HoWToBench: Holistic Evaluation for LLM's Capability in Human-level Writing using Tree of Writing
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19071v1
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 04:26:39 GMT
- Title: HoWToBench: Holistic Evaluation for LLM's Capability in Human-level Writing using Tree of Writing
- Abstract summary: We propose Tree-of-Writing (ToW) to resolve the implicit inconsistency often found when LLM-as-a-judge aggregates all sub-features in text evaluation.<n>We also present HowToBench, a large-scale Chinese writing benchmark encompassing 12 genres and 1302 instructions across three task categories.
- Score: 84.84959282480641
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Evaluating the writing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge due to the multidimensional nature of writing skills and the limitations of existing metrics. LLM's performance in thousand-words level and open-ended writing is inadequately assessed by traditional reference-based metrics or modern LLM-as-a-judge methods. We propose Tree-of-Writing (ToW), to resolve the implicit inconsistency often found when LLM-as-a-judge aggregates all sub-features in text evaluation. ToW incorporates a tree-structured workflow by explicitly modeling the aggregation weights of sub-features. We also present HowToBench, a large-scale Chinese writing benchmark encompassing 12 genres and 1302 instructions across three task categories: contextual completion, outline-guided writing, and open-ended generation. ToW successfully mitigates the biases, achieving a 0.93 Pearson correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, we detect that both overlap-based text generation metrics and popular LLM-as-a-judge practices are vulnerable to textual disturbances, while ToW is robust to them. We also uncover a negative correlation between input length and content-related scores in the Guide task, showcasing that it cannot be simply improved by input-side information piling.
Related papers
- LLMs as annotators of credibility assessment in Danish asylum decisions: evaluating classification performance and errors beyond aggregated metrics [21.604030114864642]
Off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate text annotation.<n>We introduce RAB-Cred, a Danish text classification dataset featuring high-quality, expert annotations and valuable metadata.<n>We benchmark 21 open-weight models and 30 system-user prompt combinations for this task, and systematically evaluate the effect of model and prompt choice for zero-shot and few-shot classification.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-13T12:07:47Z) - Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models [54.26923012617675]
We unveil and study idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that fine-tuning text embedding models on LLM-generated texts yields excellent classification accuracy.<n>We leverage LLM as judges to generate detailed, open-ended descriptions of each model's idiosyncrasies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-17T18:59:02Z) - Graph-DPEP: Decomposed Plug and Ensemble Play for Few-Shot Document Relation Extraction with Graph-of-Thoughts Reasoning [34.85741925091139]
Graph-DPEP framework is grounded in the reasoning behind triplet explanation thoughts presented in natural language.
We develop "ensemble-play", reapplying generation on the entire type list by leveraging the reasoning thoughts embedded in a sub-graph.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-05T07:12:36Z) - FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMs [22.62504593575933]
FineSurE is a fine-grained evaluator specifically tailored for the summarization task using large language models (LLMs)
It also employs completeness and conciseness criteria, in addition to faithfulness, enabling multi-dimensional assessment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-01T02:20:28Z) - WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs)
In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia.
We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z) - 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) - CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large
Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale.
Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z) - BooookScore: A systematic exploration of book-length summarization in the era of LLMs [53.42917858142565]
We develop an automatic metric, BooookScore, that measures the proportion of sentences in a summary that do not contain any of the identified error types.
We find that closed-source LLMs such as GPT-4 and 2 produce summaries with higher BooookScore than those generated by open-source models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-01T20:46:44Z)
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.