arXiv:2606. 07936v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text.
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:2606. 02255v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled.
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...
arXiv:2606. 09809v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs.
arXiv:2609.23264v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Peer-review evaluation is increasingly being automated with LLM-as-a-judge metrics, but this creates a measurement risk. A review may receive a high sc...
arXiv:2510. 02027v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scholarly publishing requires scalable scrutiny supported by auditable evidence.
The paper introduces behavioral correctness assumptions as a new framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods in natural language generation. It defines a taxonomy of correctness-preserving and correctness-altering assumptions and operationalizes them through controlled response transformations to specify expected scoring behaviors. The authors evaluate a range of lexical, character-level, semantic, LLM-based, and hybrid evaluators, analyzing their behavior across multiple dimensions and finding that no evaluator satisfies all assumptions, revealing distinct behavioral trade-offs not evident from aggregate scores.