arXiv Computation and Language

Does task decomposition improve automatic NLG evaluation?

The paper evaluates whether breaking down evaluation tasks into simpler sub‑tasks improves the LLM-as-a-judge (LLMaJ) framework for reference‑free NLG assessment. Systematic comparisons across multiple datasets show no performance advantage for LLMaJ methods that use task decomposition over a fair baseline that does not. The authors attribute previously reported gains to the use of human labels for training rather than to decomposition itself, and note that LLMaJ without decomposition can match human annotators when such labels are available.

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
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Select, Label, Evaluate: Active Testing in NLP

The paper introduces Active Testing, a framework that selects the most informative test samples for annotation in NLP, aiming to reduce human effort while accurately estimating model performance. Experiments across 18 datasets and 4 embedding strategies show up to 95% annotation savings with less than 1% loss in performance estimation accuracy. The authors also propose an adaptive stopping criterion to determine the optimal number of samples without a predefined budget.

By Antonio Purificato, Maria Sofia Bucarelli, Andrea Bacciu, Fabrizio Silvestri, Amin Mantrach
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

LLJ Cards: Best practices for the Use of LLMs as Judges

arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...

By Khaoula Chehbouni, Melina Medjdoub, Florian Carichon, Golnoosh Farnadi, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
arXiv AI
6d ago

Prompt Lottery in LLM-as-a-Judge: Measuring and Mitigating Sensitivity to Syntactic Rephrasing

The paper introduces the "Prompt Lottery" phenomenon, where paraphrastic rephrasings of judge prompts in LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaJ) lead to inconsistent judgments and can even reverse model rankings. A large-scale study across various tasks, judge families, and model backbones demonstrates that these prompt variations significantly alter evaluation outcomes. A user study shows that LLMaJ judges are 6–9 times more sensitive to prompt rephrasings than humans, and that aggregating multiple prompts improves robustness by focusing on consistent judgments.

By Ilija Subasic, Brett Levert, Andrew Rabinovich, Sajjad Pakdamansavoji, Zhao Chen
arXiv AI
Jun 3

Fixing FOLIO and MALLS: Verified Annotations and an LLM-assisted Framework to Focus Human Relabeling

arXiv:2606. 02837v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential -- yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited.

By Andrea Brunello, Cristian Curaba, Luca Geatti, Michele Mignani, Angelo Montanari, Nicola Saccomanno
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 23

An Empirical Study of Recent Large Language Models for Knowledge Graph to Text Generation on Standard Benchmarks

The paper evaluates recent large language models (LLMs) for knowledge graph-to-text generation against traditional fine‑tuned encoder‑decoder models. Using both reference‑based metrics and graph‑grounded, reference‑free LLM‑based evaluation, the authors find that LLMs close the performance gap on reference metrics and outperform fine‑tuned models on graph‑grounded metrics. The study also shows that LLM‑based evaluation scores correlate poorly with reference metrics, indicating they assess different aspects of quality, and that prompted LLMs produce fewer contradictions and omissions, especially as graph size increases.

By Priyanka, Renaud Delbru, Souhail Bakkali, Micka\"el Coustaty, Antoine Doucet
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 Computation and Language
Sep 28

Large Language Model Selection with Limited Annotations

arXiv:2605.24981v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Choosing a Large Language Model (LLM) for a given task requires comparing many strong candidates, yet standard evaluation relies on costly annotati...

By Yavuz Durmazkeser, Patrik Okanovic, Andreas Kirsch, Torsten Hoefler, Nezihe Merve G\"urel