Back to Home

Request Correction

Use this form to request corrections to the paper metadata. Select the fields that need correction and provide the correct information.

Correction Guidelines

  1. Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.
  2. Fill in the suggested correction value for each field you want to correct.
  3. Provide your name and email so we can contact you if needed.

Paper Information

lrec2026-main-377

ParliaBench: An Evaluation and Benchmarking Framework for LLM-Generated Parliamentary Speech

Paper Fields

Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.

Title

ParliaBench: An Evaluation and Benchmarking Framework for LLM-Generated Parliamentary Speech

Abstract

Parliamentary speech generation presents specific challenges for large language models beyond standard text generation tasks. Unlike general text generation, parliamentary speeches require not only linguistic quality but also political authenticity and ideological consistency. Current language models lack specialized training for parliamentary contexts, and existing evaluation methods focus on standard NLP metrics rather than political authenticity. To address this, we present ParliaBench, a benchmark for parliamentary speech generation. We constructed a dataset of 448k speeches from UK Parliament to enable systematic model training. We introduce an evaluation framework combining computational metrics with LLM-as-a-judge assessments for measuring generation quality across three dimensions: linguistic quality, semantic coherence, and political authenticity. We propose two novel embedding-based metrics, Political Spectrum Alignment and Party Alignment, to quantify ideological positioning. We fine-tuned five large language models (LLMs), generated 28k speeches, and evaluated them using our framework, comparing baseline and fine-tuned models. Results show that fine-tuning produces statistically significant improvements across the majority of metrics and our novel metrics demonstrate strong discriminative power for political dimensions otherwise absent from conventional evaluation, while domain fine-tuning reveals a measurable trade-off between political authenticity and lexical diversity.


Authors

Expand an author to correct their information. Use the remove button to request author removal, or add a new author.


PDF Attachment

You may attach a PDF as a corrected version of the paper. Max file size: 10MB. Only PDF files are accepted.

Drag & drop a PDF here, or click to select

Your Information

Author Declaration *

Select at least one field to correct using the edit buttons above.