There have been a couple of studies showing that attempting to erase multilingual knowledge using only English data is insufficient for multilingual LLMs. However, their analyses remain highly performance-oriented. In this paper, we switch the point of view to evaluation, and address an additional blind spot which reveals itself when the multilingual LLM is fully finetuned with parallel multilingual dataset before unlearning. Here, language confusion occurs whereby a model responds in language different from that of the input prompt. Language confusion is a problematic phenomenon in unlearning, causing the standard reference-based metrics to fail. We tackle this phenomenon in three steps: (1) introduce N-gram-based Language-Mix (N-Mix) score to quantitatively show the language confusion is pervasive and consistent in multilingual LLMs, (2) demonstrate that reference-based metrics result in false negatives when N-Mix score is high, and(3) suggest the need of new type of unlearning evaluation that can directly assess the content of the generated sentences. We call this type of metrics as semantic-based metric.

The task of automated code review has recently gained a lot of attention from the machine learning community. However, current review comment evaluation metrics rely on comparisons with a human-written reference for a given code change (also called a diff), even though code review is a one-to-many problem like generation and summarization with many "valid reviews" for a diff. To tackle these issues we develop a CRScore - a reference-free metric to measure dimensions of review quality like conciseness, comprehensiveness, and relevance. We design CRScore to evaluate reviews in a way that is grounded in claims and potential issues detected in the code by LLMs and static analyzers. We demonstrate that CRScore can produce valid, fine-grained scores of review quality that have the greatest alignment with human judgment (0.54 Spearman correlation) and are more sensitive than reference-based metrics. We also release a corpus of 2.6k human-annotated review quality scores for machine-generated and GitHub review comments to support the development of automated metrics.

Reference-based metrics such as BLEU and BERTScore are widely used to evaluate question generation (QG). In this study, on QG benchmarks such as SQuAD and HotpotQA, we find that using human-written references cannot guarantee the effectiveness of the reference-based metrics. Most QG benchmarks have only one reference; we replicated the annotation process and collect another reference. A good metric was expected to grade a human-validated question no worse than generated questions. However, the results of reference-based metrics on our newly collected reference disproved the metrics themselves. We propose a reference-free metric consisted of multi-dimensional criteria such as naturalness, answerability, and complexity, utilizing large language models. These criteria are not constrained to the syntactic or semantic of a single reference question, and the metric does not require a diverse set of references. Experiments reveal that our metric accurately distinguishes between high-quality questions and flawed ones, and achieves state-of-the-art alignment with human judgment.

Providing quality scores along with Machine Translation (MT) output, so-called reference-free Quality Estimation (QE), is crucial to inform users about the reliability of the translation. We propose a model-specific, unsupervised QE approach, termed $k$NN-QE, that extracts information from the MT model's training data using $k$-nearest neighbors. Measuring the performance of model-specific QE is not straightforward, since they provide quality scores on their own MT output, thus cannot be evaluated using benchmark QE test sets containing human quality scores on premade MT output. Therefore, we propose an automatic evaluation method that uses quality scores from reference-based metrics as gold standard instead of human-generated ones. We are the first to conduct detailed analyses and conclude that this automatic method is sufficient, and the reference-based MetricX-23 is best for the task.

The majority of automatic metrics for evaluating NLG systems are reference-based. However, the challenge of collecting human annotation results in a lack of reliable references in numerous application scenarios. Despite recent advancements in reference-free metrics, it has not been well understood when and where they can be used as an alternative to reference-based metrics. In this study, by employing diverse analytical approaches, we comprehensively assess the performance of both metrics across a wide range of NLG tasks, encompassing eight datasets and eight evaluation models. Based on solid experiments, the results show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. However, their effectiveness varies across tasks and is influenced by the quality of candidate texts. Therefore, it's important to assess the performance of reference-free metrics before applying them to a new task, especially when inputs are in uncommon form or when the answer space is highly variable. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.

We benchmark the performance of segmentlevel metrics submitted to WMT 2023 using the ACES Challenge Set (Amrhein et al., 2022). The challenge set consists of 36K examples representing challenges from 68 phenomena and covering 146 language pairs. The phenomena range from simple perturbations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. For each metric, we provide a detailed profile of performance over a range of error categories as well as an overall ACES-Score for quick comparison. We also measure the incremental performance of the metrics submitted to both WMT 2023 and 2022. We find that 1) there is no clear winner among the metrics submitted to WMT 2023, and 2) performance change between the 2023 and 2022 versions of the metrics is highly variable. Our recommendations are similar to those from WMT 2022. Metric developers should focus on: building ensembles of metrics from different design families, developing metrics that pay more attention to the source and rely less on surface-level overlap, and carefully determining the influence of multilingual embeddings on MT evaluation.

Marketing scientist Kevin Gray asks Dr. Anna Farzindar of the University of Southern California about chatbots and the ways they are used. Is there a formal definition you prefer? Conversational or dialog agents are designed to communicate with us in human language. These software agents are deployed everywhere around us; when talking to your car, communicating with robots, or using your personal assistant on any device or smartphone, such as Alexa, Cortona, SIRI or Google Assistant. The term "chatbot" is often used in industry for conversational agents that can be integrated through any online messaging application.