Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.15078 v3 pith:WDXRMHRO submitted 2023-03-27 cs.CL

Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation

classification cs.CL
keywords evaluationtextpromptinggeneratedhumanlikeobjectivesubjective
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Text summarization has a wide range of applications in many scenarios. The evaluation of the quality of the generated text is a complex problem. A big challenge to language evaluation is that there is a clear divergence between existing metrics and human evaluation. A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. In this paper, we propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects. First, we propose to model objective and subjective dimensions of generated text based on roleplayers prompting mechanism. Furthermore, we introduce a context-based prompting mechanism that is able to generate dynamic roleplayer profiles based on input context. Finally, we design a multi-roleplayer prompting technology based on batch prompting and integrate multiple outputs into the final evaluation results. Experimental results on three real datasets for summarization show that our model is highly competitive and has a very high consistency with human annotators.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques

    cs.CL 2024-06 accept novelty 7.0

    This systematic survey organizes prompt engineering into a taxonomy of 58 LLM techniques and 40 others, supplies a shared vocabulary, and offers guidelines for state-of-the-art models.

  2. Evaluating Multi-Hop Reasoning in RAG Systems: A Comparison of LLM-Based Retriever Evaluation Strategies

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CARE, a context-aware LLM judge, outperforms standard methods when evaluating multi-hop retrieval quality in RAG systems.

  3. ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate

    cs.CL 2023-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    Multi-agent debate among LLMs yields more reliable text evaluations than single-agent prompting by simulating collaborative human judgment.

  4. Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2023-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    IFEval is a new benchmark of 25 verifiable instruction types and ~500 prompts for objective, reproducible evaluation of LLMs' instruction-following abilities.