Pith. sign in

REVIEW

We Need to Talk About Classification Evaluation Metrics in NLP

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.03831 v1 pith:EGRZEKHA submitted 2024-01-08 cs.CL cs.LG

We Need to Talk About Classification Evaluation Metrics in NLP

classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords metricsmetricclassificationinformednesstasksbestlanguagemodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In Natural Language Processing (NLP) classification tasks such as topic categorisation and sentiment analysis, model generalizability is generally measured with standard metrics such as Accuracy, F-Measure, or AUC-ROC. The diversity of metrics, and the arbitrariness of their application suggest that there is no agreement within NLP on a single best metric to use. This lack suggests there has not been sufficient examination of the underlying heuristics which each metric encodes. To address this we compare several standard classification metrics with more 'exotic' metrics and demonstrate that a random-guess normalised Informedness metric is a parsimonious baseline for task performance. To show how important the choice of metric is, we perform extensive experiments on a wide range of NLP tasks including a synthetic scenario, natural language understanding, question answering and machine translation. Across these tasks we use a superset of metrics to rank models and find that Informedness best captures the ideal model characteristics. Finally, we release a Python implementation of Informedness following the SciKitLearn classifier format.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.