Evaluation Revisited: A Taxonomy of Evaluation Concerns in Natural Language Processing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25923v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 10:29:43 GMT
• Title: Evaluation Revisited: A Taxonomy of Evaluation Concerns in Natural Language Processing
• Abstract summary: We conduct a scoping review of research on evaluation concerns in natural language processing.<n>We develop a taxonomy, recurring positions and trade-offs within each area.<n>By situating contemporary debates within their historical context, this work provides a consolidated reference for reasoning about evaluation practices.
• Score: 37.61261523184044
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have prompted a growing body of work that questions the methodology of prevailing evaluation practices. However, many such critiques have already been extensively debated in natural language processing (NLP): a field with a long history of methodological reflection on evaluation. We conduct a scoping review of research on evaluation concerns in NLP and develop a taxonomy, synthesizing recurring positions and trade-offs within each area. We also discuss practical implications of the taxonomy, including a structured checklist to support more deliberate evaluation design and interpretation. By situating contemporary debates within their historical context, this work provides a consolidated reference for reasoning about evaluation practices.

Related papers

• InnoEval: On Research Idea Evaluation as a Knowledge-Grounded, Multi-Perspective Reasoning Problem [87.30601926271864]
  InnoEval is a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment.<n>We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources.<n>We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T00:40:31Z)
• Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback [81.0031690510116]
  We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages.<n>Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews.<n> Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:18:37Z)
• Evaluating Step-by-step Reasoning Traces: A Survey [8.279021694489462]
  Step-by-step reasoning is widely used to enhance the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) in complex problems.<n>Existing evaluation practices are highly inconsistent, resulting in fragmented progress across evaluator design and benchmark development.<n>This survey proposes a taxonomy of evaluation criteria with four top-level categories (factuality, validity, coherence, and utility)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T19:58:31Z)
• Beyond Metrics: A Critical Analysis of the Variability in Large Language Model Evaluation Frameworks [3.773596042872403]
  Large language models (LLMs) continue to evolve, the need for robust and standardized evaluation benchmarks becomes paramount. Various frameworks have emerged as noteworthy contributions to the field, offering comprehensive evaluation tests and benchmarks. This paper provides an exploration and critical analysis of some of these evaluation methodologies, shedding light on their strengths, limitations, and impact on advancing the state-of-the-art in natural language processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:37:14Z)
• Evaluation in Neural Style Transfer: A Review [0.7614628596146599]
  We provide an in-depth analysis of existing evaluation techniques, identify the inconsistencies and limitations of current evaluation methods, and give recommendations for standardized evaluation practices. We believe that the development of a robust evaluation framework will not only enable more meaningful and fairer comparisons but will also enhance the comprehension and interpretation of research findings in the field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T15:45:30Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges [57.88520765782177]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for assessing generated content quality, e.g., coherence, creativity, and context relevance. We propose a coherent taxonomy for organizing existing LLM-based evaluation metrics, offering a structured framework to understand and compare these methods. By discussing unresolved challenges, including bias, robustness, domain-specificity, and unified evaluation, this paper seeks to offer insights to researchers and advocate for fairer and more advanced NLG evaluation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T15:59:09Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Text Summarization with In-Context Learning [79.02280189976562]
  In this paper, we study the efficacy of large language models as multi-dimensional evaluators using in-context learning. Our experiments show that in-context learning-based evaluators are competitive with learned evaluation frameworks for the task of text summarization. We then analyze the effects of factors such as the selection and number of in-context examples on performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T23:27:49Z)
• Deconstructing NLG Evaluation: Evaluation Practices, Assumptions, and Their Implications [85.24952708195582]
  This study examines the goals, community practices, assumptions, and constraints that shape NLG evaluations. We examine their implications and how they embody ethical considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-13T18:00:11Z)
• How to Evaluate Your Dialogue Models: A Review of Approaches [2.7834038784275403]
  We are first to divide the evaluation methods into three classes, i.e., automatic evaluation, human-involved evaluation and user simulator based evaluation. The existence of benchmarks, suitable for the evaluation of dialogue techniques are also discussed in detail.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-03T08:52:33Z)

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.