Operationalizing Specifications, In Addition to Test Sets for Evaluating Constrained Generative Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In this work, we present some recommendations on the evaluation of state-of-the-art generative models for constrained generation tasks. The progress on generative models has been rapid in recent years. These large-scale models have had three impacts: firstly, the fluency of generation in both language and vision modalities has rendered common average-case evaluation metrics much less useful in diagnosing system errors. Secondly, the same substrate models now form the basis of a number of applications, driven both by the utility of their representations as well as phenomena such as in-context learning, which raise the abstraction level of interacting with such models. Thirdly, the user expectations around these models and their feted public releases have made the technical challenge of out of domain generalization much less excusable in practice. Subsequently, our evaluation methodologies haven't adapted to these changes. More concretely, while the associated utility and methods of interacting with generative models have expanded, a similar expansion has not been observed in their evaluation practices. In this paper, we argue that the scale of generative models could be exploited to raise the abstraction level at which evaluation itself is conducted and provide recommendations for the same. Our recommendations are based on leveraging specifications as a powerful instrument to evaluate generation quality and are readily applicable to a variety of tasks.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Nov 2022.
Builds on
20 of 28 references.
References · 20
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2021Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generationcited by 4,276
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
- 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 950
8 more
- 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
- 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
- 2022News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3cited by 324
- 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 304
- 2018Adversarial Examples that Fool both Computer Vision and Time-Limited Humanscited by 73
- 2022GEMv2: Multilingual NLG Benchmarking in a Single Line of Codecited by 36
- 2022SALTED: A Framework for SAlient Long-Tail Translation Error Detectioncited by 23
- 2022Finding Memo: Extractive Memorization in Constrained Sequence Generation Taskscited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.