Order in the Evaluation Court: A Critical Analysis of NLG Evaluation Trends

Despite advances in Natural Language Generation (NLG), evaluation remains challenging. Although various new metrics and LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) methods are proposed, human judgment persists as the gold standard. To systematically review how NLG evaluation has evolved, we employ an automatic information extraction scheme to gather key information from NLG papers, focusing on different evaluation methods (metrics, LaaJ and human evaluation). With extracted metadata from 14,171 papers across four major conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, and INLG) over the past six years, we reveal several critical findings: (1) Task Divergence: While Dialogue Generation demonstrates a rapid shift toward LaaJ (>40% in 2025), Machine Translation remains locked into n-gram metrics, and Question Answering exhibits a substantial decline in the proportion of studies conducting human evaluation. (2) Metric Inertia: Despite the development of semantic metrics, general-purpose metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE) continue to be widely used across tasks without empirical justification, often lacking the discriminative power to distinguish between specific quality criteria. (3) Human-LaaJ Divergence: Our association analysis challenges the assumption that LLMs act as mere proxies for humans; LaaJ and human evaluations prioritize very different signals, and explicit validation is scarce (<8% of papers comparing the two), with only moderate to low correlation. Based on these observations, we derive practical recommendations to improve the rigor of future NLG evaluation.

Computational Measurement of Political Positions: A Review of Text-Based Ideal Point Estimation Algorithms

This article presents the first systematic review of unsupervised and semi-supervised computational text-based ideal point estimation (CT-IPE) algorithms, methods designed to infer latent political positions from textual data. These algorithms are widely used in political science, communication, computational social science, and computer science to estimate ideological preferences from parliamentary speeches, party manifestos, and social media. Over the past two decades, their development has closely followed broader NLP trends -- beginning with word-frequency models and most recently turning to large language models (LLMs). While this trajectory has greatly expanded the methodological toolkit, it has also produced a fragmented field that lacks systematic comparison and clear guidance for applied use. To address this gap, we identified 25 CT-IPE algorithms through a systematic literature review and conducted a manual content analysis of their modeling assumptions and development contexts. To compare them meaningfully, we introduce a conceptual framework that distinguishes how algorithms generate, capture, and aggregate textual variance. On this basis, we identify four methodological families -- word-frequency, topic modeling, word embedding, and LLM-based approaches -- and critically assess their assumptions, interpretability, scalability, and limitations. Our review offers three contributions. First, it provides a structured synthesis of two decades of algorithm development, clarifying how diverse methods relate to one another. Second, it translates these insights into practical guidance for applied researchers, highlighting trade-offs in transparency, technical requirements, and validation strategies that shape algorithm choice. Third, it emphasizes that differences in estimation outcomes across algorithms are themselves informative, underscoring the need for systematic benchmarking.

PolBiX: Detecting LLMs' Political Bias in Fact-Checking through X-phemisms

Large Language Models are increasingly used in applications requiring objective assessment, which could be compromised by political bias. Many studies found preferences for left-leaning positions in LLMs, but downstream effects on tasks like fact-checking remain underexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate political bias through exchanging words with euphemisms or dysphemisms in German claims. We construct minimal pairs of factually equivalent claims that differ in political connotation, to assess the consistency of LLMs in classifying them as true or false. We evaluate six LLMs and find that, more than political leaning, the presence of judgmental words significantly influences truthfulness assessment. While a few models show tendencies of political bias, this is not mitigated by explicitly calling for objectivism in prompts.