Evaluating book summaries from internal knowledge in Large Language Models: a cross-model and semantic consistency approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21613v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:36:24 GMT
• Title: Evaluating book summaries from internal knowledge in Large Language Models: a cross-model and semantic consistency approach
• Authors: Javier Coronado-Blázquez,
• Abstract summary: We study the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate comprehensive and accurate book summaries.<n>We examine whether these models can synthesize meaningful narratives that align with established human interpretations.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We study the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate comprehensive and accurate book summaries solely from their internal knowledge, without recourse to the original text. Employing a diverse set of books and multiple LLM architectures, we examine whether these models can synthesize meaningful narratives that align with established human interpretations. Evaluation is performed with a LLM-as-a-judge paradigm: each AI-generated summary is compared against a high-quality, human-written summary via a cross-model assessment, where all participating LLMs evaluate not only their own outputs but also those produced by others. This methodology enables the identification of potential biases, such as the proclivity for models to favor their own summarization style over others. In addition, alignment between the human-crafted and LLM-generated summaries is quantified using ROUGE and BERTScore metrics, assessing the depth of grammatical and semantic correspondence. The results reveal nuanced variations in content representation and stylistic preferences among the models, highlighting both strengths and limitations inherent in relying on internal knowledge for summarization tasks. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of LLM internal encodings of factual information and the dynamics of cross-model evaluation, with implications for the development of more robust natural language generative systems.

Related papers

• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Large Language Models for Automated Literature Review: An Evaluation of Reference Generation, Abstract Writing, and Review Composition [2.048226951354646]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a potential solution to automate the complex processes involved in writing literature reviews. This study introduces a framework to automatically evaluate the performance of LLMs in three key tasks of literature writing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T08:42:25Z)
• Large Language Models are Interpretable Learners [53.56735770834617]
  In this paper, we show a combination of Large Language Models (LLMs) and symbolic programs can bridge the gap between expressiveness and interpretability. The pretrained LLM with natural language prompts provides a massive set of interpretable modules that can transform raw input into natural language concepts. As the knowledge learned by LSP is a combination of natural language descriptions and symbolic rules, it is easily transferable to humans (interpretable) and other LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T02:18:15Z)
• An LLM Feature-based Framework for Dialogue Constructiveness Assessment [8.87747076871578]
  Research on dialogue constructiveness assessment focuses on (i) analysing conversational factors that influence individuals to take specific actions, win debates, change their perspectives or broaden their open-mindedness and (ii) predicting constructiveness outcomes following dialogues for such use cases. These objectives can be achieved by training either interpretable feature-based models or neural models such as pre-trained language models. We propose an LLM feature-based framework for dialogue constructiveness assessment that combines the strengths of feature-based and neural approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T22:10:52Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• Can Large Language Models Understand Context? [17.196362853457412]
  This paper introduces a context understanding benchmark by adapting existing datasets to suit the evaluation of generative models. Experimental results indicate that pre-trained dense models struggle with understanding more nuanced contextual features when compared to state-of-the-art fine-tuned models. As LLM compression holds growing significance in both research and real-world applications, we assess the context understanding of quantized models under in-context-learning settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T18:55:29Z)
• Sparsity-Guided Holistic Explanation for LLMs with Interpretable Inference-Time Intervention [53.896974148579346]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented breakthroughs in various natural language processing domains. The enigmatic black-box'' nature of LLMs remains a significant challenge for interpretability, hampering transparent and accountable applications. We propose a novel methodology anchored in sparsity-guided techniques, aiming to provide a holistic interpretation of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T19:55:58Z)
• Summarization is (Almost) Dead [49.360752383801305]
  We develop new datasets and conduct human evaluation experiments to evaluate the zero-shot generation capability of large language models (LLMs) Our findings indicate a clear preference among human evaluators for LLM-generated summaries over human-written summaries and summaries generated by fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T08:13:01Z)
• Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
  Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text. Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z)
• Neural Authorship Attribution: Stylometric Analysis on Large Language Models [16.63955074133222]
  Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, PaLM, and Llama have significantly propelled the generation of AI-crafted text. With rising concerns about their potential misuse, there is a pressing need for AI-generated-text forensics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T17:46:52Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.