Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

INSTRUCTSCORE: Explainable Text Generation Evaluation with Finegrained Feedback

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 2305.14282 v3 pith:Y4PNRKIU submitted 2023-05-23 cs.CL cs.AI

INSTRUCTSCORE: Explainable Text Generation Evaluation with Finegrained Feedback

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords generationtexthumaninstructscoremetricsevaluationexplainablegenerated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Automatically evaluating the quality of language generation is critical. Although recent learned metrics show high correlation with human judgement, these metrics can not explain their verdict or associate the scores with defects in generated text. To address this limitation, we present InstructScore, an explainable evaluation metric for text generation. By harnessing both explicit human instruction and the implicit knowledge of GPT-4, we fine-tune a text evaluation metric based on LLaMA, producing both a score for generated text and a human readable diagnostic report. We evaluate InstructScore on a variety of generation tasks, including translation, captioning, data-to-text and commonsense generation. Experiments show that our 7B model surpasses all other unsupervised metrics, including those based on 175B GPT-3 and GPT-4. Surprisingly, our InstructScore, even without direct supervision from human-rated data, achieves performance levels on par with state-of-the-art metrics like COMET22, which were fine-tuned on human ratings.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. 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...

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

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    On binary verdicts, Pearson, Spearman, Kendall's tau-b, phi, and the Matthews correlation are a single statistic, so most multi-metric agreement reports repeat one number under different names.

  3. LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods

    cs.CL 2024-12 accept novelty 3.0

    A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.