mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Text Style Transfer Evaluation Using Large Language Models

arXiv 2308.13577 ↗First posted 25 Aug 2023cs.CL cs.LGcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2023.

Builds on

28 of 49 references.

References · 28

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  3. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  4. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  5. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  6. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,512
  7. 2022BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Modelcited by 1,984
  8. 2014Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classificationcited by 1,127
  9. 2016Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classificationcited by 876
  10. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
  11. 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
  12. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
16 more
  1. 2017Style Transfer from Non-Parallel Text by Cross-Alignmentcited by 248
  2. 2017Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLGcited by 233
  3. 2018Dear Sir or Madam, May I introduce the GYAFC Dataset: Corpus, Benchmarks and Metrics for Formality Style Transfercited by 211
  4. 2018Delete, Retrieve, Generate: A Simple Approach to Sentiment and Style Transfercited by 191
  5. 2023Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speechcited by 166
  6. 2020Deep Learning for Text Style Transfer: A Surveycited by 162
  7. 2020InfoBERT: Improving Robustness of Language Models from An Information Theoretic Perspectivecited by 92
  8. 2018RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language Generationcited by 69
  9. 2019Evaluating Style Transfer for Textcited by 61
  10. 2018Polite Dialogue Generation Without Parallel Datacited by 59
  11. 2021Evaluating the Evaluation Metrics for Style Transfer: A Case Study in Multilingual Formality Transfercited by 25
  12. 2020Style-transfer and Paraphrase: Looking for a Sensible Semantic Similarity Metriccited by 23
  13. 2021A Review of Human Evaluation for Style Transfercited by 19
  14. 2023A Call for Standardization and Validation of Text Style Transfer Evaluationcited by 14
  15. 2022Probing the Robustness of Trained Metrics for Conversational Dialogue Systemscited by 6
  16. 2022On the Effectiveness of Automated Metrics for Text Generation Systemscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 6; 2025: 2; 2026: 5.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area: