mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Contextual Metric Meta-Evaluation by Measuring Local Metric Accuracy

arXiv 2503.19828 ↗First posted 25 Mar 2025cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Meta-evaluation of automatic evaluation metrics -- assessing evaluation metrics themselves -- is crucial for accurately benchmarking natural language processing systems and has implications for scientific inquiry, production model development, and policy enforcement. While existing approaches to metric meta-evaluation focus on general statements about the absolute and relative quality of metrics across arbitrary system outputs, in practice, metrics are applied in highly contextual settings, often measuring the performance for a highly constrained set of system outputs. For example, we may only be interested in evaluating a specific model or class of models. We introduce a method for contextual metric meta-evaluation by comparing the local metric accuracy of evaluation metrics. Across translation, speech recognition, and ranking tasks, we demonstrate that the local metric accuracies vary both in absolute value and relative effectiveness as we shift across evaluation contexts. This observed variation highlights the importance of adopting context-specific metric evaluations over global ones.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2025.

Builds on

17 of 37 references.

References · 17

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  2. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 674
  3. 2018ESPnet: End-to-End Speech Processing Toolkitcited by 558
  4. 2020Hard Negative Mixing for Contrastive Learningcited by 402
  5. 2016How NOT To Evaluate Your Dialogue System: An Empirical Study of Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Dialogue Response Generationcited by 356
  6. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 338
  7. 2017Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLGcited by 233
  8. 2016Statistics of Robust Optimization: A Generalized Empirical Likelihood Approachcited by 183
  9. 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 163
  10. 2023Revisiting Out-of-distribution Robustness in NLP: Benchmark, Analysis, and LLMs Evaluationscited by 97
  11. 2019Beyond BLEU: Training Neural Machine Translation with Semantic Similaritycited by 84
  12. 2021Perturbation CheckLists for Evaluating NLG Evaluation Metricscited by 50
5 more
  1. 2022On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text Generationcited by 49
  2. 2023Evaluating Evaluation Metrics: A Framework for Analyzing NLG Evaluation Metrics using Measurement Theorycited by 43
  3. 2022Deconstructing NLG Evaluation: Evaluation Practices, Assumptions, and Their Implicationscited by 32
  4. 2024Quality and Quantity of Machine Translation References for Automatic Metricscited by 7
  5. 2023ACES: Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets at WMT 2023cited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.