Summary of We Need to Talk About Classification Evaluation Metrics in Nlp, by Peter Vickers et al.
We Need to Talk About Classification Evaluation Metrics in NLP
by Peter Vickers, Loïc Barrault, Emilio Monti, Nikolaos Aletras
First submitted to arxiv on: 8 Jan 2024
Categories
- Main: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
- Secondary: Machine Learning (cs.LG)
GrooveSquid.com Paper Summaries
GrooveSquid.com’s goal is to make artificial intelligence research accessible by summarizing AI papers in simpler terms. Each summary below covers the same AI paper, written at different levels of difficulty. The medium difficulty and low difficulty versions are original summaries written by GrooveSquid.com, while the high difficulty version is the paper’s original abstract. Feel free to learn from the version that suits you best!
Summary difficulty | Written by | Summary |
---|---|---|
High | Paper authors | High Difficulty Summary Read the original abstract here |
Medium | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Medium Difficulty Summary The paper challenges the conventional way of evaluating model generalizability in Natural Language Processing (NLP) classification tasks by examining the underlying heuristics encoded in various metrics. By comparing standard metrics like Accuracy, F-Measure, and AUC-ROC with more exotic ones, the authors demonstrate that a random-guess normalised Informedness metric is a parsimonious baseline for task performance. The study also highlights the importance of choosing the right metric by performing extensive experiments on various NLP tasks such as topic categorisation, sentiment analysis, natural language understanding, question answering, and machine translation. The findings suggest that Informedness best captures the ideal model characteristics, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach to evaluating model generalizability in NLP. |
Low | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Low Difficulty Summary This paper is about how we measure how well artificial intelligence models work on text-based tasks like classifying topics or understanding language. Right now, different people use different ways to measure this, which can be confusing. The authors of the paper want to figure out what’s behind these different methods and find a better way to do it. They compare lots of different ways to evaluate model performance and discover that one method called Informedness is particularly good at capturing how well a model really performs. To show how important this is, they test their ideas on many different text-based tasks and find that using the right metric makes a big difference in which models perform best. |
Keywords
* Artificial intelligence * Auc * Classification * Language understanding * Natural language processing * Nlp * Question answering * Translation