ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11736v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:22:11 GMT
• Title: ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews
• Authors: Chavvi Kirtani, Madhav Krishan Garg, Tejash Prasad, Tanmay Singhal, Murari Mandal, Dhruv Kumar,
• Abstract summary: This research introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews. It measures alignment with human evaluations, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, and identifies actionable insights. Our framework establishes standardized metrics for evaluating AI-based review systems.
• Score: 9.35023998408983
• License:
• Abstract: The escalating volume of academic research, coupled with a shortage of qualified reviewers, necessitates innovative approaches to peer review. While large language model (LLMs) offer potential for automating this process, their current limitations include superficial critiques, hallucinations, and a lack of actionable insights. This research addresses these challenges by introducing a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews, that measures alignment with human evaluations, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, and identifies actionable insights. We also propose a novel alignment mechanism that tailors LLM-generated reviews to the unique evaluation priorities of individual conferences and journals. To enhance the quality of these reviews, we introduce a self-refinement loop that iteratively optimizes the LLM's review prompts. Our framework establishes standardized metrics for evaluating AI-based review systems, thereby bolstering the reliability of AI-generated reviews in academic research.

Related papers

• DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generation [11.010557279355885]
  This study empirically analyzes benchmark comments using a novel set of criteria informed by prior research and developer interviews. Our evaluation framework, DeepCRCEval, integrates human evaluators and Large Language Models (LLMs) for a comprehensive reassessment of current techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T08:53:54Z)
• Optimizing the role of human evaluation in LLM-based spoken document summarization systems [0.0]
  We propose an evaluation paradigm for spoken document summarization explicitly tailored for generative AI content. We provide detailed evaluation criteria and best practices guidelines to ensure robustness in the experimental design, replicability, and trustworthiness of human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-23T18:37:14Z)
• An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [29.81362106367831]
  Existing evaluation methods often suffer from high costs, limited test formats, the need of human references, and systematic evaluation biases. In contrast to previous studies that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE selects evaluators automatically based on their inherent traits. Experimental results indicate our Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance at a lower cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• Analysis of the ICML 2023 Ranking Data: Can Authors' Opinions of Their Own Papers Assist Peer Review in Machine Learning? [52.00419656272129]
  We conducted an experiment during the 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) We received 1,342 rankings, each from a distinct author, pertaining to 2,592 submissions. We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using author-provided rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z)
• HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition [92.17397504834825]
  HD-Eval is a framework that iteratively aligns large language models evaluators with human preference. HD-Eval inherits the essence from the evaluation mindset of human experts and enhances the alignment of LLM-based evaluators. Extensive experiments on three evaluation domains demonstrate the superiority of HD-Eval in further aligning state-of-the-art evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T08:01:32Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges [57.88520765782177]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for assessing generated content quality, e.g., coherence, creativity, and context relevance. We propose a coherent taxonomy for organizing existing LLM-based evaluation metrics, offering a structured framework to understand and compare these methods. By discussing unresolved challenges, including bias, robustness, domain-specificity, and unified evaluation, this paper seeks to offer insights to researchers and advocate for fairer and more advanced NLG evaluation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T15:59:09Z)
• Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation [22.517544562890663]
  This paper traces the historical trajectory of Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluations, from the foundational questions posed by Alan Turing to the modern era of AI research. We emphasize the pressing need for a unified evaluation system, given the broader societal implications of these models. This work serves as a call for the AI community to collaboratively address the challenges of LLM evaluation, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and societal benefit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T17:24:50Z)
• Towards a Comprehensive Human-Centred Evaluation Framework for Explainable AI [1.7222662622390634]
  We propose to adapt the User-Centric Evaluation Framework used in recommender systems. We integrate explanation aspects, summarise explanation properties, indicate relations between them, and categorise metrics that measure these properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T09:20:16Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.