Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential as evaluators of NLG systems, allowing for high-quality, reference-free, and multi-aspect assessments. However, existing LLM-based metrics suffer from two major drawbacks: reliance on proprietary models to generate training data or perform evaluations, and a lack of fine-grained, explanatory feedback. In this paper, we introduce OpeNLGauge, a fully open-source, reference-free NLG evaluation metric that provides accurate explanations based on error spans. OpeNLGauge is available as a two-stage ensemble of larger open-weight LLMs, or as a small fine-tuned evaluation model, with confirmed generalizability to unseen tasks, domains and aspects. Our extensive meta-evaluation shows that OpeNLGauge achieves competitive correlation with human judgments, outperforming state-of-the-art models on certain tasks while maintaining full reproducibility and providing explanations more than twice as accurate.
The correlation between NLG automatic evaluation metrics and human evaluation is often regarded as a critical criterion for assessing the capability of an evaluation metric. However, different grouping methods and correlation coefficients result in various types of correlation measures used in meta-evaluation. In specific evaluation scenarios, prior work often directly follows conventional measure settings, but the characteristics and differences between these measures have not gotten sufficient attention. Therefore, this paper analyzes 12 common correlation measures using a large amount of real-world data from six widely-used NLG evaluation datasets and 32 evaluation metrics, revealing that different measures indeed impact the meta-evaluation results. Furthermore, we propose three perspectives that reflect the capability of meta-evaluation: discriminative power, ranking consistency, and sensitivity to score granularity. We find that the measure using global grouping and Pearson correlation coefficient exhibits the best performance in both discriminative power and ranking consistency. Besides, the measures using system-level grouping or Kendall correlation are the least sensitive to score granularity.
The evaluation of natural language generation (NLG) tasks is a significant and longstanding research area. With the recent emergence of powerful large language models (LLMs), some studies have turned to LLM-based automatic evaluation methods, which demonstrate great potential to become a new evaluation paradigm following traditional string-based and model-based metrics. However, despite the improved performance of existing methods, they still possess some deficiencies, such as dependency on references and limited evaluation flexibility. Therefore, in this paper, we meticulously construct a large-scale NLG evaluation corpus NLG-Eval with annotations from both human and GPT-4 to alleviate the lack of relevant data in this field. Furthermore, we propose Themis, an LLM dedicated to NLG evaluation, which has been trained with our designed multi-perspective consistency verification and rating-oriented preference alignment methods. Themis can conduct flexible and interpretable evaluations without references, and it exhibits superior evaluation performance on various NLG tasks, simultaneously generalizing well to unseen tasks and surpassing other evaluation models, including GPT-4.
Human evaluation is viewed as a reliable evaluation method for NLG which is expensive and time-consuming. To save labor and costs, researchers usually perform human evaluation on a small subset of data sampled from the whole dataset in practice. However, different selection subsets will lead to different rankings of the systems. To give a more correct inter-system ranking and make the gold standard human evaluation more reliable, we propose a Constrained Active Sampling Framework (CASF) for reliable human judgment. CASF operates through a Learner, a Systematic Sampler and a Constrained Controller to select representative samples for getting a more correct inter-system ranking.Experiment results on 137 real NLG evaluation setups with 44 human evaluation metrics across 16 datasets and 5 NLG tasks demonstrate CASF receives 93.18% top-ranked system recognition accuracy and ranks first or ranks second on 90.91% of the human metrics with 0.83 overall inter-system ranking Kendall correlation.Code and data are publicly available online.
Human evaluation serves as the gold standard for assessing the quality of Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems. Nevertheless, the evaluation guideline, as a pivotal element ensuring reliable and reproducible human assessment, has received limited attention.Our investigation revealed that only 29.84% of recent papers involving human evaluation at top conferences release their evaluation guidelines, with vulnerabilities identified in 77.09% of these guidelines. Unreliable evaluation guidelines can yield inaccurate assessment outcomes, potentially impeding the advancement of NLG in the right direction. To address these challenges, we take an initial step towards reliable evaluation guidelines and propose the first human evaluation guideline dataset by collecting annotations of guidelines extracted from existing papers as well as generated via Large Language Models (LLMs). We then introduce a taxonomy of eight vulnerabilities and formulate a principle for composing evaluation guidelines. Furthermore, a method for detecting guideline vulnerabilities has been explored using LLMs, and we offer a set of recommendations to enhance reliability in human evaluation. The annotated human evaluation guideline dataset and code for the vulnerability detection method are publicly available online.
