dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaOrder in the Evaluation Court: A Critical Analysis of NLG Evaluation Trends
| Authors | Jing Yang, Nils Feldhus, Salar Mohtaj, Leonhard Hennig, Qianli Wang, Eleni Metheniti, Sherzod Hakimov, Charlott Jakob, Veronika Solopova, Konrad Rieck, David Schlangen, Sebastian Möller, Vera Schmitt |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | 2601.07648vv1 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07648 |
| License | http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ |
Abstract
Despite advances in Natural Language Generation (NLG), evaluation remains challenging. Although various new metrics and LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) methods are proposed, human judgment persists as the gold standard. To systematically review how NLG evaluation has evolved, we employ an automatic information extraction scheme to gather key information from NLG papers, focusing on different evaluation methods (metrics, LaaJ and human evaluation). With extracted metadata from 14,171 papers across four major conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, and INLG) over the past six years, we reveal several critical findings: (1) Task Divergence: While Dialogue Generation demonstrates a rapid shift toward LaaJ (>40% in 2025), Machine Translation remains locked into n-gram metrics, and Question Answering exhibits a substantial decline in the proportion of studies conducting human evaluation. (2) Metric Inertia: Despite the development of semantic metrics, general-purpose metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE) continue to be widely used across tasks without empirical justification, often lacking the discriminative power to distinguish between specific quality criteria. (3) Human-LaaJ Divergence: Our association analysis challenges the assumption that LLMs act as mere proxies for humans; LaaJ and human evaluations prioritize very different signals, and explicit validation is scarce (<8% of papers comparing the two), with only moderate to low correlation. Based on these observations, we derive practical recommendations to improve the rigor of future NLG evaluation.
{
"annotation_id": "56a10cf6-7c5b-4269-a63f-a8d7ec1fa7e1",
"date_created": "2026-02-17T05:53:12.392000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-02-17T05:53:12.392000Z",
"file_hash": "5b68062b4b74888dcfdbd9dcd9d76bb619646ea707d7c2a1cfd836f9182c3b8b",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "Despite advances in Natural Language Generation (NLG), evaluation remains challenging. Although various new metrics and LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) methods are proposed, human judgment persists as the gold standard. To systematically review how NLG evaluation has evolved, we employ an automatic information extraction scheme to gather key information from NLG papers, focusing on different evaluation methods (metrics, LaaJ and human evaluation). With extracted metadata from 14,171 papers across four major conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, and INLG) over the past six years, we reveal several critical findings: (1) Task Divergence: While Dialogue Generation demonstrates a rapid shift toward LaaJ (\u003e40% in 2025), Machine Translation remains locked into n-gram metrics, and Question Answering exhibits a substantial decline in the proportion of studies conducting human evaluation. (2) Metric Inertia: Despite the development of semantic metrics, general-purpose metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE) continue to be widely used across tasks without empirical justification, often lacking the discriminative power to distinguish between specific quality criteria. (3) Human-LaaJ Divergence: Our association analysis challenges the assumption that LLMs act as mere proxies for humans; LaaJ and human evaluations prioritize very different signals, and explicit validation is scarce (\u003c8% of papers comparing the two), with only moderate to low correlation. Based on these observations, we derive practical recommendations to improve the rigor of future NLG evaluation.",
"arxiv_id": "2601.07648",
"authors": [
"Jing Yang",
"Nils Feldhus",
"Salar Mohtaj",
"Leonhard Hennig",
"Qianli Wang",
"Eleni Metheniti",
"Sherzod Hakimov",
"Charlott Jakob",
"Veronika Solopova",
"Konrad Rieck",
"David Schlangen",
"Sebastian M\u00f6ller",
"Vera Schmitt"
],
"categories": [
"cs.CL"
],
"license": "http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/",
"title": "Order in the Evaluation Court: A Critical Analysis of NLG Evaluation Trends",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07648",
"version": "v1"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "b670d21c-1e95-438e-87f7-1ebc6b895e1f",
"id": "arXiv Dataset",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-01-17",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}