arXiv Computation and Language

SAUCE: Summary Analysis Using Conversation Entailment

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

Evaluating Language Models in Realistic Conversational Contexts

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 AI
Jun 9

Summarization is Not Dead Yet

arXiv:2606. 08000v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an open research problem.

By Dongqi Liu, Chenxi Whitehouse, Zheng Zhao, Zhuchen Cao, Jian Li, Yabiao Wang
arXiv AI
Sep 3

Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English

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
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 8

EviSI: An Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpreting

EviSI is a large language model evaluation agent designed for simultaneous speech-to-speech translation. It adapts Multidimensional Quality Metrics to assess semantic fidelity and oral expression, using shared source evidence and deterministic scoring. In English‑to‑Chinese, EviSI achieves a mean Kendall agreement of 0.707 with human system rankings, outperforming baseline metrics, and shows positive concordance with COMET across five translation directions.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 16

EviSI: An Evidence-Based Evaluation Agent for Simultaneous Interpreting

EviSI is an evidence‑based evaluation agent for low‑latency simultaneous speech‑to‑speech translation. It combines Multidimensional Quality Metrics with interpreter‑developed criteria, using shared source evidence to assess four dimensions—Anchor, Event, Logic, and Fluency—while deduplicating verified errors before scoring. On English‑to‑Chinese and Chinese‑to‑English data, EviSI’s rankings correlate strongly with human judgments, outperforming BLEU and COMET, and its multilingual extension maintains these correlations across five language directions.

By Ben Yan, Zongyao Li, Xiaoyu Chen, Daimeng Wei, Weidong Liu, Huan Zhao, Chong Li, Yaode Wang, Yuzhe Shang
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 15

Evaluating Large Language Models for Multilingual Abstractive Summarization: A Comprehensive Study of English and Bengali

The study introduces a zero‑shot benchmark for eight large language models on English and Bengali abstractive summarization, using both lexical/semantic metrics and reference‑free factuality checks. Results show significant cross‑lingual differences: GPT‑5.6 Luna excels in English but not in Bengali, where LLaMA 3.3 70B tops ROUGE and BLEU, while Gemini 2.5 Flash achieves the best Bengali factuality score. The evaluation also reveals that different metrics rank models differently, underscoring the need for multi‑dimensional assessment in low‑resource languages.

By Khan Mahi Al Atahar, Nazifa Tasneem, Ajwad Abrar
arXiv AI
Aug 28

When Text Misleads: Inconsistent-Aware Reasoning for Audio-Grounded Dialogue

The paper introduces ContraTalk, a benchmark that tests whether dialogue models truly use acoustic cues or rely on transcript shortcuts. It formalizes cross‑modal disagreement, creates conflict and consistent QA examples, and proposes an Audio Twin representation to expose acoustic evidence to models. Experiments show that while text‑only LLMs perform well on consistent cases, they falter on conflict cases, and AudioLLMs only partially mitigate this issue.

By Yen-Ju Lu, Yuzhe Wang, Yaohan Guan, Xiluo He, Jiarui Hai, Mingrui Liang, Kaavya Chaparala, Thomas Thebaud, Laureano Moro-Velazquez, Najim Dehak, Jesus Villalba
arXiv AI
Aug 11

Beyond Naturalness: Probing Automated Text-To-Speech Evaluators on Linguistically Grounded Dimensions

arXiv:2608. 09930v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated Text-to-Speech (TTS) evaluation methods (Mean Opinion Score (MOS) predictors and Audio Large Language Models (Audio-LLM) judges) are expected to reflect human perception, yet it is unclear how well they capture the distinct aspects of speech that listeners actually perceive.

By Oluwanifemi Bamgbose, Simon Rosen, Jash Shah, Lindsay Devon Brin, Hoang H Nguyen, Anke Koelzer, Rachel Hansen, Tara Bogavelli, Fanny Riols
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25

An Evaluation Framework for Structured Audio Captions Validated by Controlled Perturbations

The paper introduces an evaluation framework for structured audio captions that separates acoustic and semantic aspects, such as timestamped sound event descriptions. It covers five axes—tag sets, descriptions, reasoning, numeric measurements, and spectral profiles—using large language model judges for semantics and deterministic metrics for temporal and acoustic features. Controlled perturbations validate that the metrics are robust to paraphrases but sensitive to real semantic and acoustic errors.

By Liang-Yuan Wu, Sripathi Sridhar, Mark Cartwright, Magdalena Fuentes
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