SAGE: A Hierarchical Framework for Evaluating Interpretive Literary Quality in Narratives

arXiv:2609.06611v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Assessing the literary quality of narratives requires evaluating interpretive dimensions (cultural representation, emotional depth, and philosophical engagement) that existing NLG metrics cannot measure. We introduce SAGE, a six-layer evaluation framework that separates rule-based assessment of observable textual properties from LLM-based evaluation of interpretive qualities drawn from cultural theory, affect theory, and existentialist philosophy. Each interpretive layer is assessed through multi-round iterative LLM evaluation with independent cross-validation, achieving measurement-grade reliability (98.8% convergence, >94% inter-rater agreement) stable across evaluator models. Validated on 600 evaluations across 100 short stories, our central finding is a systematic capability boundary: emotional-psychological representation approaches human levels, while cultural critique and philosophical depth exhibit approximately double the gap. LLM-generated narratives score below even commercial genre fiction on all three layers. We interpret this as a boundary between pattern-reproducible literary capacities learnable from training corpora and stance-requiring ones demanding cultural positioning and philosophical engagement that pattern matching alone cannot provide.

Abstract:Assessing the literary quality of narratives requires evaluating interpretive dimensions (cultural representation, emotional depth, and philosophical engagement) that existing NLG metrics cannot measure. We introduce SAGE, a six-layer evaluation framework that separates rule-based assessment of observable textual properties from LLM-based evaluation of interpretive qualities drawn from cultural theory, affect theory, and existentialist philosophy. Each interpretive layer is assessed through multi-round iterative LLM evaluation with independent cross-validation, achieving measurement-grade reliability (98.8% convergence, >94% inter-rater agreement) stable across evaluator models. Validated on 600 evaluations across 100 short stories, our central finding is a systematic capability boundary: emotional-psychological representation approaches human levels, while cultural critique and philosophical depth exhibit approximately double the gap. LLM-generated narratives score below even commercial genre fiction on all three layers. We interpret this as a boundary between pattern-reproducible literary capacities learnable from training corpora and stance-requiring ones demanding cultural positioning and philosophical engagement that pattern matching alone cannot provide.

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

arXiv:2609.06611 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.06611v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.06611 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.

analiza aiqbench

SAGE: A Hierarchical Framework for Evaluating Interpretive Literary Quality in Narratives

Subiecte conexe