In order to convert the dataset to NER format we suggest tokenizing Tweet text and utilizing the character offsets to identify mention tokens. E.g. just setting up my twttrwith offsets 19and 24, and DBpedia category as Organization, can be converted to the NERBIO format as follows: tokens, starts, ends = tokenize_with_offsets("just setting up my twttr")and then assigning Olabels to all tokens outside the phrase start and end offsets and B-ORG and I-ORG label to all tokens within the phrase offsets. This approach works as long as the tokenizer returned offsets correspond to the offset of the phrase in the original text, i.e. tokenization is non-destructive. See example code in listing 1. A system span must match a gold span exactly to be counted as correct.

Comparing human and model performance offers a valuable perspective for understanding the strengths and limitations of embedding models, highlighting where they succeed and where they fail to capture meaning and nuance. However, such comparisons are rarely made, as human performance on embedding tasks is difficult to measure. To fill this gap, we introduce HUME: Human Evaluation Framework for Text Embeddings. While frameworks like MTEB provide broad model evaluation, they lack reliable estimates of human performance, limiting the interpretability of model scores. We measure human performance across 16 MTEB datasets spanning reranking, classification, clustering, and semantic textual similarity across linguistically diverse high- and low-resource languages. Humans achieve an average performance of 77.6% compared to 80.1% for the best embedding model, though with substantial variation: models reach high performance on some datasets while struggling on notably low-resource languages. Our human annotations also reveal multiple dataset issues. We additionally benchmark nine LLMs as annotators on reranking, classification, and STS tasks, finding that they fall short of human performance (76.1% vs. 81.2%) despite offering scalability advantages. We provide human performance baselines, insights into task difficulty patterns, and an extensible evaluation framework that enables a more meaningful interpretation of results and informs the development of both models and benchmarks. Our code, dataset, and leaderboard are publicly available at https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/mteb.

Evaluating answers from state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) is challenging: lexical metrics miss semantic nuances, whereas "LLM-as-Judge" scoring is computationally expensive. We re-evaluate a lightweight alternative -- off-the-shelf Natural Language Inference (NLI) scoring augmented by a simple lexical-match flag and find that this decades-old technique matches GPT-4o's accuracy (89.9%) on long-form QA, while requiring orders-of-magnitude fewer parameters. To test human alignment of these metrics rigorously, we introduce DIVER-QA, a new 3000-sample human-annotated benchmark spanning five QA datasets and five candidate LLMs. Our results highlight that inexpensive NLI-based evaluation remains competitive and offer DIVER-QA as an open resource for future metric research.

Evaluating long-form clinical question answering (QA) systems is resource-intensive and challenging: accurate judgments require medical expertise and achieving consistent human judgments over long-form text is difficult. We introduce LongQAEval, an evaluation framework and set of evaluation recommendations for limited-resource and high-expertise settings. Based on physician annotations of 300 real patient questions answered by physicians and LLMs, we compare coarse answer-level versus fine-grained sentence-level evaluation over the dimensions of correctness, relevance, and safety. We find that inter-annotator agreement (IAA) varies by dimension: fine-grained annotation improves agreement on correctness, coarse improves agreement on relevance, and judgments on safety remain inconsistent. Additionally, annotating only a small subset of sentences can provide reliability comparable to coarse annotations, reducing cost and effort.

Audio Chord Estimation (ACE) holds a pivotal role in music information research, having garnered attention for over two decades due to its relevance for music transcription and analysis. Despite notable advancements, challenges persist in the task, particularly concerning unique characteristics of harmonic content, which have resulted in existing systems' performances reaching a glass ceiling. These challenges include annotator subjectivity, where varying interpretations among annotators lead to inconsistencies, and class imbalance within chord datasets, where certain chord classes are over-represented compared to others, posing difficulties in model training and evaluation. As a first contribution, this paper presents an evaluation of inter-annotator agreement in chord annotations, using metrics that extend beyond traditional binary measures. In addition, we propose a consonance-informed distance metric that reflects the perceptual similarity between harmonic annotations. Our analysis suggests that consonance-based distance metrics more effectively capture musically meaningful agreement between annotations. Expanding on these findings, we introduce a novel ACE conformer-based model that integrates consonance concepts into the model through consonance-based label smoothing. The proposed model also addresses class imbalance by separately estimating root, bass, and all note activations, enabling the reconstruction of chord labels from decomposed outputs.

