Monocle: Hybrid Local-Global In-Context Evaluation for Long-Text Generation with Uncertainty-Based Active Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20195v2
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 02:19:36 GMT
• Title: Monocle: Hybrid Local-Global In-Context Evaluation for Long-Text Generation with Uncertainty-Based Active Learning
• Authors: Xiaorong Wang, Ting Yang, Zhu Zhang, Shuo Wang, Zihan Zhou, Liner Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun,
• Abstract summary: Divide-and-conquer approach breaks comprehensive evaluation task into localized scoring tasks, followed by a final global assessment.<n>We introduce a hybrid in-context learning approach that leverages human annotations to enhance the performance of both local and global evaluations.<n>Finally, we develop an uncertainty-based active learning algorithm that efficiently selects data samples for human annotation.
• Score: 63.531262595858
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Assessing the quality of long-form, model-generated text is challenging, even with advanced LLM-as-a-Judge methods, due to performance degradation as input length increases. To address this issue, we propose a divide-and-conquer approach, which breaks down the comprehensive evaluation task into a series of localized scoring tasks, followed by a final global assessment. This strategy allows for more granular and manageable evaluations, ensuring that each segment of the text is assessed in isolation for both coherence and quality, while also accounting for the overall structure and consistency of the entire piece. Moreover, we introduce a hybrid in-context learning approach that leverages human annotations to enhance the performance of both local and global evaluations. By incorporating human-generated feedback directly into the evaluation process, this method allows the model to better align with human judgment. Finally, we develop an uncertainty-based active learning algorithm that efficiently selects data samples for human annotation, thereby reducing annotation costs in practical scenarios. Experimental results show that the proposed evaluation framework outperforms several representative baselines, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach.

Related papers

• Adapting Vision-Language Models for Evaluating World Models [24.813041196394582]
  We present UNIVERSE, a method for adapting Vision-language Evaluator for Rollouts in Simulated Environments under data and compute constraints.<n>We conduct a large-scale study comparing full, partial, and parameter-efficient finetuning across task formats, context lengths, sampling strategies, and data compositions.<n>The resulting unified evaluator matches the performance of task-specific baselines using a single checkpoint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T09:53:28Z)
• PanguIR Technical Report for NTCIR-18 AEOLLM Task [12.061652026366591]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly critical and challenging to evaluate.<n>Manual evaluation, while comprehensive, is often costly and resource-intensive.<n>automatic evaluation offers greater scalability but is constrained by the limitations of its evaluation criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T07:40:02Z)
• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics.<n>SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric.<n>We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• 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)
• MATEval: A Multi-Agent Discussion Framework for Advancing Open-Ended Text Evaluation [22.19073789961769]
  generative Large Language Models (LLMs) have been remarkable, however, the quality of the text generated by these models often reveals persistent issues. We propose the MATEval: A "Multi-Agent Text Evaluation framework" Our framework incorporates self-reflection and Chain-of-Thought strategies, along with feedback mechanisms, to enhance the depth and breadth of the evaluation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T10:41:47Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Text Summarization with In-Context Learning [79.02280189976562]
  In this paper, we study the efficacy of large language models as multi-dimensional evaluators using in-context learning. Our experiments show that in-context learning-based evaluators are competitive with learned evaluation frameworks for the task of text summarization. We then analyze the effects of factors such as the selection and number of in-context examples on performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T23:27:49Z)
• 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)
• Human-in-the-loop Abstractive Dialogue Summarization [61.4108097664697]
  We propose to incorporate different levels of human feedback into the training process. This will enable us to guide the models to capture the behaviors humans care about for summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T19:11:27Z)
• 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.