Andre Assumpcao

Jayr Pereira, Andre Assumpcao, Roberto Lotufo

Evaluating the quality of text generated by large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge. Traditional metrics often fail to align well with human judgments, particularly in tasks requiring creativity and nuance. In this paper, we propose \textsc{Check-Eval}, a novel evaluation framework leveraging LLMs to assess the quality of generated text through a checklist-based approach. \textsc{Check-Eval} can be employed as both a reference-free and reference-dependent evaluation method, providing a structured and interpretable assessment of text quality. The framework consists of two main stages: checklist generation and checklist evaluation. We validate \textsc{Check-Eval} on two benchmark datasets: Portuguese Legal Semantic Textual Similarity and \textsc{SummEval}. Our results demonstrate that \textsc{Check-Eval} achieves higher correlations with human judgments compared to existing metrics, such as \textsc{G-Eval} and \textsc{GPTScore}, underscoring its potential as a more reliable and effective evaluation framework for natural language generation tasks. The code for our experiments is available at \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/check-eval-0DB4}

Jayr Pereira, Andre Assumpcao, Julio Trecenti et al.

This paper introduces INACIA (Instrução Assistida com Inteligência Artificial), a groundbreaking system designed to integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) into the operational framework of Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts (TCU). The system automates various stages of case analysis, including basic information extraction, admissibility examination, Periculum in mora and Fumus boni iuris analyses, and recommendations generation. Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate INACIA's potential in extracting relevant information from case documents, evaluating its legal plausibility, and formulating propositions for judicial decision-making. Utilizing a validation dataset alongside LLMs, our evaluation methodology presents a novel approach to assessing system performance, correlating highly with human judgment. These results underscore INACIA's potential in complex legal task handling while also acknowledging the current limitations. This study discusses possible improvements and the broader implications of applying AI in legal contexts, suggesting that INACIA represents a significant step towards integrating AI in legal systems globally, albeit with cautious optimism grounded in the empirical findings.