The automatic evaluation of natural language generation (NLG) systems presents a long-lasting challenge. Recent studies have highlighted various neural metrics that align well with human evaluations. Yet, the robustness of these evaluators against adversarial perturbations remains largely under-explored due to the unique challenges in obtaining adversarial data for different NLG evaluation tasks. To address the problem, we introduce AdvEval, a novel black-box adversarial framework against NLG evaluators. AdvEval is specially tailored to generate data that yield strong disagreements between human and victim evaluators. Specifically, inspired by the recent success of large language models (LLMs) in text generation and evaluation, we adopt strong LLMs as both the data generator and gold evaluator. Adversarial data are automatically optimized with feedback from the gold and victim evaluator. We conduct experiments on 12 victim evaluators and 11 NLG datasets, spanning tasks including dialogue, summarization, and question evaluation. The results show that AdvEval can lead to significant performance degradation of various victim metrics, thereby validating its efficacy.
As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent's responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil's Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents' arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent's answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.
Evaluation of opinion summaries using conventional reference-based metrics rarely provides a holistic evaluation and has been shown to have a relatively low correlation with human judgments. Recent studies suggest using Large Language Models (LLMs) as reference-free metrics for NLG evaluation, however, they remain unexplored for opinion summary evaluation. Moreover, limited opinion summary evaluation datasets inhibit progress. To address this, we release the SUMMEVAL-OP dataset covering 7 dimensions related to the evaluation of opinion summaries: fluency, coherence, relevance, faithfulness, aspect coverage, sentiment consistency, and specificity. We investigate Op-I-Prompt a dimension-independent prompt, and Op-Prompts, a dimension-dependent set of prompts for opinion summary evaluation. Experiments indicate that Op-I-Prompt emerges as a good alternative for evaluating opinion summaries achieving an average Spearman correlation of 0.70 with humans, outperforming all previous approaches. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to investigate LLMs as evaluators on both closed-source and open-source models in the opinion summarization domain.
Some prior work has shown that LLMs perform well in NLG evaluation for different tasks. However, we discover that LLMs seem to confuse different evaluation criteria, which reduces their reliability. For further verification, we first consider avoiding issues of inconsistent conceptualization and vague expression in existing NLG quality criteria themselves. So we summarize a clear hierarchical classification system for 11 common aspects with corresponding different criteria from previous studies involved. Inspired by behavioral testing, we elaborately design 18 types of aspect-targeted perturbation attacks for fine-grained analysis of the evaluation behaviors of different LLMs. We also conduct human annotations beyond the guidance of the classification system to validate the impact of the perturbations. Our experimental results reveal confusion issues inherent in LLMs, as well as other noteworthy phenomena, and necessitate further research and improvements for LLM-based evaluation.
In the rapidly evolving domain of Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation, introducing Large Language Models (LLMs) has opened new avenues for assessing generated content quality, e.g., coherence, creativity, and context relevance. This paper aims to provide a thorough overview of leveraging LLMs for NLG evaluation, a burgeoning area that lacks a systematic analysis. We propose a coherent taxonomy for organizing existing LLM-based evaluation metrics, offering a structured framework to understand and compare these methods. Our detailed exploration includes critically assessing various LLM-based methodologies, as well as comparing their strengths and limitations in evaluating NLG outputs. By discussing unresolved challenges, including bias, robustness, domain-specificity, and unified evaluation, this paper seeks to offer insights to researchers and advocate for fairer and more advanced NLG evaluation techniques.
The evaluation of Natural Language Generation (NLG) models has gained increased attention, urging the development of metrics that evaluate various aspects of generated text. LUNA addresses this challenge by introducing a unified interface for 20 NLG evaluation metrics. These metrics are categorized based on their reference-dependence and the type of text representation they employ, from string-based n-gram overlap to the utilization of static embeddings and pre-trained language models. The straightforward design of LUNA allows for easy extension with novel metrics, requiring just a few lines of code. LUNA offers a user-friendly tool for evaluating generated texts.
