REVIEW 2 cited by
Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Text summarization has a wide range of applications in many scenarios. The evaluation of the quality of the generated text is a complex problem. A big challenge to language evaluation is that there is a clear divergence between existing metrics and human evaluation. A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. In this paper, we propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects. First, we propose to model objective and subjective dimensions of generated text based on roleplayers prompting mechanism. Furthermore, we introduce a context-based prompting mechanism that is able to generate dynamic roleplayer profiles based on input context. Finally, we design a multi-roleplayer prompting technology based on batch prompting and integrate multiple outputs into the final evaluation results. Experimental results on three real datasets for summarization show that our model is highly competitive and has a very high consistency with human annotators.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
How Managers Perceive AI-Assisted Conversational Training for Workplace Communication
Managers view AI-assisted role-play as useful low-stakes practice for workplace conversations, provided it offers customizable scenarios, actionable feedback, and human-AI teaming.
-
Literature Review Of Multi-Agent Debate For Problem-Solving
A literature review concludes that multi-agent LLM debate helps up to a task-dependent point, after which extra agents and rounds add cost without reliable gains.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.