mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Social Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for NLG

arXiv 2210.08859 ↗First posted 17 Oct 2022cs.CL cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Many studies have revealed that word embeddings, language models, and models for specific downstream tasks in NLP are prone to social biases, especially gender bias. Recently these techniques have been gradually applied to automatic evaluation metrics for text generation. In the paper, we propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics and discover that social biases are also widely present in some model-based automatic evaluation metrics. Moreover, we construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks. Results show that given gender-neutral references in the evaluation, model-based evaluation metrics may show a preference for the male hypothesis, and the performance of them, i.e. the correlation between evaluation metrics and human judgments, usually has more significant variation after gender swapping.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Oct 2022.

Builds on

32 of 63 references.

References · 32

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,027
  5. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  6. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
  7. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
  8. 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 911
  9. 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
  10. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  11. 2016SPICE: Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluationcited by 820
  12. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
20 more
  1. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  2. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
  3. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolutioncited by 438
  4. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
  5. 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 397
  6. 2019Evaluating Gender Bias in Machine Translationcited by 247
  7. 2019Gender Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddingscited by 203
  8. 2020Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilitiescited by 182
  9. 2019Queens are Powerful too: Mitigating Gender Bias in Dialogue Generationcited by 152
  10. 2019Black is to Criminal as Caucasian is to Police: Detecting and Removing Multiclass Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 146
  11. 2020Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarizationcited by 144
  12. 2021Q2: Evaluating Factual Consistency in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogues via Question Generation and Question Answeringcited by 131
  13. 2018BLEU is Not Suitable for the Evaluation of Text Simplificationcited by 78
  14. 2017Relevance of Unsupervised Metrics in Task-Oriented Dialogue for Evaluating Natural Language Generationcited by 61
  15. 2021Perturbation CheckLists for Evaluating NLG Evaluation Metricscited by 49
  16. 2016Re-evaluating Automatic Metrics for Image Captioningcited by 45
  17. 2021Evaluating Gender Bias in Natural Language Inferencecited by 27
  18. 2022Spurious Correlations in Reference-Free Evaluation of Text Generationcited by 26
  19. 2022Towards Explainable Evaluation Metrics for Natural Language Generationcited by 15
  20. 2022Investigating Data Variance in Evaluations of Automatic Machine Translation Metricscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1.

3 papers.