# DEE: Dual-stage Explainable Evaluation Method for Text Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11509 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.11509/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Mar 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13461/) (2019)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11416/) (2022)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [GLM-130B: An Open Bilingual Pre-trained Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02414/) (2022)
- [BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11520/) (2021)
- [Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05374/) (2023)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05335/) (2023)
- [TIGERScore: Towards Building Explainable Metric for All Text Generation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.00752/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Coherence in Dialogue Systems using Entailment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.03371/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Automatic methods for evaluating machine-generated texts hold significant importance due to the expanding applications of generative systems. Conventional methods tend to grapple with a lack of explainability, issuing a solitary numerical score to signify the assessment outcome. Recent advancements have sought to mitigate this limitation by incorporating large language models (LLMs) to offer more detailed error analyses, yet their applicability remains constrained, particularly in industrial contexts where comprehensive error coverage and swift detection are paramount. To alleviate these challenges, we introduce DEE, a Dual-stage Explainable Evaluation method for estimating the quality of text generation. Built upon Llama 2, DEE follows a dual-stage principle guided by stage-specific instructions to perform efficient identification of errors in generated texts in the initial stage and subsequently delves into providing comprehensive diagnostic reports in the second stage. DEE is fine-tuned on our elaborately assembled dataset AntEval, which encompasses 15K examples from 4 real-world applications of Alipay that employ generative systems. The dataset concerns newly emerged issues like hallucination and toxicity, thereby broadening the scope of DEE's evaluation criteria. Experimental results affirm that DEE's superiority over existing evaluation methods, achieving significant improvements in both human correlation as well as efficiency.