Evaluating the Evaluator: Problems with SemEval-2020 Task 1 for Lexical Semantic Change Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13232v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 19:01:25 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Evaluator: Problems with SemEval-2020 Task 1 for Lexical Semantic Change Detection
• Abstract summary: We re-examine SemEval-2020 Task 1, the most influential benchmark for lexical semantic change detection.<n>We show that the benchmark is affected by substantial corpus and preprocessing problems.<n>We argue the small curated target sets and limited language coverage reduce realism and increase statistical uncertainty.
• Score: 1.1340133299604382
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This discussion paper re-examines SemEval-2020 Task 1, the most influential shared benchmark for lexical semantic change detection, through a three-part evaluative framework: operationalisation, data quality, and benchmark design. First, at the level of operationalisation, we argue that the benchmark models semantic change mainly as gain, loss, or redistribution of discrete senses. While practical for annotation and evaluation, this framing is too narrow to capture gradual, constructional, collocational, and discourse-level change. Also, the gold labels are outcomes of annotation decisions, clustering procedures, and threshold settings, which could potentially limit the validity of the task. Second, at the level of data quality, we show that the benchmark is affected by substantial corpus and preprocessing problems, including OCR noise, malformed characters, truncated sentences, inconsistent lemmatisation, POS-tagging errors, and missed targets. These issues can distort model behaviour, complicate linguistic analysis, and reduce reproducibility. Third, at the level of bench-mark design, we argue the small curated target sets and limited language coverage reduce realism and increase statistical uncertainty. Taken together, these limitations suggest that the benchmark should be treated as a useful but partial test bed rather than a definitive measure of progress. We therefore call for future datasets and shared tasks to adopt broader theories of semantic change, document pre-processing transparently, expand cross-linguistic coverage, and use more realistic evaluation settings. Such steps are necessary for more valid, interpretable, and generalisable progress in lexical semantic change detection

Related papers

• Last Translation Benchmark [189.61382047977074]
  The Last Translation Benchmark is a collection of examples that break leading machine translation models.<n>Each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases.<n>The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T17:54:45Z)
• LIBERO-X: Robustness Litmus for Vision-Language-Action Models [32.29541801424534]
  This work systematically rethinks VLA benchmarking from both evaluation and data perspectives.<n>We introduce LIBERO-X, a benchmark featuring a hierarchical evaluation protocol with progressive difficulty levels targeting three core capabilities.<n> Experiments with representative VLA models reveal significant performance drops under cumulative perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T09:59:12Z)
• Reasoning-Driven Amodal Completion: Collaborative Agents and Perceptual Evaluation [17.405818788700234]
  We present a Collaborative Multi-Agent Reasoning Framework that explicitly decouples Semantic Planning from Visual Synthesis.<n>Our method generates a structured, explicit plan before pixel generation, enabling visually and semantically coherent single-pass synthesis.<n>Addressing the limitations of traditional metrics in assessing inferred invisible content, we introduce the MAC-Score, a novel human-aligned evaluation metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T04:39:45Z)
• SCORE: A Semantic Evaluation Framework for Generative Document Parsing [2.5101597298392098]
  Multi-modal generative document parsing systems produce semantically correct yet structurally divergent outputs.<n>Conventional metrics-CER, WER, IoU, or TEDS-misclassify such diversity as error, penalizing valid interpretations and obscuring system behavior.<n>We introduce SCORE, an interpretation-agnostic framework that integrates (i) adjusted edit distance for robust content fidelity, (ii) token-level diagnostics to distinguish hallucinations from omissions, (iii) table evaluation with spatial tolerance and semantic alignment, and (iv) hierarchy-aware consistency checks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-16T16:06:19Z)
• Garbage In, Reasoning Out? Why Benchmark Scores are Unreliable and What to Do About It [1.6261897792391753]
  We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi.<n>We uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T13:57:28Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• Evaluating Semantic Variation in Text-to-Image Synthesis: A Causal Perspective [50.261681681643076]
  We propose a novel metric called SemVarEffect and a benchmark named SemVarBench to evaluate the causality between semantic variations in inputs and outputs in text-to-image synthesis.<n>Our work establishes an effective evaluation framework that advances the T2I synthesis community's exploration of human instruction understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T08:45:35Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)
• Pseudo-Convolutional Policy Gradient for Sequence-to-Sequence Lip-Reading [96.48553941812366]
  Lip-reading aims to infer the speech content from the lip movement sequence. Traditional learning process of seq2seq models suffers from two problems. We propose a novel pseudo-convolutional policy gradient (PCPG) based method to address these two problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-09T09:12:26Z)
• Rectifying Pseudo Label Learning via Uncertainty Estimation for Domain Adaptive Semantic Segmentation [49.295165476818866]
  This paper focuses on the unsupervised domain adaptation of transferring the knowledge from the source domain to the target domain in the context of semantic segmentation. Existing approaches usually regard the pseudo label as the ground truth to fully exploit the unlabeled target-domain data. This paper proposes to explicitly estimate the prediction uncertainty during training to rectify the pseudo label learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-08T12:37:19Z)

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.