arXiv:2205. 11930v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Human ratings are the gold standard in NLG evaluation.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 07936v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human evaluation plays a critical role in assessing the quality of generated text.
Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features.
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
arXiv:2606. 17350v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the generation of high-quality prose, yet the question of whether these models are capable of generating diverse outputs remains contested.
arXiv:2606. 00334v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Various language domains have undergone remarkable changes in recent years; these shifts are largely attributed to the advent of Large Language Models and their misalignment with natural language usage.
arXiv:2512. 03019v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) used as judges for pairwise preferences remain noisy at the single-sample level, and common aggregation rules (majority vote, soft self-consistency, or instruction-based self-aggregation) are inconsistent when ties are allowed.