Cited by 20Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systems

Spurious Correlations in Reference-Free Evaluation of Text Generation

Open access
Durmus, Esin, Ladhak, Faisal, Hashimoto, Tatsunori·2022·Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Model-based, reference-free evaluation metrics have been proposed as a fast and cost-effective approach to evaluate Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems.Despite promising recent results, we find evidence that reference-free evaluation metrics of summarization and dialog generation may be relying on spurious correlations with measures such as word overlap, perplexity, and length.We further observe that for text summarization, these metrics have high error rates when ranking current state-ofthe-art abstractive summarization systems.We demonstrate that these errors can be mitigated by explicitly designing evaluation metrics to avoid spurious features in reference-free evaluation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.102

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Perplexity is used in some long dialogue benchmarks as a likelihood-based metric for generation quality over sessions, but it remains an indirect indicator for memory performance, because it does not verify whether the model's content is grounded in the correct historical evidence.

    “Perplexity is also used in some long dialogue benchmarks as a likelihood-based metric for generation quality over sessions (Xu et al., 2022a), but it remains an indirect indicator for memory performance, because it does not verify whether the model's content is grounded in the correct historical evidence (Durmus et al., 2022).”

    From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Durmus et al., 2022

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., & Hashimoto, T.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2022
Pages
1443-1454
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224280227
Cited by
16
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.94
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
reference-free evaluation, spurious correlations, natural language generation evaluation, text summarization, abstractive summarization, dialogue generation, lexical overlap, perplexity, model-based evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review