Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

ExplainaBoard: An Explainable Leaderboard for NLP

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 2104.06387 v2 pith:6WDKJNYX submitted 2021-04-13 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords systemsexplainaboardsystemwhatallowserrorsevaluationgithub
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

With the rapid development of NLP research, leaderboards have emerged as one tool to track the performance of various systems on various NLP tasks. They are effective in this goal to some extent, but generally present a rather simplistic one-dimensional view of the submitted systems, communicated only through holistic accuracy numbers. In this paper, we present a new conceptualization and implementation of NLP evaluation: the ExplainaBoard, which in addition to inheriting the functionality of the standard leaderboard, also allows researchers to (i) diagnose strengths and weaknesses of a single system (e.g.~what is the best-performing system bad at?) (ii) interpret relationships between multiple systems. (e.g.~where does system A outperform system B? What if we combine systems A, B, and C?) and (iii) examine prediction results closely (e.g.~what are common errors made by multiple systems, or in what contexts do particular errors occur?). So far, ExplainaBoard covers more than 400 systems, 50 datasets, 40 languages, and 12 tasks. ExplainaBoard keeps updated and is recently upgraded by supporting (1) multilingual multi-task benchmark, (2) meta-evaluation, and (3) more complicated task: machine translation, which reviewers also suggested.} We not only released an online platform on the website \url{http://explainaboard.nlpedia.ai/} but also make our evaluation tool an API with MIT Licence at Github \url{https://github.com/neulab/explainaBoard} and PyPi \url{https://pypi.org/project/interpret-eval/} that allows users to conveniently assess their models offline. We additionally release all output files from systems that we have run or collected to motivate "output-driven" research in the future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. Comateformer: Combined Attention Transformer for Semantic Sentence Matching

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Comateformer replaces softmax attention with a product of tanh similarity and sigmoid dissimilarity scores, and reports consistent gains on ten semantic matching datasets.

Pith tools