Evaluation Under Imperfect Benchmarks and Ratings: A Case Study in Text Simplification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09394v2
• Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 23:18:26 GMT
• Title: Evaluation Under Imperfect Benchmarks and Ratings: A Case Study in Text Simplification
• Authors: Joseph Liu, Yoonsoo Nam, Xinyue Cui, Swabha Swayamdipta,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a synthetic benchmark for text simplification featuring simplified sentences generated by models of varying sizes.<n>We show that human ratings on our benchmark exhibit high inter-annotator agreement and reflect the expected trend.<n>Second, we show that auto-evaluation with a panel of LLM judges (LLMs-as-a-jury) often suffices to obtain consistent ratings for the evaluation of text simplification.
• Score: 13.381644813030725
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite the successes of language models, their evaluation remains a daunting challenge for new and existing tasks. We consider the task of text simplification, commonly used to improve information accessibility, where evaluation faces two major challenges. First, the data in existing benchmarks might not reflect the capabilities of current language models on the task, often containing disfluent, incoherent, or simplistic examples. Second, existing human ratings associated with the benchmarks often contain a high degree of disagreement, resulting in inconsistent ratings; nevertheless, existing metrics still have to show higher correlations with these imperfect ratings. As a result, evaluation for the task is not reliable and does not reflect expected trends (e.g., more powerful models being assigned higher scores). We address these challenges for the task of text simplification through three contributions. First, we introduce SynthSimpliEval, a synthetic benchmark for text simplification featuring simplified sentences generated by models of varying sizes. Through a pilot study, we show that human ratings on our benchmark exhibit high inter-annotator agreement and reflect the expected trend: larger models produce higher-quality simplifications. Second, we show that auto-evaluation with a panel of LLM judges (LLMs-as-a-jury) often suffices to obtain consistent ratings for the evaluation of text simplification. Third, we demonstrate that existing learnable metrics for text simplification benefit from training on our LLMs-as-a-jury-rated synthetic data, closing the gap with pure LLMs-as-a-jury for evaluation. Overall, through our case study on text simplification, we show that a reliable evaluation requires higher quality test data, which could be obtained through synthetic data and LLMs-as-a-jury ratings.

Related papers

• Evaluate Summarization in Fine-Granularity: Auto Evaluation with LLM [11.995534662701132]
  evaluating summarization accurately and objectively presents significant challenges. Existing methods, such as ROUGE, often yield scores that have low correlation with human judgements. We introduce a novel evaluation methodology and tooling designed to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-27T19:42:25Z)
• Analysing Zero-Shot Readability-Controlled Sentence Simplification [54.09069745799918]
  We investigate how different types of contextual information affect a model's ability to generate sentences with the desired readability.<n>Results show that all tested models struggle to simplify sentences due to models' limitations and characteristics of the source sentences.<n>Our experiments also highlight the need for better automatic evaluation metrics tailored to RCTS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T12:36:25Z)
• Factual Dialogue Summarization via Learning from Large Language Models [35.63037083806503]
  Large language model (LLM)-based automatic text summarization models generate more factually consistent summaries. We employ zero-shot learning to extract symbolic knowledge from LLMs, generating factually consistent (positive) and inconsistent (negative) summaries. Our approach achieves better factual consistency while maintaining coherence, fluency, and relevance, as confirmed by various automatic evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T20:03:37Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• An In-depth Evaluation of Large Language Models in Sentence Simplification with Error-based Human Assessment [9.156064716689833]
  This study provides in-depth insights into LLMs' performance while ensuring the reliability of the evaluation.<n>We select both closed-source and open-source LLMs, including GPT-4, Qwen2.5-72B, and Llama-3.2-3B.<n>Results show that GPT-4 generally generates fewer erroneous simplification outputs compared to the current state-of-the-art.<n>However, LLMs have their limitations, as seen in GPT-4's and Qwen2.5-72B's struggle with lexical paraphrasing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T00:19:24Z)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• Simplicity Level Estimate (SLE): A Learned Reference-Less Metric for Sentence Simplification [8.479659578608233]
  We propose a new learned evaluation metric (SLE) for sentence simplification. SLE focuses on simplicity, outperforming almost all existing metrics in terms of correlation with human judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T09:49:10Z)
• DecompEval: Evaluating Generated Texts as Unsupervised Decomposed Question Answering [95.89707479748161]
  Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. We propose a metric called DecompEval that formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task. We decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T16:16:51Z)
• Factually Consistent Summarization via Reinforcement Learning with Textual Entailment Feedback [57.816210168909286]
  We leverage recent progress on textual entailment models to address this problem for abstractive summarization systems. We use reinforcement learning with reference-free, textual entailment rewards to optimize for factual consistency. Our results, according to both automatic metrics and human evaluation, show that our method considerably improves the faithfulness, salience, and conciseness of the generated summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T21:04:04Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  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. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)

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.