Assessing the Alignment of FOL Closeness Metrics with Human Judgement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08613v2
• Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 02:02:39 GMT
• Title: Assessing the Alignment of FOL Closeness Metrics with Human Judgement
• Authors: Ramya Keerthy Thatikonda, Wray Buntine, Ehsan Shareghi,
• Abstract summary: We study sensitivity of existing metrics and their alignment with human judgement on FOL evaluation. We show that combining metrics enhances both alignment and sensitivity compared to using individual metrics.
• Score: 9.100564948718887
• License:
• Abstract: The recent successful paradigm of solving logical reasoning problems with tool-augmented large language models (LLMs) leverages translation of natural language statements into First-Order Logic~(FOL) and external theorem provers. However, the correctness of FOL statements, comprising operators and text predicates, often goes unverified due to the lack of a reliable evaluation metric for comparing generated and ground-truth FOLs. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of sensitivity of existing metrics and their alignment with human judgement on FOL evaluation. Using ground-truth FOLs, we carefully designed various perturbations on the ground-truth to assess metric sensitivity. We sample FOL translation candidates for natural language statements and measure the ranking alignment between automatic metrics and human annotators. Our empirical findings highlight oversensitivity in the n-gram metric BLEU for text perturbations, the semantic graph metric Smatch++ for structural perturbations, and FOL metric for operator perturbation. We also observe a closer alignment between BertScore and human judgement. Additionally, we show that combining metrics enhances both alignment and sensitivity compared to using individual metrics.

Related papers

• Machine Translation Meta Evaluation through Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets [92.38654521870444]
  We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs. This dataset aims to discover whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:17:42Z)
• Towards Multiple References Era -- Addressing Data Leakage and Limited Reference Diversity in NLG Evaluation [55.92852268168816]
  N-gram matching-based evaluation metrics, such as BLEU and chrF, are widely utilized across a range of natural language generation (NLG) tasks. Recent studies have revealed a weak correlation between these matching-based metrics and human evaluations. We propose to utilize textitmultiple references to enhance the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T14:49:26Z)
• BLEURT Has Universal Translations: An Analysis of Automatic Metrics by Minimum Risk Training [64.37683359609308]
  In this study, we analyze various mainstream and cutting-edge automatic metrics from the perspective of their guidance for training machine translation systems. We find that certain metrics exhibit robustness defects, such as the presence of universal adversarial translations in BLEURT and BARTScore. In-depth analysis suggests two main causes of these robustness deficits: distribution biases in the training datasets, and the tendency of the metric paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:59:30Z)
• DEMETR: Diagnosing Evaluation Metrics for Translation [21.25704103403547]
  We release DEMETR, a diagnostic dataset with 31K English examples. We find that learned metrics perform substantially better than string-based metrics on DEMETR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T03:25:44Z)
• Not All Errors are Equal: Learning Text Generation Metrics using Stratified Error Synthesis [79.18261352971284]
  We introduce SESCORE, a model-based metric that is highly correlated with human judgements without requiring human annotation. We evaluate SESCORE against existing metrics by comparing how their scores correlate with human ratings. SESCORE even achieves comparable performance to the best supervised metric COMET, despite receiving no human-annotated training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-10T22:30:26Z)
• On the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Fairness Evaluation Metrics for Contextualized Language Representations [74.70957445600936]
  Multiple metrics have been introduced to measure fairness in various natural language processing tasks. These metrics can be roughly categorized into two categories: 1) emphextrinsic metrics for evaluating fairness in downstream applications and 2) emphintrinsic metrics for estimating fairness in upstream language representation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-25T22:17:43Z)
• BLEU, METEOR, BERTScore: Evaluation of Metrics Performance in Assessing Critical Translation Errors in Sentiment-oriented Text [1.4213973379473654]
  Machine Translation (MT) of the online content is commonly used to process posts written in several languages. In this paper, we assess the ability of automatic quality metrics to detect critical machine translation errors. We conclude that there is a need for fine-tuning of automatic metrics to make them more robust in detecting sentiment critical errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-29T07:51:17Z)
• On the Limitations of Cross-lingual Encoders as Exposed by Reference-Free Machine Translation Evaluation [55.02832094101173]
  Evaluation of cross-lingual encoders is usually performed either via zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in supervised downstream tasks or via unsupervised cross-lingual similarity. This paper concerns ourselves with reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation where we directly compare source texts to (sometimes low-quality) system translations. We systematically investigate a range of metrics based on state-of-the-art cross-lingual semantic representations obtained with pretrained M-BERT and LASER. We find that they perform poorly as semantic encoders for reference-free MT evaluation and identify their two key limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-03T22:10:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.