The emergence of unified multimodal understanding and generation models is rapidly attracting attention because of their ability to enhance instruction-following capabilities while minimizing model redundancy. However, there is a lack of a unified evaluation framework for these models, which would enable an elegant, simplified, and overall evaluation. Current models conduct evaluations on multiple task-specific benchmarks, but there are significant limitations, such as the lack of overall results, errors from extra evaluation models, reliance on extensive labeled images, benchmarks that lack diversity, and metrics with limited capacity for instruction-following evaluation. To tackle these challenges, we introduce UniEval, the first evaluation framework designed for unified multimodal models without extra models, images, or annotations. This facilitates a simplified and unified evaluation process. The UniEval framework contains a holistic benchmark, UniBench (supports both unified and visual generation models), along with the corresponding UniScore metric. UniBench includes 81 fine-grained tags contributing to high diversity. Experimental results indicate that UniBench is more challenging than existing benchmarks, and UniScore aligns closely with human evaluations, surpassing current metrics. Moreover, we extensively evaluated SoTA unified and visual generation models, uncovering new insights into Univeral's unique values.

Advancements in dialogue systems powered by large language models (LLMs) have outpaced the development of reliable evaluation metrics, particularly for diverse and creative responses. We present a benchmark for evaluating the robustness of reference-free dialogue metrics against four categories of adversarial attacks: speaker tag prefixes, static responses, ungrammatical responses, and repeated conversational context. We analyze metrics such as DialogRPT, UniEval, and PromptEval -- a prompt-based method leveraging LLMs -- across grounded and ungrounded datasets. By examining both their correlation with human judgment and susceptibility to adversarial attacks, we find that these two axes are not always aligned; metrics that appear to be equivalent when judged by traditional benchmarks may, in fact, vary in their scores of adversarial responses. These findings motivate the development of nuanced evaluation frameworks to address real-world dialogue challenges.

Modern LLMs can now produce highly readable abstractive summaries, to the point where traditional automated metrics for evaluating summary quality, such as ROUGE, have become saturated. However, LLMs still sometimes introduce unwanted content into summaries, i.e., information inconsistent with or unsupported by their source. Measuring the occurrence of these often subtle ``hallucinations'' automatically has proved to be challenging. This in turn has motivated development of a variety of metrics intended to measure the factual consistency of generated summaries against their source. But are these approaches measuring what they purport to do? In this work, we stress-test automatic factuality metrics. Specifically, we investigate whether and to what degree superficial attributes of summary texts suffice to predict ``factuality'', finding that a (supervised) model using only such shallow features is reasonably competitive with SOTA factuality scoring methods. We then evaluate how factuality metrics respond to factual corrections in inconsistent summaries and find that only a few show meaningful improvements. In contrast, some metrics are more sensitive to benign, non-factual edits. Motivated by these insights, we show that one can ``game'' (most) automatic factuality metrics, i.e., reliably inflate ``factuality'' scores by appending innocuous sentences to generated summaries. Taken together, our results raise questions about the degree to which we should rely on existing automated factuality metrics and what exactly we want ``factuality metrics'' to measure.

Reference summaries for abstractive speech summarization require human annotation, which can be performed by listening to an audio recording or by reading textual transcripts of the recording. In this paper, we examine whether summaries based on annotators listening to the recordings differ from those based on annotators reading transcripts. Using existing intrinsic evaluation based on human evaluation, automatic metrics, LLM-based evaluation, and a retrieval-based reference-free method. We find that summaries are indeed different based on the source modality, and that speech-based summaries are more factually consistent and information-selective than transcript-based summaries. Meanwhile, transcript-based summaries are impacted by recognition errors in the source, and expert-written summaries are more informative and reliable. We make all the collected data and analysis code public(https://github.com/cmu-mlsp/interview_humanssum) to facilitate the reproduction of our work and advance research in this area.

We present ConvoCache, a conversational caching system that solves the problem of slow and expensive generative AI models in spoken chatbots. ConvoCache finds a semantically similar prompt in the past and reuses the response. In this paper we evaluate ConvoCache on the DailyDialog dataset. We find that ConvoCache can apply a UniEval coherence threshold of 90% and respond to 89% of prompts using the cache with an average latency of 214ms, replacing LLM and voice synthesis that can take over 1s. To further reduce latency we test prefetching and find limited usefulness. Prefetching with 80% of a request leads to a 63% hit rate, and a drop in overall coherence. ConvoCache can be used with any chatbot to reduce costs by reducing usage of generative AI by up to 89%.

Text summarization, a key natural language generation (NLG) task, is vital in various domains. However, the high cost of inaccurate summaries in risk-critical applications, particularly those involving human-in-the-loop decision-making, raises concerns about the reliability of uncertainty estimation on text summarization (UE-TS) evaluation methods. This concern stems from the dependency of uncertainty model metrics on diverse and potentially conflicting NLG metrics. To address this issue, we introduce a comprehensive UE-TS benchmark incorporating 31 NLG metrics across four dimensions. The benchmark evaluates the uncertainty estimation capabilities of two large language models and one pre-trained language model on three datasets, with human-annotation analysis incorporated where applicable. We also assess the performance of 14 common uncertainty estimation methods within this benchmark. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering multiple uncorrelated NLG metrics and diverse uncertainty estimation methods to ensure reliable and efficient evaluation of UE-TS techniques.

Natural Language Generation (NLG) typically involves evaluating the generated text in various aspects (e.g., consistency and naturalness) to obtain a comprehensive assessment. However, multi-aspect evaluation remains challenging as it may require the evaluator to generalize to any given evaluation aspect even if it's absent during training. In this paper, we introduce X-Eval, a two-stage instruction tuning framework to evaluate the text in both seen and unseen aspects customized by end users. X-Eval consists of two learning stages: the vanilla instruction tuning stage that improves the model's ability to follow evaluation instructions, and an enhanced instruction tuning stage that exploits the connections between fine-grained evaluation aspects to better assess text quality. To support the training of X-Eval, we collect AspectInstruct, the first instruction tuning dataset tailored for multi-aspect NLG evaluation spanning 27 diverse evaluation aspects with 65 tasks. To enhance task diversity, we devise an augmentation strategy that converts human rating annotations into diverse forms of NLG evaluation tasks, including scoring, comparison, ranking, and Boolean question answering. Extensive experiments across three essential categories of NLG tasks: dialogue generation, summarization, and data-to-text coupled with 21 aspects in meta-evaluation, demonstrate that our X-Eval enables even a lightweight language model to achieve a comparable if not higher correlation with human judgments compared to the state-of-the-art NLG evaluators, such as GPT-4.

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.