mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Reference-Based Analysis of Coherence and Diversity in Open-Ended Text Generation

arXiv 2609.28080 ↗First posted 23 Sep 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating open-ended text generation involves understanding how different properties of a continuation relate to its perceived quality. We present a reference-based framework for examining coherence and diversity through three perspectives: aligning their evolution with human trajectories, comparing their summaries with a human continuation of the same prompt, and estimating their likelihood under a human reference distribution. Experiments with human quality ratings suggest that diversity-based alignment and mean-based comparisons capture quality-related variation, although the comparisons do not establish a predictive advantage for temporal alignment over simpler baselines. Reference likelihood also shows positive associations with ratings, with results varying across reference configurations and scoring horizons. Together, these analyses provide a structured way to examine how measured coherence and diversity relate to human judgments, while distinguishing similarity to human references from quality itself. Code and analysis resources are available at https://github.com/EstebanGarces/likely_human.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2026.

Builds on

26 of 32 references.

References · 26

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  2. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,512
  3. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
  4. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  5. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
  6. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
  7. 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 470
  8. 2020Evaluation of Text Generation: A Surveycited by 277
  9. 2017Soft-DTW: a Differentiable Loss Function for Time-Seriescited by 271
  10. 2017Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLGcited by 233
  11. 2022A Contrastive Framework for Neural Text Generationcited by 225
  12. 2017Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluationcited by 206
14 more
  1. 2020A Survey of Evaluation Metrics Used for NLG Systemscited by 164
  2. 2019Unifying Human and Statistical Evaluation for Natural Language Generationcited by 127
  3. 2021OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metricscited by 61
  4. 2022On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text Generationcited by 49
  5. 2022DiscoScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT and Discourse Coherencecited by 36
  6. 2024Adaptive Contrastive Search: Uncertainty-Guided Decoding for Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 27
  7. 2024Decoding Decoded: Understanding Hyperparameter Effects in Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 26
  8. 2025GUARD: Glocal Uncertainty-Aware Robust Decoding for Effective and Efficient Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 10
  9. 2024Towards Better Open-Ended Text Generation: A Multicriteria Evaluation Frameworkcited by 9
  10. 2025Statistical Multicriteria Evaluation of LLM-Generated Textcited by 9
  11. 2026Min-k Sampling: Decoupling Truncation from Temperature Scaling via Relative Logit Dynamicscited by 9
  12. 2025The Geometry of Creative Variability: How Credal Sets Expose Calibration Gaps in Language Modelscited by 4
  13. 2026The Truncation Blind Spot: How Decoding Strategies Systematically Exclude Human-Like Token Choicescited by 3
  14. 2026Breaking the Likelihood Trap: Variance-Calibrated Modulation for Large Language Model Decodingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.