Lune

EMNLP Findings2024

AXCEL: Automated eXplainable Consistency Evaluation using LLMs

P. Aditya Sreekar, Sahil Verma, Suransh Chopra, Abhishek Persad, Sarik Ghazarian, Narayanan Sadagopan

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in both industry and academia for various tasks, yet evaluating the consistency of generated text responses continues to be a challenge. Traditional metrics like ROUGE and BLEU show a weak correlation with human judgment. More sophisticated metrics using Natural Language Inference (NLI) have shown improved correlations but are complex to implement, require domain-specific training due to poor cross-domain generalization, and lack explainability. More recently, prompt-based metrics using LLMs as evaluators have emerged; while they are easier to implement, they still lack explainability and depend on task-specific prompts, which limits their generalizability. This work introduces Automated eXplainable Consistency Evaluation using LLMs (AXCEL), a promptbased consistency metric which offers explanations for the consistency scores by providing detailed reasoning and pinpointing inconsistent text spans. AXCEL is also a generalizable metric which can be adopted to multiple tasks without changing the prompt. AXCEL outperforms both non-prompt and prompt-based state-ofthe-art (SOTA) metrics in detecting inconsistencies across summarization by 8.7%, free text generation by 6.2%, and data-to-text conversion tasks by 29.4%. We also evaluate the influence of underlying LLMs on prompt based metric performance and recalibrate the SOTA prompt-based metrics with the latest LLMs for fair comparison. Further, we show that AXCEL demonstrates strong performance using open source LLMs.

Ask Lune

Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.

Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.

Questions to start from

Lune answers from

the full paper · 1 top-tier paper that cites it · related work

Get the answer

Free to start. No credit card required.

Cited by top-tier papers1

  1. DiagLink: A Dual-User Diagnostic Assistance System by Synergizing Experts with LLMs and Knowledge GraphsZihan Zhou, Yinan Liu, Yuyang Xie, Bin Wang et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation

Builds on9

  1. Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
  2. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
  3. Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
  4. BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTTianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger et al.ICLR 2020 · 8,443 citations
  5. G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human AlignmentYang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 549 citations

Related papers

  1. PrExMe! Large Scale Prompt Exploration of Open Source LLMs for Machine Translation and Summarization EvaluationChristoph Leiter, Steffen EgerEMNLP 2024 · 5 citations
  2. FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMsHwanjun Song, Hang Su, Igor Shalyminov, Jason Cai et al.ACL 2024
  3. One Prompt To Rule Them All: LLMs for Opinion Summary EvaluationTejpalsingh Siledar, Swaroop Nath, Sankara Sri Raghava Ravindra Muddu, Rupasai Rangaraju et al.ACL 2024
  4. How Reliable Are Automatic Evaluation Methods for Instruction-Tuned LLMs?Ehsan Doostmohammadi, Oskar Holmström, Marco KuhlmannEMNLP Findings 2024 · 9 citations
  5. Estimating LLM Consistency: A User Baseline vs Surrogate MetricsXiaoyuan Wu, Weiran Lin, Omer Akgul, Lujo BauerEMNLP 2025
Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines