Span annotation - annotating specific text features at the span level - can be used to evaluate texts where single-score metrics fail to provide actionable feedback. Until recently, span annotation was done by human annotators or fine-tuned models. In this paper, we study whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as an alternative to human annotators. We compare the abilities of LLMs to skilled human annotators on three span annotation tasks: evaluating data-to-text generation, identifying translation errors, and detecting propaganda techniques. We show that overall, LLMs have only moderate inter-annotator agreement (IAA) with human annotators. However, we demonstrate that LLMs make errors at a similar rate as skilled crowdworkers. LLMs also produce annotations at a fraction of the cost per output annotation. We release the dataset of over 40k model and human span annotations for further research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential as evaluators of NLG systems, allowing for high-quality, reference-free, and multi-aspect assessments. However, existing LLM-based metrics suffer from two major drawbacks: reliance on proprietary models to generate training data or perform evaluations, and a lack of fine-grained, explanatory feedback. We introduce OpeNLGauge, a fully open-source, reference-free NLG evaluation metric that provides accurate explanations based on individual error spans. OpeNLGauge is available as a two-stage ensemble of larger open-weight LLMs, or as a small fine-tuned evaluation model, with confirmed generalizability to unseen tasks, domains and aspects. Our extensive meta-evaluation shows that OpeNLGauge achieves competitive correlation with human judgments, outperforming state-of-the-art models on certain tasks while maintaining full reproducibility and providing explanations more than twice as accurate.