# Think Together and Work Better: Combining Humans' and LLMs' Think-Aloud Outcomes for Effective Text Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07355 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07355/

## Key facts

- Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 34 of its 92 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 34)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (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)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.08593/) (2019)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04048/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.14520/) (2023)
- [MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02622/) (2019)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07197/) (2022)
- [Reasoning or Reciting? Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Through Counterfactual Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02477/) (2023)
- [Re3: Generating Longer Stories With Recursive Reprompting and Revision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.06774/) (2022)
- [Do All Languages Cost the Same? Tokenization in the Era of Commercial Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13707/) (2023)
- [Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07981/) (2022)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [Pearl: Personalizing Large Language Model Writing Assistants with Generation-Calibrated Retrievers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09180/) (2023)
- [Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10145/) (2023)
- [PEER: A Collaborative Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.11663/) (2022)
- [Exploring the Use of Large Language Models for Reference-Free Text Quality Evaluation: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.00723/) (2023)
- [The Benefits of a Concise Chain of Thought on Problem-Solving in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05618/) (2024)
- [OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.08920/) (2021)
- [GRUEN for Evaluating Linguistic Quality of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.02498/) (2020)
- [Towards Optimizing the Costs of LLM Usage](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01742/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [SREGym: A Live Benchmark for AI SRE Agents with High-Fidelity Failure Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.07161/) (2026)
- [GALA: Can Graph-Augmented Large Language Model Agentic Workflows Elevate Root Cause Analysis?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12472/) (2025)
- [AutoChecklist: Composable Pipelines for Checklist Generation and Scoring with LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.07019/) (2026)
- [From Feedback to Checklists: Grounded Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17717/) (2025)
- [FeedEval: Pedagogically Aligned Evaluation of LLM-Generated Essay Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04574/) (2026)
- [Integrating Expert Knowledge into Logical Programs via LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12275/) (2025)
- [The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11318/) (2026)
- [From Answer Givers to Design Mentors: Guiding LLMs with the Cognitive Apprenticeship Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.19053/) (2026)
- [An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21059/) (2026)
- [GALA: Graph-Augmented LLM Agents for Root Cause Analysis and Incident Response in Microservices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08968/) (2026)
- [Grounded Checklist Partial Credit for Agent Skill Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27487/) (2026)
- [Towards Personalized Explanations for Health Simulations: A Mixed-Methods Framework for Stakeholder-Centric Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.04646/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This study introduces InteractEval, a framework that integrates human expertise and Large Language Models (LLMs) using the Think-Aloud (TA) method to generate attributes for checklist-based text evaluation. By combining human flexibility and reasoning with LLM consistency, InteractEval outperforms traditional non-LLM-based and LLM-based baselines across four distinct dimensions, consisting of Coherence, Fluency, Consistency, and Relevance. The experiment also investigates the effectiveness of the TA method, showing that it promotes divergent thinking in both humans and LLMs, leading to the generation of a wider range of relevant attributes and enhance text evaluation performance. Comparative analysis reveals that humans excel at identifying attributes related to internal quality (Coherence and Fluency), but LLMs perform better at those attributes related to external alignment (Consistency and Relevance). Consequently, leveraging both humans and LLMs together produces the best evaluation outcomes. In other words, this study emphasizes the necessity of effectively combining humans and LLMs in an automated checklist-based text evaluation framework. The code is available at textbfurlhttps://github.com/BBeeChu/InteractEval.git.