arXiv AI By Jeremy Barnes, Naiara Perez, Alba Bonet-Jover, Bego\~na Altuna

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

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

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
Jun 26

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

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
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
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 25

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

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. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores.