CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 29Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingText Readability and Simplification

On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated Text

Open access
Deutsch, Daniel, Dror, Rotem, Roth, Dan·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2210.12563arXiv 2210.12563
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is significant interest in developing evaluation metrics which accurately estimate the quality of generated text without the aid of a human-written reference text, which can be time consuming and expensive to collect or entirely unavailable in online applications. However, in this work, we demonstrate that these reference-free metrics are inherently biased and limited in their ability to evaluate generated text, and we argue that they should not be used to measure progress on tasks like machine translation or summarization. We show how reference-free metrics are equivalent to using one generation model to evaluate another, which has several limitations: (1) the metrics can be optimized at test time to find the approximate best-possible output, (2) they are inherently biased toward models which are more similar to their own, and (3) they can be biased against higher-quality outputs, including those written by humans. Therefore, we recommend that reference-free metrics should be used as diagnostic tools for analyzing and understanding model behavior instead of measures of how well models perform a task, in which the goal is to achieve as high of a score as possible.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2210.12563

Cites

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?

  • Self-bias poses a significant challenge to the reliability of LLM evaluations.

    “Self-bias poses a significant challenge to the reliability of LLM evaluations [Deutsch et al., 2022].”

    From Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge (2025) · cites this paper as Deutsch et al., 2022

    Section 5.2 says reference-free metrics can favor outputs resembling their own models over human-written text, making their scores unreliable as measures of human-quality text. The Limitations section confines the experimental evidence to translation and summarization datasets; it does not establish that self-bias challenges LLM evaluations generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 43 · Cited by 29

