The Validity of Coreference-based Evaluations of Natural Language Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16200v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2026 05:49:28 GMT
• Title: The Validity of Coreference-based Evaluations of Natural Language Understanding
• Authors: Ian Porada,
• Abstract summary: I analyze standard coreference evaluations and show that their design often leads to non-generalizable conclusions.<n>I propose and implement a novel evaluation focused on testing systems' ability to infer the relative plausibility of events.
• Score: 3.505146496638911
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In this thesis, I refine our understanding as to what conclusions we can reach from coreference-based evaluations by expanding existing evaluation practices and considering the extent to which evaluation results are either converging or conflicting. First, I analyze standard coreference evaluations and show that their design often leads to non-generalizable conclusions due to issues of measurement validity - including contestedness (multiple, competing definitions of coreference) and convergent validity (evaluation results that rank models differently across benchmarks). Second, I propose and implement a novel evaluation focused on testing systems' ability to infer the relative plausibility of events, a key aspect of resolving coreference. Through this extended evaluation, I find that contemporary language models demonstrate strong performance on standard benchmarks - improving over earlier baseline systems within certain domains and types of coreference - but remain sensitive to the evaluation conditions: they often fail to generalize in ways one would expect a human to be capable of when evaluation contexts are slightly modified. Taken together, these findings clarify both the strengths, such as improved accuracy over baselines on widely used evaluations, and the limitations of the current NLP paradigm, including weaknesses in measurement validity, and suggest directions for future work in developing better evaluation methods and more genuinely generalizable systems.

Related papers

• A Theoretical Framework for Adaptive Utility-Weighted Benchmarking [0.0]
  This paper introduces a theoretical framework that reconceptualizes benchmarking as a multilayer, adaptive network linking evaluation metrics, model components, and stakeholder groups through weighted interactions.<n>Using conjoint-derived utilities and a human-in-the-loop update rule, we formalize how human tradeoffs can be embedded into benchmark structure and how benchmarks can evolve dynamically while preserving stability and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T19:33:47Z)
• Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation [12.55408229639344]
  We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence.<n>Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T20:36:22Z)
• SEOE: A Scalable and Reliable Semantic Evaluation Framework for Open Domain Event Detection [70.23196257213829]
  We propose a scalable and reliable Semantic-level Evaluation framework for Open domain Event detection.<n>Our proposed framework first constructs a scalable evaluation benchmark that currently includes 564 event types covering 7 major domains.<n>We then leverage large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluation agents to compute a semantic F1-score, incorporating fine-grained definitions of semantically similar labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T09:37:05Z)
• Ranking evaluation metrics from a group-theoretic perspective [5.333192842860574]
  We show instances resulting in inconsistent evaluations, sources of potential mistrust in commonly used metrics. Our analysis sheds light on ranking evaluation metrics, highlighting that inconsistent evaluations should not be seen as a source of mistrust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T09:06:58Z)
• Improving the Validity and Practical Usefulness of AI/ML Evaluations Using an Estimands Framework [2.4861619769660637]
  We propose an estimands framework adapted from international clinical trials guidelines. This framework provides a systematic structure for inference and reporting in evaluations. We demonstrate how the framework can help uncover underlying issues, their causes, and potential solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T18:47:37Z)
• A Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attributions [60.06461883533697]
  We first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill.<n>We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.<n>Our analysis also offers insights into defending against neural Trojans by utilizing the attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists [15.19714327680248]
  We introduce CheckEval, a checklist-based evaluation framework that improves rating reliability via binary questions.<n>CheckEval dramatically improves the average agreement across evaluator models by 0.45 and reduces the score variance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T17:20:39Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• KPEval: Towards Fine-Grained Semantic-Based Keyphrase Evaluation [69.57018875757622]
  We propose KPEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework consisting of four critical aspects: reference agreement, faithfulness, diversity, and utility. Using KPEval, we re-evaluate 23 keyphrase systems and discover that established model comparison results have blind-spots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T17:45:38Z)
• Just Rank: Rethinking Evaluation with Word and Sentence Similarities [105.5541653811528]
  intrinsic evaluation for embeddings lags far behind, and there has been no significant update since the past decade. This paper first points out the problems using semantic similarity as the gold standard for word and sentence embedding evaluations. We propose a new intrinsic evaluation method called EvalRank, which shows a much stronger correlation with downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-05T08:40:05Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

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.