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
TIGERScore: Towards Building Explainable Metric for All Text Generation Tasks
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/}.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Different Teachers, Different Capabilities: Sub-1B On-Device Distillation for Structured Text Enrichment
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.
-
Agreement Metrics for LLM-as-Judge Evaluation: What to Report and Why
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...
-
APCD: Adaptive Path-Contrastive Decoding for Reliable Large Language Model Generation
APCD reduces LLM hallucinations by expanding decoding paths adaptively when entropy signals uncertainty and by contrasting divergent paths to control their interaction.
-
APCD: Adaptive Path-Contrastive Decoding for Reliable Large Language Model Generation
APCD adaptively branches LLM decoding paths based on token entropy and contrasts divergent paths to improve factual accuracy while preserving efficiency.
-
Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines
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.
-
Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.