Cited by 471Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?

Open access
Chiang, Cheng-Han, Lee, Hung-yi·2023·Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Human evaluation is indispensable and inevitable for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans.However, human evaluation is very difficult to reproduce and its quality is notoriously unstable, hindering fair comparisons among different natural language processing (NLP) models and algorithms.Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided.In this paper, we explore if such an ability of the LLMs can be used as an alternative to human evaluation.We present the LLMs with the exact same instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used to conduct human evaluation, and then ask the LLMs to generate responses to those questions; we dub this LLM evaluation.We use human evaluation and LLM evaluation to evaluate the texts in two NLP tasks: openended story generation and adversarial attacks.We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation: the texts rated higher by human experts are also rated higher by the LLMs.We also find that the results of LLM evaluation are stable over different formatting of the task instructions and the sampling algorithm used to generate the answer.We are the first to show the potential of using LLMs to assess the quality of texts and discuss the limitations and ethical considerations of LLM evaluation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.870

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GPT-3.5 has a positive correlation with human annotations.

    “GPT-3.5 has been proved to have positive correlation with human annotations (Chiang and Lee, 2023a;Wang et al., 2023a)”

    From Bayesian Calibration of Win Rate Estimation with LLM Evaluators (2024) · cites this paper as Chiang and Lee, 2023a

    Section 3.3.1 reports statistically significant positive correlations between text-davinci-003 ratings and English teachers’ ratings of stories. The copy does not identify text-davinci-003 as GPT-3.5, and the measured correlation is specific to those story ratings rather than human annotations generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLM-as-a-judge evaluations show parity with human judgment.

    “Recent efforts using LLMs as evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge (Zheng et al., 2023)) show parity with human judgment (Chiang and Lee, 2023b)”

    From YESciEval: Robust LLM-as-a-Judge for Scientific Question Answering (2025) · cites this paper as Chiang and Lee, 2023b

    Section 3.3.1 reports statistically significant but weak-to-strong positive correlations between LLM and English-teacher ratings of stories. Section 3.3 also says their absolute scores differ. The findings support some alignment in judgment, but not the broader claim of parity with human judgment. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLM ratings of text quality track human ratings.

    “a growing literature finds that LLM ratings of text quality track human ratings (Chiang and Lee, 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2023)”

    From Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Chiang and Lee, 2023

  • The remarkable instruction-following ability of LLMs has underscored their potential for automatic evaluation.

    “Recently, the remarkable instruction-following ability of LLMs has underscored their potential for automatic evaluation [51, 190, 314].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. R Botsch. 2011. Chapter 12: Significance and mea- sures of association. Scopes and Methods of Political Science.
  2. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  3. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Tr- ishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, An- drea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M Rush. 2022. Multi- task prompted training enables zero-shot task gener- alization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiang, C.-H., & Lee, H.-Y.
Affiliations
National Taiwan University (TW)
Corresponding author
Lee, Hung-yi
Venue
Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2023
Pages
15607-15631
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385571232
Cited by
331
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 31
FWCI
58.65
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Delta Electronics
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
large language models, LLM evaluation, human evaluation, text quality assessment, adversarial attacks, assessment consistency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review