE, a multilingual meta‑evaluation dataset containing 2,040 human‑rated abstractive summaries produced manually or by five LLMs with four prompts. Annotators scored each summary on coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H using a 5‑point Likert scale. Benchmarking shows proprietary LLM‑judge models best align with human judgments, followed by criteria‑specific automatic metrics, while open‑source judge LLMs perform poorly.
By Jeremy Barnes, Naiara Perez, Alba Bonet-Jover, Bego\~na Altuna
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.
By Mingyuan Xu, Xinzi Tan, Jiawei Wu, Doudou Zhou
arXiv:2608. 08283v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although large language models can translate some historical languages surprisingly well, their usefulness in digital humanities workflows is limited by the lack of reliable evaluation.
By Osvaldo Quinjica, Eric Bennett, Xinchen Yang, Andrew Schonebaum, Marine Carpuat
The paper introduces UPHELD, a large benchmark of human-to-human dialogues written by professional script writers, featuring realistic turn densities and over 36,000 per-turn human annotations. It evaluates existing automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge methods, finding them unreliable against expert human judgment. Using UPHELD, the authors develop a Mixture-of-Judges framework that improves correlation with human assessments by about 30%.
By Ilija Subasic, Andrew Rabinovich, Zhao Chen
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
By Bertil Braun, Martin Forell
arXiv:2609.06634v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLMs' performance on machine translation (MT) tasks is often dependent on the data availability in the specific domains and language pairs that they...
By Lifeng Han, Jiahui Liang, Anna Latusek, Karim El Haff, Amal Haddad Haddad, Josua H\"ofgen, Kilian Evang, Min Ma, Maryia Zhyrko
arXiv:2601.02933v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Human evaluation is the gold standard for multilingual NLP, but is often skipped in practice and substituted with automatic metrics because it is n...
By Vil\'em Zouhar, Tom Kocmi
arXiv:2607. 20241v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Culturally loaded translation poses unique challenges for machine translation (MT), as meanings are deeply embedded in socio-cultural contexts beyond surface linguistic forms.
By Yiming Wang, Jiayuan Di
arXiv:2305.12474v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large Language Models(LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various natural language processing tasks; however, how to comprehensiv...
By Xiaotian Zhang, Chunyang Li, Yi Zong, Zhengyu Ying, Liang He, Xipeng Qiu, Tianxiang Sun, Peng Li, Shiqiao Meng, Yanjun Zheng, Jun Zhan, Zhangyue Yin, Xiannian Hu, Guofeng Quan, Qixiang Wang
arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
By Gaojie Jin, Yong Tao, Lijia Yu, Tianjin Huang
arXiv:2605.28227v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Speech translation models are increasingly capable of preserving speech-specific information (e.g., speaker gender, prosody, and emphasis), yet eva...
By Maike Z\"ufle, Danni Liu, Vil\'em Zouhar, Jan Niehues
The paper introduces KVoiceBench, KOpenAudioBench, and KMMAU—three Korean speech benchmarks created through agent-driven frameworks that adapt existing SpokenQA and ASR resources into Korean SpokenQA and audio understanding tasks. These benchmarks total 12,345 samples and are publicly released to evaluate SpeechLMs beyond English. The authors benchmark eight recent SpeechLMs, revealing significant English‑Korean performance gaps and divergent rankings between SpokenQA and audio understanding, highlighting multilingual weaknesses not apparent in English-only tests.
By Haechan Kim, Seungjun Chung, Inkyu Park, Jihoo Lee, Jonghyun Lee