mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Towards Explainable Evaluation Metrics for Natural Language Generation

arXiv 2203.11131 ↗First posted 21 Mar 2022cs.CL cs.LGcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Unlike classical lexical overlap metrics such as BLEU, most current evaluation metrics (such as BERTScore or MoverScore) are based on black-box language models such as BERT or XLM-R. They often achieve strong correlations with human judgments, but recent research indicates that the lower-quality classical metrics remain dominant, one of the potential reasons being that their decision processes are transparent. To foster more widespread acceptance of the novel high-quality metrics, explainability thus becomes crucial. In this concept paper, we identify key properties and propose key goals of explainable machine translation evaluation metrics. We also provide a synthesizing overview over recent approaches for explainable machine translation metrics and discuss how they relate to those goals and properties. Further, we conduct own novel experiments, which (among others) find that current adversarial NLP techniques are unsuitable for automatically identifying limitations of high-quality black-box evaluation metrics, as they are not meaning-preserving. Finally, we provide a vision of future approaches to explainable evaluation metrics and their evaluation. We hope that our work can help catalyze and guide future research on explainable evaluation metrics and, mediately, also contribute to better and more transparent text generation systems.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 107 of its 185 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Mar 2022.

Builds on

107 of 185 references.

References · 107

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  3. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  4. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  5. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  6. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  7. 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
  8. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  9. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  10. 2019Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scalecited by 3,907
  11. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  12. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
38 more
  1. 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
  2. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
  3. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
  4. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  5. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
  6. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
  7. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  8. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
  9. 2017SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluationcited by 998
  10. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  11. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
  12. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  13. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
  14. 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 709
  15. 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 663
  16. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  17. 2020Making Monolingual Sentence Embeddings Multilingual using Knowledge Distillationcited by 591
  18. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  19. 2020Beyond English-Centric Multilingual Machine Translationcited by 559
  20. 2020BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERTcited by 488
  21. 2018Universal Sentence Encodercited by 485
  22. 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
  23. 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 422
  24. 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 416
  25. 2014Understanding Deep Image Representations by Inverting Themcited by 399
  26. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  27. 2016European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"cited by 343
  28. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
  29. 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
  30. 2020Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 281
  31. 2020Evaluation of Text Generation: A Surveycited by 275
  32. 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
  33. 2020Unsupervised Quality Estimation for Neural Machine Translationcited by 210
  34. 2020A Survey of the State of Explainable AI for Natural Language Processingcited by 206
  35. 2017Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visualizing and Interpreting Deep Learning Modelscited by 202
  36. 2015Visualizing and Understanding Neural Models in NLPcited by 199
  37. 2020Compositional Explanations of Neuronscited by 172
  38. 2020Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AIcited by 166

50 most cited of 107 All 107 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 7; 2023: 7; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area: