XQDT: eXplainable and Quantitative Data-Text Alignment Metric with Feedback Signals
Kun Efimov-Zhang, Yifei Song, Claire Gardent
Abstract
Evaluating data-text alignment remains challenging: existing metrics often provide limited explanations for the scores, while prompt-based LLM-as-Judge methods can be expensive and unreliable. We present an end-to-end explainable evaluation metric that fine-tunes a language model to identify omitted, extra, incorrect, and correct data units in a data-text pair. These local judgements are aggregated into precision, recall, and F1 scores, providing both fine-grained diagnostic feedback and an interpretable measure of alignment quality. Across benchmarks, our fine-tuned models outperform LLM-as-Judge methods in error prediction and achieve competitive precision, recall, and F1 scores, while maintaining strong correlation with human judgements. Beyond evaluation, our verifier outputs also provide useful feedback signals for downstream correction and refinement, supporting alignment-oriented improvement of data-to-text and text-to-data. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/guihuzhang/xqdt.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Monitoring and Discovering Reward Hacking with Internal Representations during LLM Evaluations
Leon Bergen, Usha Bhalla, Andrew Lee et al.
Reporting Practice Matters: The Impact of Reference Choice on Chest X-ray Report Evaluation
Daniel P. Jeong, Charles Q. Li, Hossein Hosseiny et al.
Long-Lived Characters, Local Inference: Incremental Memory Maintenance for Game NPCs
Zimu Xu
Beyond Outcomes: Dual-View Relational Learning for Efficient Agent Benchmarking
Xinshuai Guo, Junjie Wu, Dolly Deng et al.
How Much is a Human Right Worth? ECtHR-NPD: A Benchmark for Predicting Non-Pecuniary Damage Awards
Yanyi Pu, Damian A. Gonzalez-Salzberg, Zheng Yuan et al.
Structured Claim-Level Discourse Representations for Dense Health Narratives
Farnoushsadat Nilizadeh, Elham Pourabbas Vafa, Shirin Nilizadeh et al.