REVIEW 3 cited by
It Takes Two to Tango: Navigating Conceptualizations of NLP Tasks and Measurements of Performance
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Progress in NLP is increasingly measured through benchmarks; hence, contextualizing progress requires understanding when and why practitioners may disagree about the validity of benchmarks. We develop a taxonomy of disagreement, drawing on tools from measurement modeling, and distinguish between two types of disagreement: 1) how tasks are conceptualized and 2) how measurements of model performance are operationalized. To provide evidence for our taxonomy, we conduct a meta-analysis of relevant literature to understand how NLP tasks are conceptualized, as well as a survey of practitioners about their impressions of different factors that affect benchmark validity. Our meta-analysis and survey across eight tasks, ranging from coreference resolution to question answering, uncover that tasks are generally not clearly and consistently conceptualized and benchmarks suffer from operationalization disagreements. These findings support our proposed taxonomy of disagreement. Finally, based on our taxonomy, we present a framework for constructing benchmarks and documenting their limitations.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices
A new 46-criteria assessment framework scores 24 AI benchmarks and finds that commonly used benchmarks are weak in implementation and statistical rigor.
-
MEQA: A Meta-Evaluation Framework for Question & Answer LLM Benchmarks
MEQA scores eight cybersecurity QA benchmarks against a 44-sub-criteria rubric, finding strengths in reproducibility and comparability and weaknesses in prompt robustness and reliability.
-
Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation
A meta-review of about 110 critical studies finds nine systemic weaknesses in AI benchmarking and concludes that benchmarks are receiving disproportionate trust in AI governance.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.