mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Investigating Data Variance in Evaluations of Automatic Machine Translation Metrics

arXiv 2203.15858 ↗First posted 29 Mar 2022cs.CL cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Current practices in metric evaluation focus on one single dataset, e.g., Newstest dataset in each year's WMT Metrics Shared Task. However, in this paper, we qualitatively and quantitatively show that the performances of metrics are sensitive to data. The ranking of metrics varies when the evaluation is conducted on different datasets. Then this paper further investigates two potential hypotheses, i.e., insignificant data points and the deviation of Independent and Identically Distributed (i.i.d) assumption, which may take responsibility for the issue of data variance. In conclusion, our findings suggest that when evaluating automatic translation metrics, researchers should take data variance into account and be cautious to claim the result on a single dataset, because it may leads to inconsistent results with most of other datasets.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Mar 2022.

Builds on

5 of 27 references.

References · 5

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  3. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 418
  4. 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 158
  5. 2021Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 Paperscited by 71

Built on by

Cited by year

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

3 papers.