arXiv AI

LinguistAgent Technical Report: A Reflective Multi-Model Platform for Automated Linguistic Annotation

arXiv:2602. 05493v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Data annotation remains a significant bottleneck in the field of humanities and social sciences, particularly for complex linguistic tasks such as metaphor identification.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

IDEAlign: Comparing Ideas of Large Language Models to Domain Expert

IDEAlign introduces a new protocol for evaluating the similarity of large language model (LLM) annotations to expert judgments. It uses pick‑the‑odd‑one‑out tasks to capture expert similarity and benchmarks various similarity methods—including text embeddings, topic models, and LLM-as-a-judge—against these human ratings. Applied to educational datasets, the study finds that most metrics miss nuanced expert dimensions, with LLM-as-a-judge performing best yet still insufficient for full expert alignment.

By Hyunji Nam, Lucia Langlois, James Malamut, Mei Tan, Dorottya Demszky
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24

MetaHOPE: A Metaphor-Oriented Evaluation Framework for Analysing MT and LLM Translation Errors

MetaHOPE is an error‑severity‑aware annotation framework designed to evaluate how well machine translation (MT) and large language models (LLMs) translate metaphors. The authors applied MetaHOPE to three state‑of‑the‑art systems—GoogleMT, GPT5.4, and Hunyuan‑7b—using two human‑annotated metaphor corpora (VUAMC and PSUCMC) for English‑to‑Chinese and Chinese‑to‑English translation. They also produced a bilingual post‑edited gold reference, creating a new resource for metaphor translation research.

By Jiahui Liang, Lifeng Han
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

To Consolidate or not to Consolidate? Evaluating the Impact of Consolidation in Multi-Reference Training using Peer Reviews

arXiv:2609.22805v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Natural language generation (NLG) tasks span the spectrum of conditional entropy, ranging from highly constrained machine translation to open-ended dia...

By Maitreya Prafulla Chitale, Ketaki Mangesh Shetye, Yash More, Harshit Gupta, Manav Chaudhary, Manish Shrivastava, Vasudeva Varma
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
arXiv AI
Sep 2

Value Over Language Model: Detecting Original Contribution in Writing

The paper introduces VOLM, a framework that quantifies how much original value a human adds to a document beyond what a language model could generate from a task description alone. Unlike existing tools that focus on stylistic detection, VOLM extracts content at varying granularities, reconstructs it with an LLM, and compares these reconstructions to those derived from the task description. Evaluations across news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays show that VOLM can distinguish human-authored texts from LLM-generated ones while remaining robust to content-preserving transformations.

By Vibhhu Sharma, Thorsten Joachims, Sarah Dean
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

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.

By Bj\"orn Nieth, Marianna Gracheva, Michaela Mahlberg, Bjoern Eskofier, Emmanuelle Salin
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 12

Automated Data Enrichment using Confidence-Aware Fine-Grained Debate among Open-Source LLMs for Mental Health and Online Safety

arXiv:2512. 06227v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Real-world indicators play an important role in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, such as life events for mental health analysis and risky behaviours for online safety, yet labelling such information is often costly and/or difficult due to its multi-label and dynamic nature.

By Junyu Mao, Anthony Hills, Talia Tseriotou, Maria Liakata, Aya Shamir, Dan Sayda, Dana Atzil-Slonim, Natalie Djohari, Pamela Ugwudike, Mahesan Niranjan, Stuart E. Middleton