Papers › RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation

RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation

30 Apr 2024arXiv:2404.19563archive 2025-07-28

Shuqian Sheng, Yi Xu, Tianhang Zhang, Zanwei Shen, Luoyi Fu, Jiaxin Ding, Lei Zhou, Xiaoying Gan, Xinbing Wang, Chenghu Zhou

The era of Large Language Models (LLMs) raises new demands for automatic evaluation metrics, which should be adaptable to various application scenarios while maintaining low cost and effectiveness. Traditional metrics for automatic text evaluation are often tailored to specific scenarios, while LLM-based evaluation metrics are costly, requiring fine-tuning or rely heavily on the generation capabilities of LLMs. Besides, previous LLM-based metrics ignore the fact that, within the space of LLM representations, there exist direction vectors that indicate the estimation of text quality. To this end, we introduce RepEval, a metric that leverages the projection of LLM representations for evaluation. Through simple prompt modifications, RepEval can easily transition to various tasks, requiring only minimal sample pairs for direction vector construction. Results on fourteen datasets across two evaluation tasks demonstrate the high effectiveness of our method, which exhibits a higher correlation with human judgments than previous methods, even in complex evaluation scenarios involving pair-wise selection under nuanced aspects. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

27 samples harvested; 18 ran; 2 honoured the contract we drafted; 9 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 3 of the 27 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 4 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections