Evaluating text generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, particularly for low-resource languages where methods for direct assessment are scarce. We propose MUG-Eval, a novel framework that evaluates LLMs' multilingual generation capabilities by transforming existing benchmarks into conversational tasks and measuring the LLMs' accuracies on those tasks. We specifically designed these conversational tasks to require effective communication in the target language. Then, we simply use task success rate as a proxy for successful conversation generation. Our approach offers two key advantages: it is independent of language-specific NLP tools or annotated datasets, which are limited for most languages, and it does not rely on LLMs-as-judges, whose evaluation quality degrades outside a few high-resource languages. We evaluate 8 LLMs across 30 languages spanning high, mid, and low-resource categories, and we find that MUG-Eval correlates strongly with established benchmarks ($r$ > 0.75) while enabling standardized comparisons across languages and models. Our framework provides a robust and resource-efficient solution for evaluating multilingual generation that can be extended to thousands of languages.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) ) have demonstrated promise in boosting productivity across AI-powered tools, yet existing benchmarks like Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) inadequately assess enterprise-specific task complexities. We propose a 14-task framework grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy to holistically evaluate LLM capabilities in enterprise contexts. To address challenges of noisy data and costly annotation, we develop a scalable pipeline combining LLM-as-a-Labeler, LLM-as-a-Judge, and corrective retrieval-augmented generation (CRAG), curating a robust 9,700-sample benchmark. Evaluation of six leading models shows open-source contenders like DeepSeek R1 rival proprietary models in reasoning tasks but lag in judgment-based scenarios, likely due to overthinking. Our benchmark reveals critical enterprise performance gaps and offers actionable insights for model optimization. This work provides enterprises a blueprint for tailored evaluations and advances practical LLM deployment.

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm offers a scalable, reference-free approach for evaluating language models. Although several calibration techniques have been proposed to better align these evaluators with human judgment, prior studies focus primarily on narrow, well-structured benchmarks. As a result, it remains unclear whether such calibrations generalize to real-world, open-ended tasks. In this work, we show that SOTA calibrated evaluators often fail in these settings, exhibiting weak or even negative correlation with human judgments. To address this, we propose SLMEval, a novel and efficient calibration method based on entropy maximization over a small amount of human preference data. By estimating a latent distribution over model quality and reweighting evaluator scores accordingly, SLMEval achieves strong correlation with human evaluations across two real-world production use cases and the public benchmark. For example, on one such task, SLMEval achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.57 with human judgments, while G-Eval yields a negative correlation. In addition, SLMEval reduces evaluation costs by 5-30x compared to GPT-4-based calibrated evaluators such as G-eval.

This paper presents Patent-CR, the first dataset created for the patent claim revision task in English. It includes both initial patent applications rejected by patent examiners and the final granted versions. Unlike normal text revision tasks that predominantly focus on enhancing sentence quality, such as grammar correction and coherence improvement, patent claim revision aims at ensuring the claims meet stringent legal criteria. These criteria are beyond novelty and inventiveness, including clarity of scope, technical accuracy, language precision, and legal robustness. We assess various large language models (LLMs) through professional human evaluation, including general LLMs with different sizes and architectures, text revision models, and domain-specific models. Our results indicate that LLMs often bring ineffective edits that deviate from the target revisions. In addition, domain-specific models and the method of fine-tuning show promising results. Notably, GPT-4 outperforms other tested LLMs, but further revisions are still necessary to reach the examination standard. Furthermore, we demonstrate the inconsistency between automated and human evaluation results, suggesting that GPT-4-based automated evaluation has the highest correlation with human judgment. This dataset, along with our preliminary empirical research, offers invaluable insights for further exploration in patent claim revision.

We propose PPLqa, an easy to compute, language independent, information-theoretic metric to measure the quality of responses of generative Large Language Models (LLMs) in an unsupervised way, without requiring ground truth annotations or human supervision. The method and metric enables users to rank generative language models for quality of responses, so as to make a selection of the best model for a given task. Our single metric assesses LLMs with an approach that subsumes, but is not explicitly based on, coherence and fluency (quality of writing) and relevance and consistency (appropriateness of response) to the query. PPLqa performs as well as other related metrics, and works better with long-form Q\&A. Thus, PPLqa enables bypassing the lengthy annotation process required for ground truth evaluations, and it also correlates well with human and LLM rankings.

