LLMs Are Not Scorers: Rethinking MT Evaluation with Generation-Based Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16129v1
• Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 02:14:38 GMT
• Title: LLMs Are Not Scorers: Rethinking MT Evaluation with Generation-Based Methods
• Authors: Hyang Cui,
• Abstract summary: We propose a generation-based evaluation paradigm that leverages decoder-only language models to produce high-quality references.<n> Empirical results show that our method outperforms both intra-LLM direct scoring baselines and external non-LLM reference-free metrics from MTME.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent studies have applied large language models (LLMs) to machine translation quality estimation (MTQE) by prompting models to assign numeric scores. Nonetheless, these direct scoring methods tend to show low segment-level correlation with human judgments. In this paper, we propose a generation-based evaluation paradigm that leverages decoder-only LLMs to produce high-quality references, followed by semantic similarity scoring using sentence embeddings. We conduct the most extensive evaluation to date in MTQE, covering 8 LLMs and 8 language pairs. Empirical results show that our method outperforms both intra-LLM direct scoring baselines and external non-LLM reference-free metrics from MTME. These findings demonstrate the strength of generation-based evaluation and support a shift toward hybrid approaches that combine fluent generation with accurate semantic assessment.

Related papers

• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks.<n>We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization [0.5512295869673147]
  This paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. Our results show that LLMs evaluation aligns closely with human evaluation, while widely-used automatic metrics such as ROUGE-2, BERTScore, and SummaC do not and also lack consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T16:12:37Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• 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)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language.<n>LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.<n>We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• GenCeption: Evaluate Vision LLMs with Unlabeled Unimodal Data [3.08543976986593]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are typically assessed using expensive annotated multimodal benchmarks.<n>This paper outlines and validates GenCeption, a novel, annotation-free evaluation method.<n>It requires only unimodal data to measure inter-modality semantic coherence and inversely assesses MLLMs' tendency to hallucinate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T21:22:04Z)
• SemScore: Automated Evaluation of Instruction-Tuned LLMs based on Semantic Textual Similarity [3.3162484539136416]
  We propose a simple but remarkably effective evaluation metric called SemScore. We compare model outputs to gold target responses using semantic textual similarity (STS) We find that our proposed SemScore metric outperforms all other, in many cases more complex, evaluation metrics in terms of correlation to human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T14:52:50Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Open-Domain Text Evaluation via Contrastive Distribution Methods [75.59039812868681]
  We introduce a novel method for evaluating open-domain text generation called Contrastive Distribution Methods. Our experiments on coherence evaluation for multi-turn dialogue and commonsense evaluation for controllable generation demonstrate CDM's superior correlate with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T20:37:54Z)
• Not All Metrics Are Guilty: Improving NLG Evaluation by Diversifying References [123.39034752499076]
  Div-Ref is a method to enhance evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references. We conduct experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:53:29Z)
• 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)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)

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.