Open-ended text generation has become a prominent task in natural language processing due to the rise of powerful (large) language models. However, evaluating the quality of these models and the employed decoding strategies remains challenging due to trade-offs among widely used metrics such as coherence, diversity, and perplexity. This paper addresses the specific problem of multicriteria evaluation for open-ended text generation, proposing novel methods for both relative and absolute rankings of decoding methods. Specifically, we employ benchmarking approaches based on partial orderings and present a new summary metric to balance existing automatic indicators, providing a more holistic evaluation of text generation quality. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed approaches offer a robust way to compare decoding strategies and serve as valuable tools to guide model selection for open-ended text generation tasks. We suggest future directions for improving evaluation methodologies in text generation and make our code, datasets, and models publicly available.

Assessing the quality of LLM-generated text remains a fundamental challenge in natural language processing. Current evaluation approaches often rely on isolated metrics or simplistic aggregations that fail to capture the nuanced trade-offs between coherence, diversity, fluency, and other relevant indicators of text quality. In this work, we adapt a recently proposed framework for statistical inference based on Generalized Stochastic Dominance (GSD) that addresses three critical limitations in existing benchmarking methodologies: the inadequacy of single-metric evaluation, the incompatibility between cardinal automatic metrics and ordinal human judgments, and the lack of inferential statistical guarantees. The GSD-front approach enables simultaneous evaluation across multiple quality dimensions while respecting their different measurement scales, building upon partial orders of decoding strategies, thus avoiding arbitrary weighting of the involved metrics. By applying this framework to evaluate common decoding strategies against human-generated text, we demonstrate its ability to identify statistically significant performance differences while accounting for potential deviations from the i.i.d. assumption of the sampling design.