mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AXCEL: Automated eXplainable Consistency Evaluation using LLMs

arXiv 2409.16984 ↗First posted 25 Sep 2024cs.AI cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 prompt-based 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-of-the-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.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2024.

Builds on

16 of 30 references.

References · 16

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  6. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
  7. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
  8. 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 888
  9. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  10. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  11. 2021SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarizationcited by 402
  12. 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 376
4 more
  1. 2023AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Functioncited by 284
  2. 2023RAGTruth: A Hallucination Corpus for Developing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 272
  3. 2021The Curious Case of Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translationcited by 161
  4. 2023Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPTcited by 126

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.