Rethinking Communication Metrics: How Should We Measure Meaning?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Semantic communication shifts the objective of communication systems from accurate symbol reconstruction toward meaning preservation, task accomplishment, and efficient information exchange. However, its evaluation remains fragmented across telecommunications, natural language processing, computer vision, and machine learning, and no single metric can characterize semantic quality across modalities, tasks, and channel conditions. This article surveys key performance indicators (KPIs) for text- and image-based semantic communication systems from a unified, evaluation-centered perspective. Unlike prior surveys primarily organized around architectures, applications, or transmission strategies, this work focuses on how semantic success should be defined and measured. Existing KPIs are classified according to communication goal, source modality, receiver output, reference availability, evaluation level, and channel or resource constraints. The survey reviews reconstruction-based, task-oriented, reference-free, representation-level, perceptual, and channel-aware metrics, and presents a cross-modality comparison of their roles, strengths, and limitations. It further analyzes how unresolved semantic-KPI challenges affect monitoring, quality assurance, resource optimization, fault diagnosis, and standardization. Key open problems include the absence of universal semantic success criteria and standardized semantic ground truth, semantic drift, limited reference-free evaluation, weak integration of machine-learning metrics with communication constraints, and the lack of relation-level and multimodal KPIs. Finally, future research directions are outlined toward standardized, interpretable, adaptive, task-aware, and communication-aware evaluation frameworks.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.
Builds on
19 of 37 references.
References · 19
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
- 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2016Improved Techniques for Training GANscited by 2,970
- 2016Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotationscited by 2,656
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
- 2018Demystifying MMD GANscited by 1,293
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
- 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
- 2020Deep Learning Enabled Semantic Communication Systemscited by 292
7 more
- 2022Beyond Transmitting Bits: Context, Semantics, and Task-Oriented Communicationscited by 175
- 2021Learning Task-Oriented Communication for Edge Inference: An Information Bottleneck Approachcited by 110
- 2019DeepJSCC-f: Deep Joint Source-Channel Coding of Images with Feedbackcited by 96
- 2022Semantic Communications for Future Internet: Fundamentals, Applications, and Challengescited by 95
- 2021Nonlinear Transform Source-Channel Coding for Semantic Communicationscited by 76
- 2014What Will 5G Be?cited by 25
- 2014Key Performance Indicators for QOS Assessment in TETRA Networkscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.