What You See Is What Matters: A Novel Visual and Physics-Based Metric for Evaluating Video Generation Quality

As video generation models advance rapidly, assessing the quality of generated videos has become increasingly critical. Existing metrics, such as Fr\'echet Video Distance (FVD), Inception Score (IS), and ClipSim, measure quality primarily in latent space rather than from a human visual perspective, often overlooking key aspects like appearance and motion consistency to physical laws. In this paper, we propose a novel metric, VAMP (Visual Appearance and Motion Plausibility), that evaluates both the visual appearance and physical plausibility of generated videos. VAMP is composed of two main components: an appearance score, which assesses color, shape, and texture consistency across frames, and a motion score, which evaluates the realism of object movements. We validate VAMP through two experiments: corrupted video evaluation and generated video evaluation. In the corrupted video evaluation, we introduce various types of corruptions into real videos and measure the correlation between corruption severity and VAMP scores. In the generated video evaluation, we use state-of-the-art models to generate videos from carefully designed prompts and compare VAMP's performance to human evaluators' rankings. Our results demonstrate that VAMP effectively captures both visual fidelity and temporal consistency, offering a more comprehensive evaluation of video quality than traditional methods.

Analyzing and Evaluating Correlation Measures in NLG Meta-Evaluation

The correlation between NLG automatic evaluation metrics and human evaluation is often regarded as a critical criterion for assessing the capability of an evaluation metric. However, different grouping methods and correlation coefficients result in various types of correlation measures used in meta-evaluation. In specific evaluation scenarios, prior work often directly follows conventional measure settings, but the characteristics and differences between these measures have not gotten sufficient attention. Therefore, this paper analyzes 12 common correlation measures using a large amount of real-world data from six widely-used NLG evaluation datasets and 32 evaluation metrics, revealing that different measures indeed impact the meta-evaluation results. Furthermore, we propose three perspectives that reflect the capability of meta-evaluation and find that the measure using global grouping and Pearson correlation exhibits the best overall performance, involving the discriminative power, ranking consistency, and sensitivity to score granularity.

Evaluating Self-Generated Documents for Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Large Language Models

In retrieval-augmented generation systems, the integration of self-generated documents (SGDs) alongside retrieved content has emerged as a promising strategy for enhancing the performance of large language model. However, previous research primarily focuses on optimizing the use of SGDs, with the inherent properties of SGDs remaining underexplored. Therefore, this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis of different types of SGDs and experiments on various knowledge-intensive tasks. We develop a taxonomy of SGDs grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to compare the influence of different SGD categories. Our findings offer key insights into what kinds of SGDs most effectively contribute to improving LLM's performance. The results and further fusion methods based on SGD categories also provide practical guidelines for taking better advantage of SGDs to achieve significant advancements in knowledge-driven QA tasks with RAG.

SMART-RAG: Selection using Determinantal Matrices for Augmented Retrieval

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has greatly improved large language models (LLMs) by enabling them to generate accurate, contextually grounded responses through the integration of external information. However, conventional RAG approaches, which prioritize top-ranked documents based solely on query-context relevance, often introduce redundancy and conflicting information. This issue is particularly evident in unsupervised retrieval settings, where there are no mechanisms to effectively mitigate these problems, leading to suboptimal context selection. To address this, we propose Selection using Matrices for Augmented Retrieval (SMART) in question answering tasks, a fully unsupervised and training-free framework designed to optimize context selection in RAG. SMART leverages Determinantal Point Processes (DPPs) to simultaneously model relevance, diversity and conflict, ensuring the selection of potentially high-quality contexts. Experimental results across multiple datasets demonstrate that SMART significantly enhances QA performance and surpasses previous unsupervised context selection methods, showing a promising strategy for RAG.

Themis: Towards Flexible and Interpretable NLG Evaluation

The evaluation of natural language generation (NLG) tasks is a significant and longstanding research issue. With the recent emergence of powerful large language models (LLMs), some studies have turned to LLM-based automatic evaluation methods, which demonstrate great potential to become a new evaluation paradigm following traditional string-based and model-based metrics. However, despite the improved performance of existing methods, they still possess some deficiencies, such as dependency on references and limited evaluation flexibility. Therefore, in this paper, we meticulously construct a large-scale NLG evaluation corpus NLG-Eval with human and GPT-4 annotations to alleviate the lack of relevant data in this field. Furthermore, we propose Themis, an LLM dedicated to NLG evaluation, which has been trained with our designed multi-perspective consistency and rating-oriented preference alignment methods. Themis can conduct flexible and interpretable evaluations without references, and it exhibits superior evaluation performance on various NLG tasks, simultaneously generalizing well to unseen tasks and surpassing other evaluation models, including GPT-4.

