The paper introduces TextQ‑German, a dataset suite for evaluating German natural language generation (NLG) from a Quality of Experience (QoE) perspective, covering tasks such as summarization and machine translation. Human ratings collected via crowdsourcing identify perceptual quality dimensions, and the authors develop automatic QoE prediction models—including transformer‑based, linguistic feature‑based, and hybrid approaches—showing that hybrid models outperform pure transformers and that linguistic features alone can rival fine‑tuned language models. The dataset is further enriched with large language model (LLM) outputs annotated with overall QoE scores, and validation on held‑out data demonstrates generalization to unseen data. "whyItMatters":"The resource provides a publicly accessible benchmark and baseline models for human‑centered NLG evaluation, enabling the development of systems that better align with human quality perception."
The LLM-as-a-judge (LLMaJ) framework has emerged as a promising solution for cheap, reproducible, reference-free Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation. Prior work seeks to improve LLMaJ by deco...
QoNext is a new framework that applies Quality of Experience (QoE) principles from networking and multimedia to evaluate foundation models in a conversational setting. It identifies experiential factors that influence user experience, collects human ratings in controlled interaction scenarios, and builds a database and neural predictor to estimate user satisfaction from system parameters. The framework demonstrates the ability to decode the mechanisms of user satisfaction and predict human sentiment across varied service conditions.
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%.
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.
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.
SVG-Score introduces a human‑aligned evaluation framework for text‑to‑SVG generation, addressing the inadequacies of existing image‑based metrics like CLIPScore that poorly capture SVG‑specific errors such as color, count, and spatial inaccuracies. The authors first demonstrate that CLIP‑based scores are largely insensitive to these errors and that off‑the‑shelf Vision‑Language Models respond unevenly across error types and styles. They then create a human‑annotated Semantic Alignment dataset and develop two evaluators: a CLIP scorer adapted to vector graphics and a VLM judge trained with supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning, enabling both fast large‑scale and expressive, interpretable assessment of SVG generators.
The paper introduces Iterative MBR Distillation for Error Span Detection (ESD) in machine translation, a self‑evolution framework that replaces human annotations with pseudo‑labels generated by a large language model. By iteratively applying Minimum Bayes Risk decoding, the method produces high‑quality error spans without costly human effort. Experiments on WMT Metrics Shared Task datasets show that models trained solely on these pseudo‑labels outperform both unadapted baselines and supervised models trained on human data at system and span levels, while keeping sentence‑level performance competitive.
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.
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.
arXiv:2609.01246v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are primarily optimized for written text, often producing outputs that are grammatically correct and helpful yet p...
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:2608. 13136v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), research idea generation has attracted increasing attention.