Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluation of Question Generation Needs More References

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 2305.16626 v1 pith:WAG3KB4G submitted 2023-05-26 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords evaluationquestioncontextdifferentevengenerationgivenmetric
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Question generation (QG) is the task of generating a valid and fluent question based on a given context and the target answer. According to various purposes, even given the same context, instructors can ask questions about different concepts, and even the same concept can be written in different ways. However, the evaluation for QG usually depends on single reference-based similarity metrics, such as n-gram-based metric or learned metric, which is not sufficient to fully evaluate the potential of QG methods. To this end, we propose to paraphrase the reference question for a more robust QG evaluation. Using large language models such as GPT-3, we created semantically and syntactically diverse questions, then adopt the simple aggregation of the popular evaluation metrics as the final scores. Through our experiments, we found that using multiple (pseudo) references is more effective for QG evaluation while showing a higher correlation with human evaluations than evaluation with a single reference.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Overview of the Sensemaking Task at the ELOQUENT 2025 Lab: LLMs as Teachers, Students and Evaluators

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the ELOQUENT 2025 Sensemaking task, LLM-based evaluators rated clearly garbled or mismatched question-answer pairs as acceptable, showing that LLM-as-a-Judge scores cannot be trusted.

Pith tools