Evaluating Text Style Transfer (TST) is a complex task due to its multi-faceted nature. The quality of the generated text is measured based on challenging factors, such as style transfer accuracy, content preservation, and overall fluency. While human evaluation is considered to be the gold standard in TST assessment, it is costly and often hard to reproduce. Therefore, automated metrics are prevalent in these domains. Nonetheless, it is uncertain whether and to what extent these automated metrics correlate with human evaluations. Recent strides in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased their capacity to match and even exceed average human performance across diverse, unseen tasks. This suggests that LLMs could be a viable alternative to human evaluation and other automated metrics in TST evaluation. We compare the results of different LLMs in TST evaluation using multiple input prompts. Our findings highlight a strong correlation between (even zero-shot) prompting and human evaluation, showing that LLMs often outperform traditional automated metrics. Furthermore, we introduce the concept of prompt ensembling, demonstrating its ability to enhance the robustness of TST evaluation. This research contributes to the ongoing efforts for more robust and diverse evaluation methods by standardizing and validating TST evaluation with LLMs.

There is a lack of quantitative measures to evaluate the progression of topics through time in dynamic topic models (DTMs). Filling this gap, we propose a novel evaluation measure for DTMs that analyzes the changes in the quality of each topic over time. Additionally, we propose an extension combining topic quality with the model’s temporal consistency. We demonstrate the utility of the proposed measure by applying it to synthetic data and data from existing DTMs, including DTMs from large language models (LLMs). We also show that the proposed measure correlates well with human judgment. Our findings may help in identifying changing topics, evaluating different DTMs and LLMs, and guiding future research in this area.

Text Style Transfer (TST) evaluation is, in practice, inconsistent. Therefore, we conduct a meta-analysis on human and automated TST evaluation and experimentation that thoroughly examines existing literature in the field. The meta-analysis reveals a substantial standardization gap in human and automated evaluation. In addition, we also find a validation gap: only few automated metrics have been validated using human experiments. To this end, we thoroughly scrutinize both the standardization and validation gap and reveal the resulting pitfalls. This work also paves the way to close the standardization and validation gap in TST evaluation by calling out requirements to be met by future research.