An Analysis of Scoring Methods for Reranking in Large Language Model Story Generation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outline-conditioned story generation using Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a promising approach for automating narrative creation.Some outline-conditioned story generation methods use automatic scoring during the generation process in order to improve the story quality.However, current research has shown that automatic scoring is not ideal for assessing story quality.This paper evaluates three proposed automatic story-scoring methods to improve the reranking of outputs during the generation process.These scoring methods leverage different prompting strategies and finetuning techniques to enhance the accuracy and relevance of the assessments.By experimenting with these approaches within a beam search framework, we aim to identify the most effective methods for optimizing story-generation outcomes.While we have found no significant overall difference between these methods in terms of their agreement with human ratings during story generation, the overall story ratings by human evaluators are average.These findings motivate the need for improved automatic scoring techniques and datasets while also indicating that simpler, more easily implementable scoring methods for reranking perform comparably to more complex approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it