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: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:2610.19166v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Meta-evaluation of text generation metrics and LLM-judges is primarily conducted using metric-human correlations. However, prior work has shown that co...
By Anubhav Jangra, Adrian de Wynter
arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.
By Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai, Zefang Liu, Chenyang Zhu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sambit Sahu
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
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