BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Steffen Eger

Steffen Eger contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceComputer VisionMachine LearningCryptography and SecurityDigital LibrariesInformation Retrieval

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Prototypicality Bias Reveals Blindspots in Multimodal Evaluation Metrics

Automatic metrics are now central to evaluating text-to-image models, often substituting for human judgment in benchmarking and large-scale filtering. However, it remains unclear whether these metrics truly prioritize semantic correctness or instead favor visually and socially prototypical images learned from biased data distributions. We identify and study prototypicality bias as a systematic failure mode in multimodal evaluation. We introduce a controlled contrastive benchmark ProtoBias (Prototypical Bias), spanning Animals, Objects, and Demography images, where semantically correct but non-prototypical images are paired with subtly incorrect yet prototypical adversarial counterparts. This setup enables a directional evaluation of whether metrics follow textual semantics or default to prototypes. Our results show that widely used metrics, including CLIPScore, PickScore, and VQA-based scores, frequently misrank these pairs, while even LLM-as-Judge systems exhibit uneven robustness in socially grounded cases. Human evaluations consistently favour semantic correctness with larger decision margins. Motivated by these findings, we propose ProtoScore, a robust 7B-parameter metric that substantially reduces failure rates and suppresses misranking, while running at orders of magnitude faster than the inference time of GPT-5, approaching the robustness of much larger closed-source judges.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2024arXiv

Is there really a Citation Age Bias in NLP?

Citations are a key ingredient of scientific research to relate a paper to others published in the community. Recently, it has been noted that there is a citation age bias in the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community, one of the currently fastest growing AI subfields, in that the mean age of the bibliography of NLP papers has become ever younger in the last few years, leading to `citation amnesia' in which older knowledge is increasingly forgotten. In this work, we put such claims into perspective by analyzing the bibliography of $\sim$300k papers across 15 different scientific fields submitted to the popular preprint server Arxiv in the time period from 2013 to 2022. We find that all AI subfields (in particular: cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.CV, cs.LG) have similar trends of citation amnesia, in which the age of the bibliography has roughly halved in the last 10 years (from above 12 in 2013 to below 7 in 2022), on average. Rather than diagnosing this as a citation age bias in the NLP community, we believe this pattern is an artefact of the dynamics of these research fields, in which new knowledge is produced in ever shorter time intervals.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Layer or Representation Space: What makes BERT-based Evaluation Metrics Robust?

The evaluation of recent embedding-based evaluation metrics for text generation is primarily based on measuring their correlation with human evaluations on standard benchmarks. However, these benchmarks are mostly from similar domains to those used for pretraining word embeddings. This raises concerns about the (lack of) generalization of embedding-based metrics to new and noisy domains that contain a different vocabulary than the pretraining data. In this paper, we examine the robustness of BERTScore, one of the most popular embedding-based metrics for text generation. We show that (a) an embedding-based metric that has the highest correlation with human evaluations on a standard benchmark can have the lowest correlation if the amount of input noise or unknown tokens increases, (b) taking embeddings from the first layer of pretrained models improves the robustness of all metrics, and (c) the highest robustness is achieved when using character-level embeddings, instead of token-based embeddings, from the first layer of the pretrained model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Towards Explainable Evaluation Metrics for Natural Language Generation

Unlike classical lexical overlap metrics such as BLEU, most current evaluation metrics (such as BERTScore or MoverScore) are based on black-box language models such as BERT or XLM-R. They often achieve strong correlations with human judgments, but recent research indicates that the lower-quality classical metrics remain dominant, one of the potential reasons being that their decision processes are transparent. To foster more widespread acceptance of the novel high-quality metrics, explainability thus becomes crucial. In this concept paper, we identify key properties and propose key goals of explainable machine translation evaluation metrics. We also provide a synthesizing overview over recent approaches for explainable machine translation metrics and discuss how they relate to those goals and properties. Further, we conduct own novel experiments, which (among others) find that current adversarial NLP techniques are unsuitable for automatically identifying limitations of high-quality black-box evaluation metrics, as they are not meaning-preserving. Finally, we provide a vision of future approaches to explainable evaluation metrics and their evaluation. We hope that our work can help catalyze and guide future research on explainable evaluation metrics and, mediately, also contribute to better and more transparent text generation systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the Limitations of Cross-lingual Encoders as Exposed by Reference-Free Machine Translation Evaluation

Evaluation of cross-lingual encoders is usually performed either via zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in supervised downstream tasks or via unsupervised cross-lingual textual similarity. In this paper, we concern ourselves with reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation where we directly compare source texts to (sometimes low-quality) system translations, which represents a natural adversarial setup for multilingual encoders. Reference-free evaluation holds the promise of web-scale comparison of MT systems. We systematically investigate a range of metrics based on state-of-the-art cross-lingual semantic representations obtained with pretrained M-BERT and LASER. We find that they perform poorly as semantic encoders for reference-free MT evaluation and identify their two key limitations, namely, (a) a semantic mismatch between representations of mutual translations and, more prominently, (b) the inability to punish "translationese", i.e., low-quality literal translations. We propose two partial remedies: (1) post-hoc re-alignment of the vector spaces and (2) coupling of semantic-similarity based metrics with target-side language modeling. In segment-level MT evaluation, our best metric surpasses reference-based BLEU by 5.7 correlation points.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

SUPERT: Towards New Frontiers in Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Multi-Document Summarization

We study unsupervised multi-document summarization evaluation metrics, which require neither human-written reference summaries nor human annotations (e.g. preferences, ratings, etc.). We propose SUPERT, which rates the quality of a summary by measuring its semantic similarity with a pseudo reference summary, i.e. selected salient sentences from the source documents, using contextualized embeddings and soft token alignment techniques. Compared to the state-of-the-art unsupervised evaluation metrics, SUPERT correlates better with human ratings by 18-39%. Furthermore, we use SUPERT as rewards to guide a neural-based reinforcement learning summarizer, yielding favorable performance compared to the state-of-the-art unsupervised summarizers. All source code is available at https://github.com/yg211/acl20-ref-free-eval.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Text Processing Like Humans Do: Visually Attacking and Shielding NLP Systems

Visual modifications to text are often used to obfuscate offensive comments in social media (e.g., "!d10t") or as a writing style ("1337" in "leet speak"), among other scenarios. We consider this as a new type of adversarial attack in NLP, a setting to which humans are very robust, as our experiments with both simple and more difficult visual input perturbations demonstrate. We then investigate the impact of visual adversarial attacks on current NLP systems on character-, word-, and sentence-level tasks, showing that both neural and non-neural models are, in contrast to humans, extremely sensitive to such attacks, suffering performance decreases of up to 82\%. We then explore three shielding methods---visual character embeddings, adversarial training, and rule-based recovery---which substantially improve the robustness of the models. However, the shielding methods still fall behind performances achieved in non-attack scenarios, which demonstrates the difficulty of dealing with visual attacks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

What is the Essence of a Claim? Cross-Domain Claim Identification

Argument mining has become a popular research area in NLP. It typically includes the identification of argumentative components, e.g. claims, as the central component of an argument. We perform a qualitative analysis across six different datasets and show that these appear to conceptualize claims quite differently. To learn about the consequences of such different conceptualizations of claim for practical applications, we carried out extensive experiments using state-of-the-art feature-rich and deep learning systems, to identify claims in a cross-domain fashion. While the divergent perception of claims in different datasets is indeed harmful to cross-domain classification, we show that there are shared properties on the lexical level as well as system configurations that can help to overcome these gaps.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access