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Sweta Agrawal, George Foster, Markus Freitag, and Colin Cherry. 2021. Assessing Reference-Free Peer Evaluation for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1158-1171, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  2. Manik Bhandari, Pranav Narayan Gour, Atabak Ash- faq, Pengfei Liu, and Graham Neubig. 2020. Re- evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9347-9359, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Daniel Deutsch, Tania Bedrax-Weiss, and Dan Roth. 2021a. Towards Question-Answering as an Auto- matic Metric for Evaluating the Content Quality of a Summary. Transactions of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 9:774-789. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Daniel Deutsch, Rotem Dror, and Dan Roth. 2021b. A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics Using Resampling Methods. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1132-1146. · DOI
  5. Daniel Deutsch and Dan Roth. 2020. SacreROUGE: An Open-Source Library for Using and Developing Summarization Evaluation Metrics. In Proceedings of Second Workshop for NLP Open Source Software (NLP-OSS), pages 120-125, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Daniel Deutsch and Dan Roth. 2022. Repro: An Open- Source Library for Improving the Reproducibility and Usability of Publicly Available Research Code. ArXiv, abs/2204.13848. · arXiv
  7. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Un- derstanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2022. Spurious Correlations in Reference-Free Eval- uation of Text Generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1443-1454, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Fern, Patrick es, António Farinhas, Ricardo Rei, José De Souza, Perez Ogayo, Graham Neubig, and Andre Martins. 2022. Quality-Aware Decoding for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1396-1412, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  10. Erick Fonseca, Lisa Yankovskaya, André F. T. Mar- tins, Mark Fishel, and Christian Federmann. 2019. Findings of the WMT 2019 Shared Tasks on Quality Estimation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 3: Shared Task Pa- pers, Day 2), pages 1-12, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  11. Markus Freitag, David Grangier, Qijun Tan, and Bowen Liang. 2022. High Quality Rather than High Model Probability: Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding with Neural Metrics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:811-825. · DOI
  12. Markus Freitag, Ricardo Rei, Nitika Mathur, Chi kiu Lo, Craig Stewart, George Foster, Alon Lavie, and Ondřej Bojar. 2021. Results of the WMT21 Metrics Shared Task: Evaluating Metrics with Expert-based Human Evaluations on TED and News Domain. In Proceed- ings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 733-774, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  13. Yang Gao, Wei Zhao, and Steffen Eger. 2020. SUPERT: Towards New Frontiers in Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Multi-Document Summarization. In Pro- ceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 1347- 1354, Online. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI
  14. Yvette Graham. 2015. Re-evaluating Automatic Sum- marization with BLEU and 192 Shades of ROUGE. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 128- 137, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  15. Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ro- nan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2021. CLIPScore: A Reference-free Evaluation Metric for Image Cap- tioning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7514-7528, Online and Punta Cana, Domini- can Republic. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Roee Aharoni, Ella Neeman, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2021. Q 2 : Evaluating Factual Consistency in Knowledge- Grounded Dialogues via Question Generation and Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 7856-7870, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  17. Reno Kriz, Marianna Apidianaki, and Chris Callison- Burch. 2020. Simple-QE: Better Automatic Quality Estimation for Text Simplification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12382. · arXiv
  18. Shankar Kumar and William Byrne. 2004. Minimum Bayes-Risk Decoding for Statistical Machine Trans- lation. In Proceedings of the Human Language Tech- nology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: HLT-NAACL 2004, pages 169-176, Boston, Mas- sachusetts, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  19. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre- training for Natural Language Generation, Transla- tion, and Comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A Package for Auto- matic Evaluation of Summaries. In Text Summariza- tion Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Hui Lin and Jeff Bilmes. 2011. A Class of Submodular Functions for Document Summarization. In Proceed- ings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, pages 510-520, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  22. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, M, ar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692. · arXiv
  23. Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova. 2013. Automatically As- sessing Machine Summary Content Without a Gold Standard. Computational Linguistics, 39(2):267- 300. · DOI
  24. Qingsong Ma, Johnny Wei, Ondřej Bojar, and Yvette Graham. 2019. Results of the WMT19 Metrics Shared Task: Segment-Level and Strong MT Sys- tems Pose Big Challenges. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 62-90, Flo- rence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  25. Louis Martin, Samuel Humeau, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Éric de La Clergerie, Antoine Bordes, and Benoît Sagot. 2018. Reference-less Quality Estima- tion of Text Simplification Systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Automatic Text Adaptation (ATA), pages 29-38, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  26. Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2020. USR: An Unsupervised and Reference Free Evaluation Metric for Dialog Generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 681-707, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Ramesh Nallapati, Feifei Zhai, and Bowen Zhou. 2017. SummaRuNNer: A Recurrent Neural Network Based Sequence Model for Extractive Summarization of Documents. In Proc. of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).
