This study introduces Crab, a novel Configurable Role-Playing (RP) LLM with Assessing Benchmark, which consists of Role-Centric Dataset Curation, Persona-Embodying LLM Construction, and Comprehensive Benchmark Creation for RP dialogue generation. Distinct from traditional RP models that employ only several preset roles, Crab enables dynamic configuration of desired roles, thereby enhancing related flexibility and adaptability. To effectively train RP-LLMs, we curated the largest RP training dataset. The dataset provides a detailed role overview for each dialogue, including character profile, conversation scenario, and tagged topic, capturing a broad range of role-based behaviors, emotions, and interactions. We also noticed that current benchmarks lack both proper evaluation standards and methods. Thus, to validate RP-LLMs’ effectiveness, we introduced a new benchmark containing an evaluation standard, a test dataset with manual annotations, and a reward model RoleRM designed to automatically assess specific aspects of RP while aligning with human perception. Sufficient experiments reveal that RoleRM significantly outperforms ChatGPT and other evaluation methods in conducting fine-grained evaluations of RP. Also, RP-LLMs powered by Crab demonstrate superior performance across various fine-grained aspects.

Current exploration on creative generation focuses mainly on short stories, poetry, and scripts. With the expansion of Large Language Models (LLMs) context windows, “novel” avenues emerge. This study aims to extend the boundaries of Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation by exploring LLMs’ capabilities in more challenging long-form fiction. We propose a new multi-level evaluation framework that incorporates ten metrics across the Macro, Meso, and Micro levels. An annotated fiction dataset, sourced from human authors, LLMs, and human-AI collaborations in both English and Chinese is then constructed. Human evaluation reveals notable disparities between LLM-generated and human-authored fictions, particularly the “high-starting, low-ending” pattern in LLM outputs. We further probe ten high-performing LLMs through different prompt templates, achieving moderate correlations by strategically utilizing diverse LLMs tailored to different levels, as an initial step towards better automatic fiction evaluation. Finally, we offer a fine-grained analysis of LLMs capabilities through six issues, providing promising insights for future advancements.

Human evaluation serves as the gold standard for assessing the quality of Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems. Nevertheless, the evaluation guideline, as a pivotal element ensuring reliable and reproducible human assessment, has received limited attention. Our investigation revealed that only 29.84% of recent papers involving human evaluation at top conferences release their evaluation guidelines, with vulnerabilities identified in 77.09% of these guidelines. Unreliable evaluation guidelines can yield inaccurate assessment outcomes, potentially impeding the advancement of NLG in the right direction. To address these challenges, we take an initial step towards reliable evaluation guidelines and propose the first human evaluation guideline dataset by collecting annotations of guidelines extracted from existing papers as well as generated via Large Language Models (LLMs). We then introduce a taxonomy of eight vulnerabilities and formulate a principle for composing evaluation guidelines. Furthermore, a method for detecting guideline vulnerabilities has been explored using LLMs, and we offer a set of recommendations to enhance reliability in human evaluation. The annotated human evaluation guideline dataset and code for the vulnerability detection method are publicly available online.

Cross-lingual summarization aims to help people efficiently grasp the core idea of the document written in a foreign language. Modern text summarization models generate highly fluent but often factually inconsistent outputs, which has received heightened attention in recent research. However, the factual consistency of cross-lingual summarization has not been investigated yet. In this paper, we propose a cross-lingual factuality dataset by collecting human annotations of reference summaries as well as generated summaries from models at both summary level and sentence level. Furthermore, we perform the fine-grained analysis and observe that over 50% of generated summaries and over 27% of reference summaries contain factual errors with characteristics different from monolingual summarization. Existing evaluation metrics for monolingual summarization require translation to evaluate the factuality of cross-lingual summarization and perform differently at different tasks and levels. Finally, we adapt the monolingual factuality metrics as an initial step towards the automatic evaluation of summarization factuality in cross-lingual settings. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/kite99520/Fact_CLS.