Rogue Scores
Max Grusky
Abstract
Correct, comparable, and reproducible model evaluation is essential for progress in machine learning. Over twenty years, thousands of language and vision models have been evaluated with a popular metric called ROUGE. Does this widespread benchmark metric meet these three evaluation criteria? This systematic review of over two thousand publications using ROUGE finds: (A) Critical evaluation decisions and parameters are routinely omitted, making most reported scores irreproducible. (B) Differences in evaluation protocol are common, affect scores, and impact the comparability of results reported in many papers. (C) Thousands of papers use nonstandard evaluation packages with software defects that produce provably incorrect scores. Estimating the overall impact of these findings is difficult: because software citations are rare, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between correct ROUGE scores and incorrect "rogue scores."
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 6a096ee7-1844-4d46-9050-522532287fdbCited by top-tier papers3
- Summarizing Speech: A Comprehensive SurveyFabian Retkowski, Maike Züfle, Andreas Sudmann, Dinah Pfau et al.EMNLP 2025 · 3 citations
- MetaMetrics: Calibrating Metrics for Generation Tasks Using Human PreferencesGenta Indra Winata, David Anugraha, Lucky Susanto, Garry Kuwanto et al.ICLR 2025
- Temporal Generalization: A Reality CheckDivyam Madaan, Sumit Chopra, Kyunghyun ChoICLR 2026
Builds on7
- PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive SummarizationJingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, Peter J. LiuICML 2020 · 2,453 citations
- BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and ComprehensionMike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad et al.ACL 2020 · 1,224 citations
- BRIO: Bringing Order to Abstractive SummarizationYixin Liu, Pengfei Liu, Dragomir R. Radev, Graham NeubigACL 2022 · 329 citations
- A Contextual Hierarchical Attention Network with Adaptive Objective for Dialogue State TrackingYong Shan, Zekang Li, Jinchao Zhang, Fandong Meng et al.ACL 2020 · 58 citations
- Syn-QG: Syntactic and Shallow Semantic Rules for Question GenerationKaustubh D. Dhole, Christopher D. ManningACL 2020 · 2 citations
Related papers
- Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text SummarizationManik Bhandari, Pranav Narayan Gour, Atabak Ashfaq, Pengfei Liu et al.EMNLP 2020 · 3 citations
- The Illusion of Progress: Re-evaluating Hallucination Detection in LLMsDenis Janiak, Jakub Binkowski, Albert Sawczyn, Bogdan Gabrys et al.EMNLP 2025
- Scientific Credibility of Machine Translation Research: A Meta-Evaluation of 769 PapersBenjamin Marie, Atsushi Fujita, Raphael RubinoACL 2021
- SEM-F1: an Automatic Way for Semantic Evaluation of Multi-Narrative Overlap Summaries at ScaleNaman Bansal, Mousumi Akter, Shubhra Kanti Karmaker SantuEMNLP 2022 · 2 citations
- Evaluating the Performance of Reinforcement Learning AlgorithmsScott M. Jordan, Yash Chandak, Daniel Cohen, Mengxue Zhang et al.ICML 2020 · 59 citations
