Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Text Style Transfer Evaluation Using Large Language Models

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 2308.13577 v2 pith:YUMBFUQF submitted 2023-08-25 cs.CL cs.LG

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

Evaluating Text Style Transfer (TST) is a complex task due to its multifaceted nature. The quality of the generated text is measured based on challenging factors, such as style transfer accuracy, content preservation, and overall fluency. While human evaluation is considered to be the gold standard in TST assessment, it is costly and often hard to reproduce. Therefore, automated metrics are prevalent in these domains. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether these automated metrics correlate with human evaluations. Recent strides in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased their capacity to match and even exceed average human performance across diverse, unseen tasks. This suggests that LLMs could be a feasible alternative to human evaluation and other automated metrics in TST evaluation. We compare the results of different LLMs in TST using multiple input prompts. Our findings highlight a strong correlation between (even zero-shot) prompting and human evaluation, showing that LLMs often outperform traditional automated metrics. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of prompt ensembling, demonstrating its ability to enhance the robustness of TST evaluation. This research contributes to the ongoing evaluation of LLMs in diverse tasks, offering insights into successful outcomes and areas of limitation.

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. Beyond the Surface: Measuring Self-Preference in LLM Judgments

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The DBG metric measures LLM self-preference bias as the gap between a judge model's own win rate and the win rate assigned by an ensemble of gold judges.

Pith tools