Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

It Takes Two to Tango: Navigating Conceptualizations of NLP Tasks and Measurements of Performance

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.09022 v1 pith:S2J42CAW submitted 2023-05-15 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords tasksbenchmarkstaxonomyconceptualizeddisagreementmeasurementsmeta-analysisperformance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Progress in NLP is increasingly measured through benchmarks; hence, contextualizing progress requires understanding when and why practitioners may disagree about the validity of benchmarks. We develop a taxonomy of disagreement, drawing on tools from measurement modeling, and distinguish between two types of disagreement: 1) how tasks are conceptualized and 2) how measurements of model performance are operationalized. To provide evidence for our taxonomy, we conduct a meta-analysis of relevant literature to understand how NLP tasks are conceptualized, as well as a survey of practitioners about their impressions of different factors that affect benchmark validity. Our meta-analysis and survey across eight tasks, ranging from coreference resolution to question answering, uncover that tasks are generally not clearly and consistently conceptualized and benchmarks suffer from operationalization disagreements. These findings support our proposed taxonomy of disagreement. Finally, based on our taxonomy, we present a framework for constructing benchmarks and documenting their limitations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices

    cs.AI 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 46-criteria assessment framework scores 24 AI benchmarks and finds that commonly used benchmarks are weak in implementation and statistical rigor.

  2. MEQA: A Meta-Evaluation Framework for Question & Answer LLM Benchmarks

    cs.CL 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    MEQA scores eight cybersecurity QA benchmarks against a 44-sub-criteria rubric, finding strengths in reproducibility and comparability and weaknesses in prompt robustness and reliability.

  3. Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A meta-review of about 110 critical studies finds nine systemic weaknesses in AI benchmarking and concludes that benchmarks are receiving disproportionate trust in AI governance.

Pith tools