mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Not All Metrics Are Guilty: Improving NLG Evaluation by Diversifying References

arXiv 2305.15067 ↗First posted 24 May 2023cs.CLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Most research about natural language generation (NLG) relies on evaluation benchmarks with limited references for a sample, which may result in poor correlations with human judgements. The underlying reason is that one semantic meaning can actually be expressed in different forms, and the evaluation with a single or few references may not accurately reflect the quality of the model's hypotheses. To address this issue, this paper presents a simple and effective method, named Div-Ref, to enhance existing evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references. We leverage large language models (LLMs) to diversify the expression of a single reference into multiple high-quality ones to cover the semantic space of the reference sentence as much as possible. We conduct comprehensive experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation. This idea is compatible with recent LLM-based evaluation which can similarly derive advantages from incorporating multiple references. We strongly encourage future generation benchmarks to include more references, even if they are generated by LLMs, which is once for all. We release all the code and data at https://github.com/RUCAIBox/Div-Ref to facilitate research.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2023.

Builds on

31 of 48 references.

References · 31

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  2. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,881
  3. 2021CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Captioningcited by 2,388
  4. 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,027
  5. 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,281
  6. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
  7. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,024
  8. 2016SPICE: Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluationcited by 820
  9. 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 729
  10. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  11. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  12. 2023Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarizationcited by 444
19 more
  1. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  2. 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 416
  3. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
  4. 2020Evaluation of Text Generation: A Surveycited by 275
  5. 2020USR: An Unsupervised and Reference Free Evaluation Metric for Dialog Generationcited by 186
  6. 2023Is ChatGPT A Good Translator? Yes With GPT-4 As The Enginecited by 172
  7. 2020A Survey of Evaluation Metrics Used for NLG Systemscited by 164
  8. 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 161
  9. 2023Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPTcited by 126
  10. 2020Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation in Many Languages via Zero-Shot Paraphrasingcited by 114
  11. 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 109
  12. 2023Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Modelscited by 87
  13. 2018BLEU is Not Suitable for the Evaluation of Text Simplificationcited by 78
  14. 2019Investigating Evaluation of Open-Domain Dialogue Systems With Human Generated Multiple Referencescited by 48
  15. 2020On the Limitations of Cross-lingual Encoders as Exposed by Reference-Free Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 36
  16. 2022Quality Controlled Paraphrase Generationcited by 31
  17. 2020Simulated Multiple Reference Training Improves Low-Resource Machine Translationcited by 22
  18. 2020Human-Paraphrased References Improve Neural Machine Translationcited by 15
  19. 2018Multi-Reference Training with Pseudo-References for Neural Translation and Text Generationcited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 5; 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

11 papers.