Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Representing data in words: A context engineering approach

Amandine M. Caut, Amy Rouillard, Beimnet Zenebe, Matthias Green, Ágúst Pálmason Morthens, David J. T. Sumpter · Jan 27, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics General Llm As Judge
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential across a broad range of applications. However, producing reliable text that faithfully represents data remains a challenge. While prior work has shown that task-specific conditioning through in-context learning and knowledge augmentation can improve performance, LLMs continue to struggle with interpreting and reasoning about numerical data. To address this, we introduce wordalisations, a methodology for generating stylistically natural narratives from data. Much like how visualisations display numerical data in a way that is easy to digest, wordalisations abstract data insights into descriptive texts. To illustrate the method's versatility, we apply it to three application areas: scouting football players, personality tests, and international survey data. Due to the absence of standardized benchmarks for this specific task, we conduct LLM-as-a-judge and human-as-a-judge evaluations to assess accuracy across the three applications. We found that wordalisation produces engaging texts that accurately represent the data. We further describe best practice methods for open and transparent development of communication about data.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

37/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential across a broad range of applications."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential across a broad range of applications."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential across a broad range of applications."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential across a broad range of applications."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Due to the absence of standardized benchmarks for this specific task, we conduct LLM-as-a-judge and human-as-a-judge evaluations to assess accuracy across the three applications."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential across a broad range of applications.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential across a broad range of applications.
  • However, producing reliable text that faithfully represents data remains a challenge.
  • While prior work has shown that task-specific conditioning through in-context learning and knowledge augmentation can improve performance, LLMs continue to struggle with interpreting and reasoning about numerical data.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To address this, we introduce wordalisations, a methodology for generating stylistically natural narratives from data.
  • Due to the absence of standardized benchmarks for this specific task, we conduct LLM-as-a-judge and human-as-a-judge evaluations to assess accuracy across the three applications.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Due to the absence of standardized benchmarks for this specific task, we conduct LLM-as-a-judge and human-as-a-judge evaluations to assess accuracy across the three applications.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now