Perplexity from PLM Is Unreliable for Evaluating Text Quality
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recently, amounts of works utilize perplexity~(PPL) to evaluate the quality of the generated text. They suppose that if the value of PPL is smaller, the quality(i.e. fluency) of the text to be evaluated is better. However, we find that the PPL referee is unqualified and it cannot evaluate the generated text fairly for the following reasons: (i) The PPL of short text is larger than long text, which goes against common sense, (ii) The repeated text span could damage the performance of PPL, and (iii) The punctuation marks could affect the performance of PPL heavily. Experiments show that the PPL is unreliable for evaluating the quality of given text. Last, we discuss the key problems with evaluating text quality using language models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2022.
Builds on
6 of 20 references.
References · 6
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020A Survey of Evaluation Metrics Used for NLG Systemscited by 164
- 2016Modeling Coverage for Neural Machine Translationcited by 110
- 2022MISC: A MIxed Strategy-Aware Model Integrating COMET for Emotional Support Conversationcited by 84
- 2021Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexitycited by 77
- 2019Neural Machine Translation with Explicit Phrase Alignmentcited by 12
Built on by
Not cited yet.