N-gram matching-based evaluation metrics, such as BLEU and chrF, are widely utilized across a range of natural language generation (NLG) tasks. However, recent studies have revealed a weak correlation between these matching-based metrics and human evaluations, especially when compared with neural-based metrics like BLEURT. In this paper, we conjecture that the performance bottleneck in matching-based metrics may be caused by the limited diversity of references. To address this issue, we propose to utilize \textit{multiple references} to enhance the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations. Within the WMT Metrics benchmarks, we observe that the multi-references F200spBLEU surpasses the conventional single-reference one by an accuracy improvement of 7.2\%. Remarkably, it also exceeds the neural-based BERTscore by an accuracy enhancement of 3.9\%. Moreover, we observe that the data leakage issue in large language models (LLMs) can be mitigated to a large extent by our multi-reference metric. We release the code and data at \url{https://github.com/SefaZeng/LLM-Ref}
Current developments in large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. An interesting application of these systems is in the automated assessment of natural language generation (NLG), a highly challenging area with great practical benefit. In this paper, we explore two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment: absolute score prediction, and comparative assessment which uses relative comparisons between pairs of candidates. Though comparative assessment has not been extensively studied in NLG assessment, we note that humans often find it more intuitive to compare two options rather than scoring each one independently. This work examines comparative assessment from multiple perspectives: performance compared to absolute grading; positional biases in the prompt; and efficient ranking in terms of the number of comparisons. We illustrate that LLM comparative assessment is a simple, general and effective approach for NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring, and in many cases can achieve performance competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Additionally, we demonstrate that LLMs often exhibit strong positional biases when making pairwise comparisons, and we propose debiasing methods that can further improve performance.
Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. Specifically, most of the well-performed metrics are required to train on evaluation datasets of specific NLG tasks and evaluation dimensions, which may cause over-fitting to task-specific datasets. Furthermore, existing metrics only provide an evaluation score for each dimension without revealing the evidence to interpret how this score is obtained. To deal with these challenges, we propose a simple yet effective metric called DecompEval. This metric formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task and utilizes instruction-tuned pre-trained language models (PLMs) without training on evaluation datasets, aiming to enhance the generalization ability. To make the evaluation process more interpretable, we decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result. Experimental results show that DecompEval achieves state-of-the-art performance in untrained metrics for evaluating text summarization and dialogue generation, which also exhibits strong dimension-level / task-level generalization ability and interpretability.
Most research about natural language generation (NLG) relies on evaluation benchmarks with limited references for a sample, which may result in poor correlations with human judgements. The underlying reason is that one semantic meaning can actually be expressed in different forms, and the evaluation with a single or few references may not accurately reflect the quality of the model's hypotheses. To address this issue, this paper presents a simple and effective method, named Div-Ref, to enhance existing evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references. We leverage large language models (LLMs) to diversify the expression of a single reference into multiple high-quality ones to cover the semantic space of the reference sentence as much as possible. We conduct comprehensive experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation. This idea is compatible with recent LLM-based evaluation which can similarly derive advantages from incorporating multiple references. We strongly encourage future generation benchmarks to include more references, even if they are generated by LLMs, which is once for all. We release all the code and data at https://github.com/RUCAIBox/Div-Ref to facilitate research.
We address a fundamental challenge in Natural Language Generation (NLG) model evaluation -- the design and evaluation of evaluation metrics. Recognizing the limitations of existing automatic metrics and noises from how current human evaluation was conducted, we propose MetricEval, a framework informed by measurement theory, the foundation of educational test design, for conceptualizing and evaluating the reliability and validity of NLG evaluation metrics. The framework formalizes the source of measurement error and offers statistical tools for evaluating evaluation metrics based on empirical data. With our framework, one can quantify the uncertainty of the metrics to better interpret the result. To exemplify the use of our framework in practice, we analyzed a set of evaluation metrics for summarization and identified issues related to conflated validity structure in human-eval and reliability in LLM-based metrics. Through MetricEval, we aim to promote the design, evaluation, and interpretation of valid and reliable metrics to advance robust and effective NLG models.
