What Matters in Evaluating Book-Length Stories? A Systematic Study of Long Story Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12839v1
• Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2025 20:53:29 GMT
• Title: What Matters in Evaluating Book-Length Stories? A Systematic Study of Long Story Evaluation
• Authors: Dingyi Yang, Qin Jin,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the first large-scale benchmark, LongStoryEval, comprising 600 newly published books with an average length of 121K tokens (maximum 397K)<n>By analyzing all user-mentioned aspects, we propose an evaluation criteria structure and conduct experiments to identify the most significant aspects.<n>For evaluation methods, we compare the effectiveness of three types: aggregation-based, incremental-updated, and summary-based evaluations.
• Score: 59.626962970198434
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In this work, we conduct systematic research in a challenging area: the automatic evaluation of book-length stories (>100K tokens). Our study focuses on two key questions: (1) understanding which evaluation aspects matter most to readers, and (2) exploring effective methods for evaluating lengthy stories. We introduce the first large-scale benchmark, LongStoryEval, comprising 600 newly published books with an average length of 121K tokens (maximum 397K). Each book includes its average rating and multiple reader reviews, presented as critiques organized by evaluation aspects. By analyzing all user-mentioned aspects, we propose an evaluation criteria structure and conduct experiments to identify the most significant aspects among the 8 top-level criteria. For evaluation methods, we compare the effectiveness of three types: aggregation-based, incremental-updated, and summary-based evaluations. Our findings reveal that aggregation- and summary-based evaluations perform better, with the former excelling in detail assessment and the latter offering greater efficiency. Building on these insights, we further propose NovelCritique, an 8B model that leverages the efficient summary-based framework to review and score stories across specified aspects. NovelCritique outperforms commercial models like GPT-4o in aligning with human evaluations. Our datasets and codes are available at https://github.com/DingyiYang/LongStoryEval.

Related papers

• 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)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• What Makes a Good Story and How Can We Measure It? A Comprehensive Survey of Story Evaluation [57.550045763103334]
  evaluating a story can be more challenging than other generation evaluation tasks. We first summarize existing storytelling tasks, including text-to-text, visual-to-text, and text-to-visual. We propose a taxonomy to organize evaluation metrics that have been developed or can be adopted for story evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-26T20:35:42Z)
• On the Evaluation Consistency of Attribution-based Explanations [42.1421504321572]
  We introduce Meta-Rank, an open platform for benchmarking attribution methods in the image domain. Our benchmark reveals three insights in attribution evaluation endeavors: 1) evaluating attribution methods under disparate settings can yield divergent performance rankings; 2) although inconsistent across numerous cases, the performance rankings exhibit remarkable consistency across distinct checkpoints along the same training trajectory; and 3) prior attempts at consistent evaluation fare no better than baselines when extended to more heterogeneous models and datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-28T11:49:06Z)
• GLIMPSE: Pragmatically Informative Multi-Document Summarization for Scholarly Reviews [25.291384842659397]
  We introduce sys, a summarization method designed to offer a concise yet comprehensive overview of scholarly reviews. Unlike traditional consensus-based methods, sys extracts both common and unique opinions from the reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T15:27:01Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• The Critique of Critique [45.40025444461465]
  We pioneer the critique of critique, termed MetaCritique, which builds specific quantification criteria. We construct a meta-evaluation dataset covering 4 tasks involving human-written and LLM-generated critiques. Experiments demonstrate that MetaCritique can achieve near-human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T12:20:41Z)
• LLMEval: A Preliminary Study on How to Evaluate Large Language Models [47.12588320134504]
  We analyze evaluation methods by comparing various criteria with both manual and automatic evaluation, utilizing onsite, crowd-sourcing, public annotators and GPT-4. A total of 2,186 individuals participated, leading to the generation of 243,337 manual annotations and 57,511 automatic evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T16:14:43Z)
• Towards Personalized Review Summarization by Modeling Historical Reviews from Customer and Product Separately [59.61932899841944]
  Review summarization is a non-trivial task that aims to summarize the main idea of the product review in the E-commerce website. We propose the Heterogeneous Historical Review aware Review Summarization Model (HHRRS) We employ a multi-task framework that conducts the review sentiment classification and summarization jointly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T12:32:55Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
• Human Evaluation of Creative NLG Systems: An Interdisciplinary Survey on Recent Papers [0.685316573653194]
  We survey human evaluation in papers presenting work on creative natural language generation. The most typical human evaluation method is a scaled survey, typically on a 5 point scale. The most commonly evaluated parameters are meaning, syntactic correctness, novelty, relevance and emotional value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-31T18:54:30Z)

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.