mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SMILE: A Composite Lexical-Semantic Metric for Question-Answering Evaluation

arXiv 2511.17432 ↗First posted 21 Nov 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.CVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Traditional evaluation metrics for textual and visual question answering, like ROUGE, METEOR, and Exact Match (EM), focus heavily on n-gram based lexical similarity, often missing the deeper semantic understanding needed for accurate assessment. While measures like BERTScore and MoverScore leverage contextual embeddings to address this limitation, they lack flexibility in balancing sentence-level and keyword-level semantics and ignore lexical similarity, which remains important. Large Language Model (LLM) based evaluators, though powerful, come with drawbacks like high costs, bias, inconsistency, and hallucinations. To address these issues, we introduce SMILE: Semantic Metric Integrating Lexical Exactness, a novel approach that combines sentence-level semantic understanding with keyword-level semantic understanding and easy keyword matching. This composite method balances lexical precision and semantic relevance, offering a comprehensive evaluation. Extensive benchmarks across text, image, and video QA tasks show SMILE is highly correlated with human judgments and computationally lightweight, bridging the gap between lexical and semantic evaluation.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 54 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Nov 2025.

Builds on

54 of 64 references.

References · 54

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  3. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  4. 2023Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 7,792
  5. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  6. 2025Qwen2.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 5,418
  7. 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,467
  8. 2023Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 4,362
  9. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  10. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
  11. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  12. 2021SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddingscited by 2,168
38 more
  1. 2019Towards VQA Models That Can Readcited by 1,696
  2. 2023Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 1,696
  3. 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
  4. 2020DocVQA: A Dataset for VQA on Document Imagescited by 1,288
  5. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
  6. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  7. 2023Video-ChatGPT: Towards Detailed Video Understanding via Large Vision and Language Modelscited by 1,047
  8. 2021MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Compositioncited by 893
  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. 2023Towards General Text Embeddings with Multi-stage Contrastive Learningcited by 705
  12. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 651
  13. 2017The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challengecited by 590
  14. 2019ELI5: Long Form Question Answeringcited by 567
  15. 2022Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labelscited by 508
  16. 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 431
  17. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  18. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
  19. 2017TGIF-QA: Toward Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Visual Question Answeringcited by 378
  20. 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 357
  21. 2023PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimizationcited by 311
  22. 2017SearchQA: A New Q&A Dataset Augmented with Context from a Search Enginecited by 221
  23. 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 197
  24. 2019MRQA 2019 Shared Task: Evaluating Generalization in Reading Comprehensioncited by 183
  25. 2023Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignmentcited by 163
  26. 2024Fact, Fetch, and Reason: A Unified Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 158
  27. 2024Tarsier: Recipes for Training and Evaluating Large Video Description Modelscited by 140
  28. 2024OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluatorscited by 94
  29. 2024Foundational Autoraters: Taming Large Language Models for Better Automatic Evaluationcited by 72
  30. 2024SD-Eval: A Benchmark Dataset for Spoken Dialogue Understanding Beyond Wordscited by 67
  31. 2022Tomayto, Tomahto. Beyond Token-level Answer Equivalence for Question Answering Evaluationcited by 66
  32. 2025The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Inputcited by 49
  33. 2021Semantic Answer Similarity for Evaluating Question Answering Modelscited by 47
  34. 2023Improving Automatic VQA Evaluation Using Large Language Modelscited by 37
  35. 2023Evaluating Open-QA Evaluationcited by 35
  36. 2025Does Context Matter? ContextualJudgeBench for Evaluating LLM-based Judges in Contextual Settingscited by 22
  37. 2018Adaptations of ROUGE and BLEU to Better Evaluate Machine Reading Comprehension Taskcited by 20
  38. 2022Reassessing Evaluation Practices in Visual Question Answering: A Case Study on Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 20

50 most cited of 54 All 54 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.