Evaluating Large Language Models for Abstract Evaluation Tasks: An Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19925v1
• Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 15:21:17 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Large Language Models for Abstract Evaluation Tasks: An Empirical Study
• Authors: Yinuo Liu, Emre Sezgin, Eric A. Youngstrom,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can process requests and generate texts, but their feasibility for assessing academic content needs further investigation.<n>This study examined ChatGPT-5, Gemini-3-Pro, and Claude-Sonnet-4.5's consistency and reliability in evaluating abstracts compared to one another and to human reviewers.
• Score: 1.412242138378466
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Introduction: Large language models (LLMs) can process requests and generate texts, but their feasibility for assessing complex academic content needs further investigation. To explore LLM's potential in assisting scientific review, this study examined ChatGPT-5, Gemini-3-Pro, and Claude-Sonnet-4.5's consistency and reliability in evaluating abstracts compared to one another and to human reviewers. Methods: 160 abstracts from a local conference were graded by human reviewers and three LLMs using one rubric. Composite score distributions across three LLMs and fourteen reviewers were examined. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for within-AI reliability and AI-human concordance. Bland-Altman plots were examined for visual agreement patterns and systematic bias. Results: LLMs achieved good-to-excellent agreement with each other (ICCs: 0.59-0.87). ChatGPT and Claude reached moderate agreement with human reviewers on overall quality and content-specific criteria, with ICCs ~.45-.60 for composite, impression, clarity, objective, and results. They exhibited fair agreement on subjective dimensions, with ICC ranging from 0.23-0.38 for impact, engagement, and applicability. Gemini showed fair agreement on half criteria and no reliability on impact and applicability. Three LLMs showed acceptable or negligible mean difference (ChatGPT=0.24, Gemini=0.42, Claude=-0.02) from the human mean composite scores. Discussion: LLMs could process abstracts in batches with moderate agreement with human experts on overall quality and objective criteria. With appropriate process architecture, they can apply a rubric consistently across volumes of abstracts exceeding feasibility for a human rater. The weaker performance on subjective dimensions indicates that AI should serve a complementary role in evaluation, while human expertise remains essential.

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)
• Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Large Language Models for Automated Assessment of Student Essays in Higher Education [0.30158609733245967]
  Five advanced Large Language Models (LLMs), Claude 3.5, DeepSeek v2, Gemini 2.5, GPT-4, and Mistral 24B, were investigated for automated essay scoring in a higher education context.<n>A total of 67 Italian-language student essays were evaluated using a four-criterion rubric.<n>Human-LLM agreement was consistently low and non-significant, and within-model reliability across replications was similarly weak.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T14:02:12Z)
• Exploring LLM Autoscoring Reliability in Large-Scale Writing Assessments Using Generalizability Theory [2.5163150839708948]
  This study investigates the estimation of reliability for large language models (LLMs) in scoring writing tasks from the AP Chinese Language and Culture exam.<n>Using generalizability theory, the research evaluates and compares score consistency between human and AI raters.<n> Composite scoring that incorporates both human and AI raters improved reliability, which supports that hybrid scoring models may offer benefits for large-scale writing assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-26T15:33:05Z)
• Benchmarking Generative AI for Scoring Medical Student Interviews in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) [0.5434005537854512]
  This study explored the potential of large language models (LLMs) to automate OSCE evaluations using the Master Interview Rating Scale (MIRS)<n>We compared the performance of four state-of-the-art LLMs in evaluating OSCE transcripts across all 28 items of the MIRS under the conditions of zero-shot, chain-of-thought (CoT), few-shot, and multi-step prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T04:05:45Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models Against Human Annotators in Latent Content Analysis: Sentiment, Political Leaning, Emotional Intensity, and Sarcasm [0.3141085922386211]
  This study evaluates the reliability, consistency, and quality of seven state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>A total of 33 human annotators and eight LLM variants assessed 100 curated textual items.<n>Results reveal that both humans and LLMs exhibit high reliability in sentiment analysis and political leaning assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-05T13:28:15Z)
• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• Large Language Models as Partners in Student Essay Evaluation [5.479797073162603]
  This paper presents an evaluation conducted with Large Language Models (LLMs) using actual student essays in three scenarios. Quantitative analysis of the results revealed a strong correlation between LLM and faculty member assessments in the pairwise comparison scenario with pre-specified rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:28:50Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• 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)

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.