arXiv · 2502.19064
Can Large Language Models Outperform Non-Experts in Poetry Evaluation? A Comparative Study Using the Consensual Assessment Technique
Abstract
This study adapts the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) for Large Language Models (LLMs), introducing a novel methodology for poetry evaluation. Using a 90-poem dataset with a ground truth based on publication venue, we demonstrate that this approach allows LLMs to significantly surpass the performance of non-expert human judges. Our method, which leverages forced-choice ranking within small, randomized batches, enabled Claude-3-Opus to achieve a Spearman's Rank Correlation of 0.87 with the ground truth, dramatically outperforming the best human non-expert evaluation (SRC = 0.38). The LLM assessments also exhibited high inter-rater reliability, underscoring the methodology's robustness. These findings establish that LLMs, when guided by a comparative framework, can be effective and reliable tools for assessing poetry, paving the way for their broader application in other creative domains.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Piotr Sawicki, Marek Grześ, Dan Brown, Fabrício Góes. 2025-02-26. Can Large Language Models Outperform Non-Experts in Poetry Evaluation? A Comparative Study Using the Consensual Assessment Technique. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19064
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.