Task Oriented In-Domain Data Augmentation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown superior performance in various applications and fields. To achieve better performance on specialized domains such as law and advertisement, LLMs are often continue pre-trained on in-domain data. However, existing approaches suffer from two major issues. First, in-domain data are scarce compared with general domain-agnostic data. Second, data used for continual pre-training are not task-aware, such that they may not be helpful to downstream applications. We propose TRAIT, a task-oriented in-domain data augmentation framework. Our framework is divided into two parts: in-domain data selection and task-oriented synthetic passage generation. The data selection strategy identifies and selects a large amount of in-domain data from general corpora, and thus significantly enriches domain knowledge in the continual pre-training data. The synthetic passages contain guidance on how to use domain knowledge to answer questions about downstream tasks. By training on such passages, the model aligns with the need of downstream applications. We adapt LLMs to two domains: advertisement and math. On average, TRAIT improves LLM performance by 8% in the advertisement domain and 7.5% in the math domain.

MC-MKE: A Fine-Grained Multimodal Knowledge Editing Benchmark Emphasizing Modality Consistency

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are prone to non-factual or outdated knowledge issues, which can manifest as misreading and misrecognition errors due to the complexity of multimodal knowledge. Previous benchmarks have not systematically analyzed the performance of editing methods in correcting these two error types. To better represent and correct these errors, we decompose multimodal knowledge into its visual and textual components. Different error types correspond to different editing formats, which edits distinct part of the multimodal knowledge. We present MC-MKE, a fine-grained Multimodal Knowledge Editing benchmark emphasizing Modality Consistency. Our benchmark facilitates independent correction of misreading and misrecognition errors by editing the corresponding knowledge component. We evaluate three multimodal knowledge editing methods on MC-MKE, revealing their limitations, particularly in terms of modality consistency. Our work highlights the challenges posed by multimodal knowledge editing and motivates further research in developing effective techniques for this task.

Are LLM-based Evaluators Confusing NLG Quality Criteria?

Some prior work has shown that LLMs perform well in NLG evaluation for different tasks. However, we discover that LLMs seem to confuse different evaluation criteria, which reduces their reliability. For further verification, we first consider avoiding issues of inconsistent conceptualization and vague expression in existing NLG quality criteria themselves. So we summarize a clear hierarchical classification system for 11 common aspects with corresponding different criteria from previous studies involved. Inspired by behavioral testing, we elaborately design 18 types of aspect-targeted perturbation attacks for fine-grained analysis of the evaluation behaviors of different LLMs. We also conduct human annotations beyond the guidance of the classification system to validate the impact of the perturbations. Our experimental results reveal confusion issues inherent in LLMs, as well as other noteworthy phenomena, and necessitate further research and improvements for LLM-based evaluation.

LLM-based NLG Evaluation: Current Status and Challenges

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) is a vital but challenging problem in artificial intelligence. Traditional evaluation metrics mainly capturing content (e.g. n-gram) overlap between system outputs and references are far from satisfactory, and large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have demonstrated great potential in NLG evaluation in recent years. Various automatic evaluation methods based on LLMs have been proposed, including metrics derived from LLMs, prompting LLMs, and fine-tuning LLMs with labeled evaluation data. In this survey, we first give a taxonomy of LLM-based NLG evaluation methods, and discuss their pros and cons, respectively. We also discuss human-LLM collaboration for NLG evaluation. Lastly, we discuss several open problems in this area and point out future research directions.

Evoke: Evoking Critical Thinking Abilities in LLMs via Reviewer-Author Prompt Editing

Large language models (LLMs) have made impressive progress in natural language processing. These models rely on proper human instructions (or prompts) to generate suitable responses. However, the potential of LLMs are not fully harnessed by commonly-used prompting methods: many human-in-the-loop algorithms employ ad-hoc procedures for prompt selection; while auto prompt generation approaches are essentially searching all possible prompts randomly and inefficiently. We propose Evoke, an automatic prompt refinement framework. In Evoke, there are two instances of a same LLM: one as a reviewer (LLM-Reviewer), it scores the current prompt; the other as an author (LLM-Author), it edits the prompt by considering the edit history and the reviewer's feedback. Such an author-reviewer feedback loop ensures that the prompt is refined in each iteration. We further aggregate a data selection approach to Evoke, where only the hard samples are exposed to the LLM. The hard samples are more important because the LLM can develop deeper understanding of the tasks out of them, while the model may already know how to solve the easier cases. Experimental results show that Evoke significantly outperforms existing methods. For instance, in the challenging task of logical fallacy detection, Evoke scores above 80, while all other baseline methods struggle to reach 20.