Direct-Scoring NLG Evaluators Can Use Pairwise Comparisons Too

Abstract

As large-language models have been increasingly used as automatic raters for evaluating free-form content, including document summarization, dialog, and story generation, work has been dedicated to evaluating such models by measuring their correlations with human judgment. For \textit{sample-level} performance, methods which operate by using pairwise comparisons between machine-generated text perform well but often lack the ability to assign absolute scores to individual summaries, an ability crucial for use cases that require thresholding. In this work, we propose a direct-scoring method which uses synthetic summaries to act as pairwise machine rankings at test time. We show that our method performs comparably to state-of-the-art pairwise evaluators in terms of axis-averaged sample-level correlations on the SummEval (\textbf{+0.03}), TopicalChat (\textbf{-0.03}), and HANNA (\textbf{+0.05}) meta-evaluation benchmarks, and release the synthetic in-context summaries as data to facilitate future work.