  28. Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Çaglar Gulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstrac- tive Text Summarization using Sequence-to-sequence RNNs and Beyond. In Proceedings of The 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Lan- guage Learning, pages 280-290, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Nathan Ng, Kyra Yee, Alexei Baevski, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and Sergey Edunov. 2019. Facebook FAIR's WMT19 News Translation Task Submission. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 314-319, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  30. Franz Josef Och, Daniel Gildea, Sanjeev Khudanpur, Anoop Sarkar, Kenji Yamada, Alex Fraser, Shankar Kumar, Libin Shen, David Smith, Katherine Eng, Viren Jain, Zhen Jin, and Dragomir Radev. 2004. A Smorgasbord of Features for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: HLT-NAACL 2004, pages 161-168, Boston, Mas- sachusetts, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  31. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Matt Post. 2018. A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186- 191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  33. Ricardo Rei, Ana C Farinha, Chrysoula Zerva, Daan van Stigt, Craig Stewart, Pedro Ramos, Taisiya Glushkova, André FT Martins, and Alon Lavie. 2021. Are References Really Needed? Unbabel-IST 2021 Submission for the Metrics Shared Task. In Proceed- ings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  34. Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing (EMNLP), pages 2685-2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  35. Thomas Scialom, Paul-Alexis Dray, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, Jacopo Staiano, Alex Wang, and Patrick Gallinari. 2021. QuestEval: Summariza- tion Asks for Fact-based Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing, pages 6594-6604, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  36. Thomas Scialom, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Pi- wowarski, and Jacopo Staiano. 2019. Answers Unite! Unsupervised Metrics for Reinforced Summarization Models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3246-3256, Hong Kong, China. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Genera- tion. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Libin Shen, Anoop Sarkar, and Franz Josef Och. 2004. Discriminative Reranking for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technol- ogy Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: HLT-NAACL 2004, pages 177-184, Boston, Mas- sachusetts, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  39. Lucia Specia, Frédéric Blain, Marina Fomicheva, Er- ick Fonseca, Vishrav Chaudhary, Francisco Guzmán, and André F. T. Martins. 2020. Findings of the WMT 2020 Shared Task on Quality Estimation. In Proceed- ings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 743-764, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  40. Lucia Specia, Frédéric Blain, Marina Fomicheva, Chrysoula Zerva, Zhenhao Li, Vishrav Chaudhary, and André F. T. Martins. 2021. Findings of the WMT 2021 Shared Task on Quality Estimation. In Proceed- ings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 684-725, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  41. Brian Thompson and Matt Post. 2020. Automatic Ma- chine Translation Evaluation in Many Languages via Zero-Shot Paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 90-121, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. -1.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -2.7 -1.9 -1.2 -0.4 -3.4 -2.4 -1.5 -0.5 -3.8 -2.8 -1.7 -0.6 -1.9 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 Prism-src -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 -1.7 -1.4 -1.0 -0.7 -2.5 -1.8 -1.2 -0.4 -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 -1.1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 Prism-src -1.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -3.7 -2.7 -1.6 -0.5 -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.5 -2.4 -1.8 -1.1 -0.5 -1.5 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 Prism-src -2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 Prism-src as a Model WMT'19 Submission Reference Translation Figure 8: See Table 1 for a description of this Figure. 18.0 22.3 26.6 31.0 BLEU en-cs 17.2 26.8 36.5 46.4 en-de 4.7 12.6 20.4 28.6 en-fi 1.3 7.0 12.8 18.7 en-kk 9.5 13.5 17.5 21.6 en-lt 14.3 21.9 29.4 37.2 BLEU en-ru 0.5 6.9 13.2 19.7 en-zh 10.9 14.8 18.8 22.9 de-cs 32.3 34.9 37.6 40.3 de-fr 25.5 29.3 33.0 36.9 fr-de 33.6 38.0 42.4 46.9 BLEU de-en 8.6 17.0 25.4 34.1 fi-en 3.7 13.7 23.7 33.9 kk-en 17.7 24.3 31.0 37.8 lt-en 29.1 34.8 40.6 46.6 ru-en 17.2 26.1 34.9 44.0 BLEU zh-en -1.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -2.7 -1.9 -1.2 -0.4 -3.4 -2.4 -1.5 -0.5 -3.8 -2.8 -1.7 -0.6 -1.9 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 Prism-src -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 -1.7 -1.4 -1.0 -0.7 -2.5 -1.8 -1.2 -0.4 -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 -1.1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 Prism-src -1.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -3.7 -2.7 -1.6 -0.5 -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.5 -2.4 -1.8 -1.1 -0.5 -1.5 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 Prism-src -2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 Prism-src as a Model WMT'19 Submission Reference Translation Figure 9: See Table 1 for a description of this Figure. -1.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -2.7 -1.9 -1.2 -0.4 -3.4 -2.4 -1.5 -0.5 -3.8 -2.8 -1.7 -0.6 -1.9 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 Prism-src -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 -1.7 -1.4 -1.0 -0.7 -2.5 -1.8 -1.2 -0.4 -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 -1.1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 Prism-src -1.5 -1.1 -0.8 -0.4 -3.7 -2.7 -1.6 -0.5 -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.5 -2.4 -1.8 -1.1 -0.5 -1.5 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 Prism-src -2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 Prism-src as a Model WMT'19 Submission Reference Translation Figure 10: See Table 1 for a description of this Figure. · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Deutsch, D., Dror, R., & Roth, D.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
10960-10977
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2210.12563
arXiv
2210.12563
OpenAlex
W4385573386
Cited by
29
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5
FWCI
3.18
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • Office of the Director of National Intelligence
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-19-2-1004, FA8750)
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (2019-19051600006)
  • NIH Office of the Director
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 › Text Readability and Simplification
Keywords
reference-free evaluation, machine translation, text summarization, metric optimization, human-written text, model behavior analysis

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