Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

TIGERScore: Towards Building Explainable Metric for All Text Generation Tasks

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

arxiv 2310.00752 v4 pith:GY47AMUR submitted 2023-10-01 cs.CL cs.AI

TIGERScore: Towards Building Explainable Metric for All Text Generation Tasks

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords metrictexttigerscoregenerationtextbfdatasetscorrelationevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We present TIGERScore, a \textbf{T}rained metric that follows \textbf{I}nstruction \textbf{G}uidance to perform \textbf{E}xplainable, and \textbf{R}eference-free evaluation over a wide spectrum of text generation tasks. Different from other automatic evaluation methods that only provide arcane scores, TIGERScore is guided by natural language instruction to provide error analysis to pinpoint the mistakes in the generated text. Our metric is based on LLaMA-2, trained on our meticulously curated instruction-tuning dataset MetricInstruct which covers 6 text generation tasks and 23 text generation datasets. The dataset consists of 42K quadruple in the form of (instruction, input, system output $\rightarrow$ error analysis). We collected the `system outputs' through from a large variety of models to cover different types of errors. To quantitatively assess our metric, we evaluate its correlation with human ratings on 5 held-in datasets, 2 held-out datasets and show that TIGERScore can achieve the open-source SoTA correlation with human ratings across these datasets and almost approaches GPT-4 evaluator. As a reference-free metric, its correlation can even surpass the best existing reference-based metrics. To further qualitatively assess the rationale generated by our metric, we conduct human evaluation on the generated explanations and found that the explanations are 70.8\% accurate. Through these experimental results, we believe TIGERScore demonstrates the possibility of building universal explainable metrics to evaluate any text generation task. All the resourced are released in our project website: \url{https://tiger-ai-lab.github.io/TIGERScore/}.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Different Teachers, Different Capabilities: Sub-1B On-Device Distillation for Structured Text Enrichment

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Distilling an 8B reasoning teacher into a 0.6B student recovers most summary quality at ~50× speed, but teacher type—not scale alone—determines which capabilities transfer.

  2. Agreement Metrics for LLM-as-Judge Evaluation: What to Report and Why

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    For binary LLM judge validation, Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, Kendall's τ_b, phi, and Matthews correlation all equal a single number on non-degenerate data, Cohen's κ supplies the extra signal on label-rate drift, and a...

  3. APCD: Adaptive Path-Contrastive Decoding for Reliable Large Language Model Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    APCD reduces LLM hallucinations by expanding decoding paths adaptively when entropy signals uncertainty and by contrasting divergent paths to control their interaction.

  4. APCD: Adaptive Path-Contrastive Decoding for Reliable Large Language Model Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    APCD adaptively branches LLM decoding paths based on token entropy and contrasts divergent paths to improve factual accuracy while preserving efficiency.

  5. Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Style bias dominates LLM-as-a-Judge systems far more than position bias, with debiasing strategies providing model-dependent gains and public tools released for replication.

  6. Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Gemini 2.5 Flash with a Combined Budget debiasing strategy achieves 71.0% judge agreement at ~$0.001/evaluation, outperforming frontier models at 15x lower cost.