Long-Form Question Answering (LFQA) refers to generating in-depth, paragraph-level responses to open-ended questions. Although lots of LFQA methods are developed, evaluating LFQA effectively and efficiently remains challenging due to its high complexity and cost. Therefore, there is no standard benchmark for LFQA evaluation till now. To address this gap, we make the first attempt by proposing a well-constructed, reference-based benchmark named Chinese exAmination for LFQA Evaluation (CALF), aiming to rigorously assess the performance of automatic evaluation metrics for LFQA. The CALF benchmark is derived from Chinese examination questions that have been translated into English. It includes up to 1476 examples consisting of knowledge-intensive and nuanced responses. Our evaluation comprises three different settings to ana lyze the behavior of automatic metrics comprehensively. We conducted extensive experiments on 7 traditional evaluation metrics, 3 prompt-based metrics, and 3 trained evaluation metrics, and tested on agent systems for the LFQA evaluation. The results reveal that none of the current automatic evaluation metrics shows comparable performances with humans, indicating that they cannot capture dense information contained in long-form responses well. In addition, we provide a detailed analysis of the reasons why automatic evaluation metrics fail when evaluating LFQA, offering valuable insights to advance LFQA evaluation systems. Dataset and associated codes can be accessed at our GitHub repository.

Recent advancements in massively multilingual machine translation systems have significantly enhanced translation accuracy; however, even the best performing systems still generate hallucinations, severely impacting user trust. Detecting hallucinations in Machine Translation (MT) remains a critical challenge, particularly since existing methods excel with High-Resource Languages (HRLs) but exhibit substantial limitations when applied to Low-Resource Languages (LRLs). This paper evaluates hallucination detection approaches using Large Language Models (LLMs) and semantic similarity within massively multilingual embeddings. Our study spans 16 language directions, covering HRLs, LRLs, with diverse scripts. We find that the choice of model is essential for performance. On average, for HRLs, Llama3-70B outperforms the previous state of the art by as much as 0.16 MCC (Matthews Correlation Coefficient). However, for LRLs we observe that Claude Sonnet outperforms other LLMs on average by 0.03 MCC. The key takeaway from our study is that LLMs can achieve performance comparable or even better than previously proposed models, despite not being explicitly trained for any machine translation task. However, their advantage is less significant for LRLs.

Automated evaluation is crucial for streamlining text summarization benchmarking and model development, given the costly and time-consuming nature of human evaluation. Traditional methods like ROUGE do not correlate well with human judgment, while recently proposed LLM-based metrics provide only summary-level assessment using Likert-scale scores. This limits deeper model analysis, e.g., we can only assign one hallucination score at the summary level, while at the sentence level, we can count sentences containing hallucinations. To remedy those limitations, we propose FineSurE, 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. We compare various open-source and proprietary LLMs as backbones for FineSurE. In addition, we conduct extensive benchmarking of FineSurE against SOTA methods including NLI-, QA-, and LLM-based methods, showing improved performance especially on the completeness and conciseness dimensions. The code is available at https://github.com/DISL-Lab/FineSurE-ACL24.

The long-standing one-to-many problem of gold standard responses in open-domain dialogue systems presents challenges for automatic evaluation metrics. Though prior works have demonstrated some success by applying powerful Large Language Models (LLMs), existing approaches still struggle with the one-to-many problem, and exhibit subpar performance in domain-specific scenarios. We assume the commonsense reasoning biases within LLMs may hinder their performance in domainspecific evaluations. To address both issues, we propose a novel framework SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation), that leverages both a small, specialised model (SLM), and LLMs for the evaluation of open domain dialogues. Our approach introduces several techniques: (1) Contrastive learning to differentiate between robust and non-robust response embeddings; (2) A novel metric for semantic sensitivity that combines embedding cosine distances with similarity learned through neural networks, and (3) a strategy for incorporating the evaluation results from both the SLM and LLMs. Our empirical results demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both the classification and evaluation tasks, and additionally the SLIDE evaluator exhibits better correlation with human judgements. Our code is available at https:// github.com/hegehongcha/SLIDE-ACL2024.