SMILE: A Composite Lexical-Semantic Metric for Question-Answering Evaluation
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
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 7,792
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
- 2025Qwen2.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 5,418
- 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,467
- 2023Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 4,362
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
- 2021SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddingscited by 2,168
38 more
- 2019Towards VQA Models That Can Readcited by 1,696
- 2023Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 1,696
- 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
- 2020DocVQA: A Dataset for VQA on Document Imagescited by 1,288
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
- 2023Video-ChatGPT: Towards Detailed Video Understanding via Large Vision and Language Modelscited by 1,047
- 2021MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Compositioncited by 893
- 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 729
- 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
- 2023Towards General Text Embeddings with Multi-stage Contrastive Learningcited by 705
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 651
- 2017The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challengecited by 590
- 2019ELI5: Long Form Question Answeringcited by 567
- 2022Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labelscited by 508
- 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 431
- 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
- 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
- 2017TGIF-QA: Toward Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Visual Question Answeringcited by 378
- 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 357
- 2023PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimizationcited by 311
- 2017SearchQA: A New Q&A Dataset Augmented with Context from a Search Enginecited by 221
- 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 197
- 2019MRQA 2019 Shared Task: Evaluating Generalization in Reading Comprehensioncited by 183
- 2023Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignmentcited by 163
- 2024Fact, Fetch, and Reason: A Unified Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 158
- 2024Tarsier: Recipes for Training and Evaluating Large Video Description Modelscited by 140
- 2024OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluatorscited by 94
- 2024Foundational Autoraters: Taming Large Language Models for Better Automatic Evaluationcited by 72
- 2024SD-Eval: A Benchmark Dataset for Spoken Dialogue Understanding Beyond Wordscited by 67
- 2022Tomayto, Tomahto. Beyond Token-level Answer Equivalence for Question Answering Evaluationcited by 66
- 2025The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Inputcited by 49
- 2021Semantic Answer Similarity for Evaluating Question Answering Modelscited by 47
- 2023Improving Automatic VQA Evaluation Using Large Language Modelscited by 37
- 2023Evaluating Open-QA Evaluationcited by 35
- 2025Does Context Matter? ContextualJudgeBench for Evaluating LLM-based Judges in Contextual Settingscited by 22
- 2018Adaptations of ROUGE and BLEU to Better Evaluate Machine Reading Comprehension Taskcited by 20
- 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
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.