Real-World Summarization: When Evaluation Reaches Its Limits

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11508v1
• Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:23:56 GMT
• Title: Real-World Summarization: When Evaluation Reaches Its Limits
• Authors: Patrícia Schmidtová, Ondřej Dušek, Saad Mahamood,
• Abstract summary: We compare traditional metrics, trainable methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches.<n>Our findings reveal that simpler metrics like word overlap surprisingly well with human judgments.<n>Our analysis of real-world business impacts shows incorrect and non-checkable information pose the greatest risks.
• Score: 1.4197924572122094
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We examine evaluation of faithfulness to input data in the context of hotel highlights: brief LLM-generated summaries that capture unique features of accommodations. Through human evaluation campaigns involving categorical error assessment and span-level annotation, we compare traditional metrics, trainable methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Our findings reveal that simpler metrics like word overlap correlate surprisingly well with human judgments (Spearman correlation rank of 0.63), often outperforming more complex methods when applied to out-of-domain data. We further demonstrate that while LLMs can generate high-quality highlights, they prove unreliable for evaluation as they tend to severely under- or over-annotate. Our analysis of real-world business impacts shows incorrect and non-checkable information pose the greatest risks. We also highlight challenges in crowdsourced evaluations.

Related papers

• Reliable Annotations with Less Effort: Evaluating LLM-Human Collaboration in Search Clarifications [21.698669254520475]
  This study focuses on annotation for the search clarification task, leveraging a high-quality, multi-dimensional dataset.<n>We show that even state-of-the-art models struggle to replicate human-level performance in subjective or fine-grained evaluation tasks.<n>We propose a simple yet effective human-in-the-loop (HITL) workflow that uses confidence thresholds and inter-model disagreement to selectively involve human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T08:04:58Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.<n>We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.<n>We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.