Medical image segmentation exhibits intra-and inter-annotator variability due to ambiguous object boundaries, annotator preferences, expertise, and tools, among other factors. Lesions with ambiguous boundaries, e.g., spiculated or infiltrative nodules, or irregular borders per the ABCD rule, are particularly prone to disagreement and are often associated with malignancy. In this work, we curate IMA++, the largest multi-annotator skin lesion segmentation dataset, on which we conduct an in-depth study of variability due to annotator, malignancy, tool, and skill factors. We find a statistically significant ( p <0.001) association between inter-annotator agreement (IAA), measured using Dice, and the malignancy of skin lesions. We further show that IAA can be accurately predicted directly from dermoscopic images, achieving a mean absolute error of 0.108. Finally, we leverage this association by utilizing IAA as a "soft" clinical feature within a multi-task learning objective, yielding a 4.2% improvement in balanced accuracy averaged across multiple model architectures and across IMA++ and four public dermoscopic datasets.

We propose a novel method to conceptually decompose an existing annotation into separate levels, allowing the analysis of inter-annotators disagreement in each level separately. We suggest two distinct strategies in order to actualize this approach: a theoretically-driven one, in which the researcher defines a decomposition based on prior knowledge of the annotation task, and an exploration-based one, in which many possible decompositions are inductively computed and presented to the researcher for interpretation and evaluation. Utilizing a recently constructed dataset for narrative analysis as our use-case, we apply each of the two strategies to demonstrate the potential of our approach in testing hypotheses regarding the sources of annotation disagreements, as well as revealing latent structures and relations within the annotation task. We conclude by suggesting how to extend and generalize our approach, as well as use it for other purposes.

This book provides a broad overview of Natural Language Generation (NLG), including technology, user requirements, evaluation, and real-world applications. The focus is on concepts and insights which hopefully will remain relevant for many years, not on the latest LLM innovations. It draws on decades of work by the author and others on NLG. The book has the following chapters: Introduction to NLG; Rule-Based NLG; Machine Learning and Neural NLG; Requirements; Evaluation; Safety, Maintenance, and Testing; and Applications. All chapters include examples and anecdotes from the author's personal experiences, and end with a Further Reading section. The book should be especially useful to people working on applied NLG, including NLG researchers, people in other fields who want to use NLG, and commercial developers. It will not however be useful to people who want to understand the latest LLM technology. There is a companion site with more information at https://ehudreiter.com/book/

Traditional evaluation of information retrieval (IR) systems relies on human-annotated relevance labels, which can be both biased and costly at scale. In this context, large language models (LLMs) offer an alternative by allowing us to directly prompt them to assign relevance labels for passages associated with each query. In this study, we explore alternative methods to directly prompt LLMs for assigned relevance labels, by exploring two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 assumes that it is helpful to break down "relevance" into specific criteria - exactness, coverage, topicality, and contextual fit. We explore different approaches that prompt large language models (LLMs) to obtain criteria-level grades for all passages, and we consider various ways to aggregate criteria-level grades into a relevance label. Hypothesis 2 assumes that differences in linguistic style between queries and passages may negatively impact the automatic relevance label prediction. We explore whether improvements can be achieved by first synthesizing a summary of the passage in the linguistic style of a query, and then using this summary in place of the passage to assess its relevance. We include an empirical evaluation of our approaches based on data from the LLMJudge challenge run in Summer 2024, where our "Four Prompts" approach obtained the highest scores in Kendall's tau.