REVIEW 8 cited by
Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPT
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
Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPT
read the original abstract
Evaluating text summarization is a challenging problem, and existing evaluation metrics are far from satisfactory. In this study, we explored ChatGPT's ability to perform human-like summarization evaluation using four human evaluation methods on five datasets. We found that ChatGPT was able to complete annotations relatively smoothly using Likert scale scoring, pairwise comparison, Pyramid, and binary factuality evaluation. Additionally, it outperformed commonly used automatic evaluation metrics on some datasets. Furthermore, we discussed the impact of different prompts, compared its performance with that of human evaluation, and analyzed the generated explanations and invalid responses.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Illusions of the Gold Standard: A Large-scale Analysis of Human Evaluation Protocols for Long-form Text Generation
A systematic analysis of 284 manually reviewed papers plus 1.8k+ others from 2023-2025 reveals under-reporting of human evaluation study design details, creating ambiguity in what was measured and how.
-
Bridging Reasoning Trajectories in On-Policy Distillation via Near-Future Guidance
TOPD augments on-policy distillation by using near-future trajectory signals to suppress non-divergent high-loss tokens and distribute guidance, raising average accuracy from 47.8% to 52.2% on reasoning benchmarks.
-
Bridging Reasoning Trajectories in On-Policy Distillation via Near-Future Guidance
TOPD improves on-policy distillation for LLM reasoning by using near-future guidance to identify divergent states, raising average accuracy from 47.8% to 52.2% on math benchmarks including AIME24 and AIME25.
-
LLM-ReSum: A Framework for LLM Reflective Summarization through Self-Evaluation
LLM-ReSum uses LLM self-evaluation in a closed feedback loop to refine summaries, improving factual accuracy by up to 33% and coverage by 39% with 89% human preference.
-
ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate
Multi-agent debate among LLMs yields more reliable text evaluations than single-agent prompting by simulating collaborative human judgment.
-
A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions
The paper surveys hallucination in LLMs with an innovative taxonomy, factors, detection methods, benchmarks, mitigation strategies, and open research directions.
-
A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.
-
AI Safety Landscape for Large Language Models: Taxonomy, State-of-the-art, and Future Directions
The paper introduces a taxonomy of AI safety for LLMs organized into Trustworthy AI, Responsible AI, and Safe AI perspectives, accompanied by a review of state-of-the-art methods, challenges, and future directions.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.