Are Checklists Really Useful for Automatic Evaluation of Generative Tasks?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.15218v1
• Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 04:07:45 GMT
• Title: Are Checklists Really Useful for Automatic Evaluation of Generative Tasks?
• Authors: Momoka Furuhashi, Kouta Nakayama, Takashi Kodama, Saku Sugawara,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether checklists should be used for all questions or selectively, generate them using six methods, evaluate their effectiveness across eight model sizes, and identify checklist items that correlate with human evaluations.<n>Our analysis shows that even checklist items with low correlation to human scores often reflect human-written criteria, indicating potential inconsistencies in human evaluation.<n>These findings highlight the need to more clearly define objective evaluation criteria to guide both human and automatic evaluations.
• Score: 11.809285587111983
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatic evaluation of generative tasks using large language models faces challenges due to ambiguous criteria. Although automatic checklist generation is a potentially promising approach, its usefulness remains underexplored. We investigate whether checklists should be used for all questions or selectively, generate them using six methods, evaluate their effectiveness across eight model sizes, and identify checklist items that correlate with human evaluations. Through experiments on pairwise comparison and direct scoring tasks, we find that selective checklist use tends to improve evaluation performance in pairwise settings, while its benefits are less consistent in direct scoring. Our analysis also shows that even checklist items with low correlation to human scores often reflect human-written criteria, indicating potential inconsistencies in human evaluation. These findings highlight the need to more clearly define objective evaluation criteria to guide both human and automatic evaluations. \footnote{Our code is available at~https://github.com/momo0817/checklist-effectiveness-study

Related papers

• LINKAGE: Listwise Ranking among Varied-Quality References for Non-Factoid QA Evaluation via LLMs [61.57691505683534]
  Non-Factoid (NF) Question Answering (QA) is challenging to evaluate due to diverse potential answers and no objective criterion. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been resorted to for NFQA evaluation due to their compelling performance on various NLP tasks. We propose a novel listwise NFQA evaluation approach, that utilizes LLMs to rank candidate answers in a list of reference answers sorted by descending quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T06:42:21Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• 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)
• How Reliable Are Automatic Evaluation Methods for Instruction-Tuned LLMs? [3.1706553206969925]
  We perform a meta-evaluation of such methods and assess their reliability across a broad range of tasks. We observe that while automatic evaluation methods can approximate human ratings under specific conditions, their validity is highly context-dependent. Our findings enhance the understanding of how automatic methods should be applied and interpreted when developing and evaluating instruction-tuned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T15:48:33Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Is Summary Useful or Not? An Extrinsic Human Evaluation of Text Summaries on Downstream Tasks [45.550554287918885]
  This paper focuses on evaluating the usefulness of text summaries with extrinsic methods. We design three different downstream tasks for extrinsic human evaluation of summaries, i.e., question answering, text classification and text similarity assessment. We find summaries are particularly useful in tasks that rely on an overall judgment of the text, while being less effective for question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:34:39Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)
• Perturbation CheckLists for Evaluating NLG Evaluation Metrics [16.20764980129339]
  Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation is a multifaceted task requiring assessment of multiple desirable criteria. Across existing datasets for 6 NLG tasks, we observe that the human evaluation scores on these multiple criteria are often not correlated. This suggests that the current recipe of proposing new automatic evaluation metrics for NLG is inadequate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T08:26:26Z)

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.