REVIEW 2 cited by
Evaluating Evaluation Metrics: A Framework for Analyzing NLG Evaluation Metrics using Measurement Theory
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
We address a fundamental challenge in Natural Language Generation (NLG) model evaluation -- the design and evaluation of evaluation metrics. Recognizing the limitations of existing automatic metrics and noises from how current human evaluation was conducted, we propose MetricEval, a framework informed by measurement theory, the foundation of educational test design, for conceptualizing and evaluating the reliability and validity of NLG evaluation metrics. The framework formalizes the source of measurement error and offers statistical tools for evaluating evaluation metrics based on empirical data. With our framework, one can quantify the uncertainty of the metrics to better interpret the result. To exemplify the use of our framework in practice, we analyzed a set of evaluation metrics for summarization and identified issues related to conflated validity structure in human-eval and reliability in LLM-based metrics. Through MetricEval, we aim to promote the design, evaluation, and interpretation of valid and reliable metrics to advance robust and effective NLG models.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
MEQA: A Meta-Evaluation Framework for Question & Answer LLM Benchmarks
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.
-
Value Compass Benchmarks: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values
Value Compass Benchmarks is a live, self-evolving platform that scores 33 LLMs across 27 value dimensions from four value systems, aiming to reveal true behavioral alignment with human values.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.