Assisting Research Proposal Writing with Large Language Models: Evaluation and Refinement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09709v1
• Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 10:24:28 GMT
• Title: Assisting Research Proposal Writing with Large Language Models: Evaluation and Refinement
• Authors: Jing Ren, Weiqi Wang,
• Abstract summary: We propose two key evaluation metrics--content quality and reference validity--and an iterative prompting method based on the scores derived from these two metrics.<n>Our experiments show that the proposed metrics provide an objective, quantitative framework for assessing ChatGPT's writing performance.
• Score: 12.13985600260574
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are increasingly used in academic writing, yet issues such as incorrect or fabricated references raise ethical concerns. Moreover, current content quality evaluations often rely on subjective human judgment, which is labor-intensive and lacks objectivity, potentially compromising the consistency and reliability. In this study, to provide a quantitative evaluation and enhance research proposal writing capabilities of LLMs, we propose two key evaluation metrics--content quality and reference validity--and an iterative prompting method based on the scores derived from these two metrics. Our extensive experiments show that the proposed metrics provide an objective, quantitative framework for assessing ChatGPT's writing performance. Additionally, iterative prompting significantly enhances content quality while reducing reference inaccuracies and fabrications, addressing critical ethical challenges in academic contexts.

Related papers

• Reward Modeling for Scientific Writing Evaluation [50.33952894976367]
  It is critical to develop models that can be reliably deployed for evaluating diverse open-ended scientific writing tasks.<n>We propose cost-efficient, open-source reward models tailored for scientific writing evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T15:32:58Z)
• The illusion of a perfect metric: Why evaluating AI's words is harder than it looks [0.0]
  Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI.<n>Human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, but it is expensive and lacks scalability.<n>No single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T13:22:41Z)
• Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback [81.0031690510116]
  We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages.<n>Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews.<n> Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:18:37Z)
• Objective Metrics for Evaluating Large Language Models Using External Data Sources [4.574672973076743]
  This paper proposes a framework for leveraging subjective metrics derived from the class textual materials across different semesters.<n>The framework emphasizes automation and transparency in scoring, reducing reliance on human interpretation.<n>This method addresses the limitations of subjective evaluation methods, providing a scalable solution for performance assessment in educational, scientific, and other high-stakes domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T02:24:19Z)
• DeepCRCEval: Revisiting the Evaluation of Code Review Comment Generation [11.010557279355885]
  This study empirically analyzes benchmark comments using a novel set of criteria informed by prior research and developer interviews.<n>Our evaluation framework, DeepCRCEval, integrates human evaluators and Large Language Models (LLMs) for a comprehensive reassessment of current techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T08:53:54Z)
• Optimizing the role of human evaluation in LLM-based spoken document summarization systems [0.0]
  We propose an evaluation paradigm for spoken document summarization explicitly tailored for generative AI content. We provide detailed evaluation criteria and best practices guidelines to ensure robustness in the experimental design, replicability, and trustworthiness of human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-23T18:37:14Z)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
  We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z)
• Exploring the Use of Large Language Models for Reference-Free Text Quality Evaluation: An Empirical Study [63.27346930921658]
  ChatGPT is capable of evaluating text quality effectively from various perspectives without reference. The Explicit Score, which utilizes ChatGPT to generate a numeric score measuring text quality, is the most effective and reliable method among the three exploited approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-03T05:29:58Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating and Improving Factuality in Multimodal Abstractive Summarization [91.46015013816083]
  We propose CLIPBERTScore to leverage the robustness and strong factuality detection performance between image-summary and document-summary. We show that this simple combination of two metrics in the zero-shot achieves higher correlations than existing factuality metrics for document summarization. Our analysis demonstrates the robustness and high correlation of CLIPBERTScore and its components on four factuality metric-evaluation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-04T16:50:40Z)
• 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)

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.