mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Towards Multiple References Era -- Addressing Data Leakage and Limited Reference Diversity in NLG Evaluation

arXiv 2308.03131 ↗First posted 6 Aug 2023cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

N-gram matching-based evaluation metrics, such as BLEU and chrF, are widely utilized across a range of natural language generation (NLG) tasks. However, recent studies have revealed a weak correlation between these matching-based metrics and human evaluations, especially when compared with neural-based metrics like BLEURT. In this paper, we conjecture that the performance bottleneck in matching-based metrics may be caused by the limited diversity of references. To address this issue, we propose to utilize textitmultiple references to enhance the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations. Within the WMT Metrics benchmarks, we observe that the multi-references F200spBLEU surpasses the conventional single-reference one by an accuracy improvement of 7.2%. Remarkably, it also exceeds the neural-based BERTscore by an accuracy enhancement of 3.9%. Moreover, we observe that the data leakage issue in large language models (LLMs) can be mitigated to a large extent by our multi-reference metric. We release the code and data at urlhttps://github.com/SefaZeng/LLM-Ref

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2023.

Builds on

22 of 34 references.

References · 22

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,480
  2. 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,559
  3. 2022BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Modelcited by 1,978
  4. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,793
  5. 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,302
  6. 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,288
  7. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,200
  8. 2023PaLM 2 Technical Reportcited by 1,162
  9. 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,071
  10. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,027
  11. 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 731
  12. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 668
10 more
  1. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 421
  2. 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 416
  3. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 334
  4. 2020Evaluation of Text Generation: A Surveycited by 275
  5. 2019CCMatrix: Mining Billions of High-Quality Parallel Sentences on the WEBcited by 177
  6. 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 161
  7. 2023Multilingual Machine Translation with Large Language Models: Empirical Results and Analysiscited by 157
  8. 2020WeChat Neural Machine Translation Systems for WMT20cited by 11
  9. 2021WeChat Neural Machine Translation Systems for WMT21cited by 11
  10. 2022Alibaba-Translate China's Submission for WMT 2022 Metrics Shared Taskcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.