Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces a novel evaluation framework using semiotic profiles to measure the fidelity and coverage of natural language generation beyond standard lexical metrics. The study reveals critical insights into LLM behavior, specifically demonstrating that alignment with human-curated data degrades as sampling temperatures increase. This work advances the field of AI safety and reliability by providing more nuanced tools for assessing how models frame meaning and discourse references.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

A Semiotics-Aware Framework for Evaluating Fidelity and Coverage in Natural Language Generation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.26527v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When two texts describe the same expression, standard metrics based on lexical overlap or whole-text similarity may fail to detect meaningful differences in how that expression is framed. We propose a framework to evaluate semiotic alignment between texts, where a semiotic profile encompasses both the contextual meaning and the discourse references made salient by a text. Our approach yields two scores, Semiotic Fidelity and Semiotic Coverage, estimating how much of one text's profile is supported by the other and how much of the other's profile it recovers. Experiments show that coverage is typically lower than fidelity, and that alignment between LLMs and human-curated data is highest at low sampling temperatures, while higher temperatures reduce this alignment.

Abstract:When two texts describe the same expression, standard metrics based on lexical overlap or whole-text similarity may fail to detect meaningful differences in how that expression is framed. We propose a framework to evaluate semiotic alignment between texts, where a semiotic profile encompasses both the contextual meaning and the discourse references made salient by a text. Our approach yields two scores, Semiotic Fidelity and Semiotic Coverage, estimating how much of one text's profile is supported by the other and how much of the other's profile it recovers. Experiments show that coverage is typically lower than fidelity, and that alignment between LLMs and human-curated data is highest at low sampling temperatures, while higher temperatures reduce this alignment.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.26527 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.26527v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26527 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 214 words

Related coverage