AwidevarietyofNLPapplications, suchasmachinetranslation, summarization, and dialog, involve text generation. One major challenge for these applications is how to evaluate whether such generated texts are actually fluent, accurate, or effective. In this work, we conceptualize theevaluation of generated text as a text generation problem, modeled using pre-trained sequence-to-sequence models. The general idea is that models trained to convert the generated text to/from a reference output or the source text will achieve higher scores when the generated text is better.

A wide variety of NLP applications, such as machine translation, summarization, and dialog, involve text generation. One major challenge for these applications is how to evaluate whether such generated texts are actually fluent, accurate, or effective. In this work, we conceptualize the evaluation of generated text as a text generation problem, modeled using pre-trained sequence-to-sequence models. The general idea is that models trained to convert the generated text to/from a reference output or the source text will achieve higher scores when the generated text is better. We operationalize this idea using BART, an encoder-decoder based pre-trained model, and propose a metric BARTScore with a number of variants that can be flexibly applied in an unsupervised fashion to evaluation of text from different perspectives (e.g.

Abstractive summarization using large language models (LLMs) has become an essential tool for condensing information. However, despite their ability to generate fluent summaries, these models sometimes produce unfaithful summaries, introducing hallucinations at the word, phrase, or concept level. Existing mitigation strategies, such as post-processing corrections or contrastive learning with synthetically generated negative samples, fail to fully address the diverse errors that can occur in LLM-generated summaries. In this paper, we investigate fine-tuning strategies to reduce the occurrence of unfaithful spans in generated summaries. First, we automatically generate summaries for the set of source documents in the training set with a variety of LLMs and then use GPT-4o to annotate any hallucinations it detects at the span-level. Leveraging these annotations, we fine-tune LLMs with both hallucination-free summaries and annotated unfaithful spans to enhance model faithfulness. In this paper, we introduce a new dataset that contains both faithful and unfaithful summaries with span-level labels and we evaluate three techniques to fine-tuning a LLM to improve the faithfulness of the resulting summarization: gradient ascent, unlikelihood training, and task vector negation. Experimental results show that all three approaches successfully leverage span-level annotations to improve faithfulness, with unlikelihood training being the most effective.

This paper investigates reproducibility challenges in automatic text summarization evaluation. Based on experiments conducted across six representative metrics ranging from classical approaches like ROUGE to recent LLM-based methods (G-Eval, SEval-Ex), we highlight significant discrepancies between reported performances in the literature and those observed in our experimental setting. We introduce a unified, open-source framework, applied to the SummEval dataset and designed to support fair and transparent comparison of evaluation metrics. Our results reveal a structural trade-off: metrics with the highest alignment with human judgments tend to be computationally intensive and less stable across runs. Beyond comparative analysis, this study highlights key concerns about relying on LLMs for evaluation, stressing their randomness, technical dependencies, and limited reproducibility. We advocate for more robust evaluation protocols including exhaustive documentation and methodological standardization to ensure greater reliability in automatic summarization assessment.

A wide variety of NLP applications, such as machine translation, summarization, and dialog, involve text generation. One major challenge for these applications is how to evaluate whether such generated texts are actually fluent, accurate, or effective. In this work, we conceptualize the evaluation of generated text as a text generation problem, modeled using pre-trained sequence-to-sequence models. The general idea is that models trained to convert the generated text to/from a reference output or the source text will achieve higher scores when the generated text is better. We operationalize this idea using BART, an encoder-decoder based pre-trained model, and propose a metric BARTScore with a number of variants that can be flexibly applied in an unsupervised fashion to evaluation of text from different perspectives (e.g.

Detecting biases in natural language understanding (NLU) for African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is crucial to developing inclusive natural language processing (NLP) systems. To address dialect-induced performance discrepancies, we introduce AAVENUE ({AAVE} {N}atural Language {U}nderstanding {E}valuation), a benchmark for evaluating large language model (LLM) performance on NLU tasks in AAVE and Standard American English (SAE). AAVENUE builds upon and extends existing benchmarks like VALUE, replacing deterministic syntactic and morphological transformations with a more flexible methodology leveraging LLM-based translation with few-shot prompting, improving performance across our evaluation metrics when translating key tasks from the GLUE and SuperGLUE benchmarks. We compare AAVENUE and VALUE translations using five popular LLMs and a comprehensive set of metrics including fluency, BARTScore, quality, coherence, and understandability. Additionally, we recruit fluent AAVE speakers to validate our translations for authenticity. Our evaluations reveal that LLMs consistently perform better on SAE tasks than AAVE-translated versions, underscoring inherent biases and highlighting the need for more inclusive NLP models. We have open-sourced our source code on GitHub and created a website to showcase our work at https://aavenue.live.

We propose an ensembling framework that uses diverse open-sourced Large Language Models (LLMs) to achieve high response quality while maintaining cost efficiency. We formulate a bi-objective optimization problem to represent the quality-cost tradeoff and then introduce an additional budget constraint that reduces the problem to a straightforward 0/1 knapsack problem. We empirically demonstrate that our framework outperforms the existing ensembling approaches in response quality while significantly reducing costs. Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in traditional NLP problems (OpenAI (2023)), but their high inference costs hinder deployment in high-throughput applications (Anonymous (2023a)). Meanwhile, opensource models are less performant than their closed-source counterparts (Beeching et al. (2023)), but they typically offer lower inference costs (Kaplan et al. (2020)).

Automatic evaluation of generated textual content presents an ongoing challenge within the field of NLP. Given the impressive capabilities of modern language models (LMs) across diverse NLP tasks, there is a growing trend to employ these models in creating innovative evaluation metrics for automated assessment of generation tasks. This paper investigates a pivotal question: Do language model-driven evaluation metrics inherently exhibit bias favoring texts generated by the same underlying language model? Specifically, we assess whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics--namely, BARTScore, T5Score, and GPTScore--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 an 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, highlighting the necessity of developing more dependable evaluation protocols in the future.

Opinion summarization sets itself apart from other types of summarization tasks due to its distinctive focus on aspects and sentiments. Although certain automated evaluation methods like ROUGE have gained popularity, we have found them to be unreliable measures for assessing the quality of opinion summaries. In this paper, we present OpinSummEval, a dataset comprising human judgments and outputs from 14 opinion summarization models. We further explore the correlation between 24 automatic metrics and human ratings across four dimensions. Our findings indicate that metrics based on neural networks generally outperform non-neural ones. However, even metrics built on powerful backbones, such as BART and GPT-3/3.5, do not consistently correlate well across all dimensions, highlighting the need for advancements in automated evaluation methods for opinion summarization. The code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/A-Chicharito-S/OpinSummEval/tree/main.

Abstracts derived from biomedical literature possess distinct domain-specific characteristics, including specialised writing styles and biomedical terminologies, which necessitate a deep understanding of the related literature. As a result, existing language models struggle to generate technical summaries that are on par with those produced by biomedical experts, given the absence of domain-specific background knowledge. This paper aims to enhance the performance of language models in biomedical abstractive summarisation by aggregating knowledge from external papers cited within the source article. We propose a novel attention-based citation aggregation model that integrates domain-specific knowledge from citation papers, allowing neural networks to generate summaries by leveraging both the paper content and relevant knowledge from citation papers. Furthermore, we construct and release a large-scale biomedical summarisation dataset that serves as a foundation for our research. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model outperforms state-of-the-art approaches and achieves substantial improvements in abstractive biomedical text summarisation.