In this study, we analyze automatic evaluation metrics for Natural Language Generation (NLG), specifically task-agnostic metrics and human-aligned metrics. Task-agnostic metrics, such as Perplexity, BLEU, BERTScore, are cost-effective and highly adaptable to diverse NLG tasks, yet they have a weak correlation with human. Human-aligned metrics (CTC, CtrlEval, UniEval) improves correlation level by incorporating desirable human-like qualities as training objective. However, their effectiveness at discerning system-level performance and quality of system outputs remain unclear. We present metric preference checklist as a framework to assess the effectiveness of automatic metrics in three NLG tasks: Text Summarization, Dialogue Response Generation, and Controlled Generation. Our proposed framework provides access: (i) for verifying whether automatic metrics are faithful to human preference, regardless of their correlation level to human; and (ii) for inspecting the strengths and limitations of NLG systems via pairwise evaluation. We show that automatic metrics provide a better guidance than human on discriminating system-level performance in Text Summarization and Controlled Generation tasks. We also show that multi-aspect human-aligned metric (UniEval) is not necessarily dominant over single-aspect human-aligned metrics (CTC, CtrlEval) and task-agnostic metrics (BLEU, BERTScore), particularly in Controlled Generation tasks.
The quality of texts generated by natural language generation (NLG) systems is hard to measure automatically. Conventional reference-based metrics, such as BLEU and ROUGE, have been shown to have relatively low correlation with human judgments, especially for tasks that require creativity and diversity. Recent studies suggest using large language models (LLMs) as reference-free metrics for NLG evaluation, which have the benefit of being applicable to new tasks that lack human references. However, these LLM-based evaluators still have lower human correspondence than medium-size neural evaluators. In this work, we present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm, to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We experiment with two generation tasks, text summarization and dialogue generation. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin. We also propose preliminary analysis on the behavior of LLM-based evaluators, and highlight the potential issue of LLM-based evaluators having a bias towards the LLM-generated texts. The code is at https://github.com/nlpyang/geval
Human speakers can generate descriptions of perceptual concepts, abstracted from the instance-level. Moreover, such descriptions can be used by other speakers to learn provisional representations of those concepts. Learning and using abstract perceptual concepts is under-investigated in the language-and-vision field. The problem is also highly relevant to the field of representation learning in multi-modal NLP. In this paper, we introduce a framework for testing category-level perceptual grounding in multi-modal language models. In particular, we train separate neural networks to generate and interpret descriptions of visual categories. We measure the communicative success of the two models with the zero-shot classification performance of the interpretation model, which we argue is an indicator of perceptual grounding. Using this framework, we compare the performance of prototype- and exemplar-based representations. Finally, we show that communicative success exposes performance issues in the generation model, not captured by traditional intrinsic NLG evaluation metrics, and argue that these issues stem from a failure to properly ground language in vision at the category level.
Recently, the emergence of ChatGPT has attracted wide attention from the computational linguistics community. Many prior studies have shown that ChatGPT achieves remarkable performance on various NLP tasks in terms of automatic evaluation metrics. However, the ability of ChatGPT to serve as an evaluation metric is still underexplored. Considering assessing the quality of natural language generation (NLG) models is an arduous task and NLG metrics notoriously show their poor correlation with human judgments, we wonder whether ChatGPT is a good NLG evaluation metric. In this report, we provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric. In detail, we regard ChatGPT as a human evaluator and give task-specific (e.g., summarization) and aspect-specific (e.g., relevance) instruction to prompt ChatGPT to evaluate the generated results of NLG models. We conduct experiments on five NLG meta-evaluation datasets (including summarization, story generation and data-to-text tasks). Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments in most cases. In addition, we find that the effectiveness of the ChatGPT evaluator might be influenced by the creation method of the meta-evaluation datasets. For the meta-evaluation datasets which are created greatly depending on the reference and thus are biased, the ChatGPT evaluator might lose its effectiveness. We hope our preliminary study could prompt the emergence of a general-purposed reliable NLG metric.