Nitika Mathur

Brian Thompson, Nitika Mathur, Daniel Deutsch et al.

Selecting an automatic metric that best emulates human annotators is often non-trivial, because there is no clear definition of "best emulates." A meta-metric is required to compare the human judgments to the automatic metric scores, and metric rankings depend on the choice of meta-metric. We propose Soft Pairwise Accuracy (SPA), a new meta-metric that builds on Pairwise Accuracy (PA) but incorporates the statistical significance of both the human judgments and the metric scores. We show that SPA is more stable than PA with respect to changes in the number of systems/segments used for evaluation. We also show that PA can only assign a small set of distinct output values to metrics, and this results in many metrics being artificially assigned the exact same PA score. We demonstrate that SPA fixes this issue. Finally, we show that SPA is more discriminative than PA, producing more statistically significant comparisons between metrics. SPA was selected as the official system-level metric for the 2024 WMT Metrics Shared Task.

Islam Nassar, Yang Lin, Yuan Jin et al.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding, under the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) taxonomy, documents medical services provided to patients by physicians. Used primarily for billing purposes, it is in physicians' best interest to provide accurate CPT E/M codes. %While important, it is an auxiliary task that adds to physicians' documentation burden. Automating this coding task will help alleviate physicians' documentation burden, improve billing efficiency, and ultimately enable better patient care. However, a number of real-world complexities have made E/M encoding automation a challenging task. In this paper, we elaborate some of the key complexities and present ProFees, our LLM-based framework that tackles them, followed by a systematic evaluation. On an expert-curated real-world dataset, ProFees achieves an increase in coding accuracy of more than 36\% over a commercial CPT E/M coding system and almost 5\% over our strongest single-prompt baseline, demonstrating its effectiveness in addressing the real-world complexities.

Nitika Mathur, Timothy Baldwin, Trevor Cohn

Automatic metrics are fundamental for the development and evaluation of machine translation systems. Judging whether, and to what extent, automatic metrics concur with the gold standard of human evaluation is not a straightforward problem. We show that current methods for judging metrics are highly sensitive to the translations used for assessment, particularly the presence of outliers, which often leads to falsely confident conclusions about a metric's efficacy. Finally, we turn to pairwise system ranking, developing a method for thresholding performance improvement under an automatic metric against human judgements, which allows quantification of type I versus type II errors incurred, i.e., insignificant human differences in system quality that are accepted, and significant human differences that are rejected. Together, these findings suggest improvements to the protocols for metric evaluation and system performance evaluation in machine translation.