ConCISE: A Reference-Free Conciseness Evaluation Metric for LLM-Generated Answers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate responses that are lengthy and verbose, filled with redundant or unnecessary details. This diminishes clarity and user satisfaction, and it increases costs for model developers, especially with well-known proprietary models that charge based on the number of output tokens. In this paper, we introduce a novel reference-free metric for evaluating the conciseness of responses generated by LLMs. Our method quantifies non-essential content without relying on gold standard references and calculates the average of three calculations: i) a compression ratio between the original response and an LLM abstractive summary; ii) a compression ratio between the original response and an LLM extractive summary; and iii) wordremoval compression, where an LLM removes as many non-essential words as possible from the response while preserving its meaning, with the number of tokens removed indicating the conciseness score. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed metric identifies redundancy in LLM outputs, offering a practical tool for automated evaluation of response brevity in conversational AI systems without the need for ground truth human annotations.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2025.
Builds on
14 of 16 references.
References · 14
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 787
- 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 357
- 2024Concise Thoughts: Impact of Output Length on LLM Reasoning and Costcited by 108
- 2023Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Modelscited by 89
- 2024Prompt Compression for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 65
- 2024Explaining Length Bias in LLM-Based Preference Evaluationscited by 48
- 2021A Training-free and Reference-free Summarization Evaluation Metric via Centrality-weighted Relevance and Self-referenced Redundancycited by 21
- 2024On the Implications of Verbose LLM Outputs: A Case Study in Translation Evaluationcited by 13
- 2024Precise Length Control in Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2024ELF-Gym: Evaluating Large Language Models Generated Features for Tabular Predictioncited by 10
- 2024CRScore: Grounding Automated Evaluation of Code Review Comments in Code Claims and Smellscited by 8
2 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Do Chatbot LLMs Talk Too Much? The YapBench Benchmarkcited by 5
- 2026Do Chatbot LLMs Talk Too Much? The YapBench Benchmark2 Jan 2026