Statistical Multicriteria Evaluation of LLM-Generated Text

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18082v2
• Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 07:59:45 GMT
• Title: Statistical Multicriteria Evaluation of LLM-Generated Text
• Authors: Esteban Garces Arias, Hannah Blocher, Julian Rodemann, Matthias Aßenmacher, Christoph Jansen,
• Abstract summary: We adapt a recently proposed framework for statistical inference based on Generalized Dominance (GSD)<n>GSD addresses the inadequacy of single-metric evaluation, the incompatibility between cardinal automatic metrics and ordinal human judgments, and the lack of inferential statistical guarantees.<n>By applying this framework to evaluate common decoding strategies against human-generated text, we demonstrate its ability to identify statistically significant performance differences.
• Score: 0.20971479389679337
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Assessing the quality of LLM-generated text remains a fundamental challenge in natural language processing. Current evaluation approaches often rely on isolated metrics or simplistic aggregations that fail to capture the nuanced trade-offs between coherence, diversity, fluency, and other relevant indicators of text quality. In this work, we adapt a recently proposed framework for statistical inference based on Generalized Stochastic Dominance (GSD) that addresses three critical limitations in existing benchmarking methodologies: the inadequacy of single-metric evaluation, the incompatibility between cardinal automatic metrics and ordinal human judgments, and the lack of inferential statistical guarantees. The GSD-front approach enables simultaneous evaluation across multiple quality dimensions while respecting their different measurement scales, building upon partial orders of decoding strategies, thus avoiding arbitrary weighting of the involved metrics. By applying this framework to evaluate common decoding strategies against human-generated text, we demonstrate its ability to identify statistically significant performance differences while accounting for potential deviations from the i.i.d. assumption of the sampling design.

Related papers

• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• Can We Trust the Performance Evaluation of Uncertainty Estimation Methods in Text Summarization? [28.30641958347868]
  We introduce a comprehensive UE-TS benchmark incorporating 31 NLG metrics across four dimensions. The benchmark evaluates the uncertainty estimation capabilities of two large language models and one pre-trained language model on three datasets. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering multiple uncorrelated NLG metrics and diverse uncertainty estimation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T04:41:17Z)
• 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)
• Learning Evaluation Models from Large Language Models for Sequence Generation [61.8421748792555]
  We propose a three-stage evaluation model training method that utilizes large language models to generate labeled data for model-based metric development.<n> Experimental results on the SummEval benchmark demonstrate that CSEM can effectively train an evaluation model without human-labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T16:41:16Z)
• Social Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for NLG [53.76118154594404]
  We propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics. We construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T08:55:26Z)
• 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)
• Differential privacy and robust statistics in high dimensions [49.50869296871643]
  High-dimensional Propose-Test-Release (HPTR) builds upon three crucial components: the exponential mechanism, robust statistics, and the Propose-Test-Release mechanism. We show that HPTR nearly achieves the optimal sample complexity under several scenarios studied in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-12T06:36:40Z)
• A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methods [60.04142561088524]
  We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in how reliable automatic metrics truly are. Although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do in some evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-31T18:28:14Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)
• GenDICE: Generalized Offline Estimation of Stationary Values [108.17309783125398]
  We show that effective estimation can still be achieved in important applications. Our approach is based on estimating a ratio that corrects for the discrepancy between the stationary and empirical distributions. The resulting algorithm, GenDICE, is straightforward and effective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-21T00:27:52Z)

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.