Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods

Abstract

Automated reference-based evaluation methods play a critical role in assessing natural language generation systems. Existing meta-evaluation primarily measures agreement with human judgments or benchmark labels, providing limited insight into evaluator behavior under controlled conditions. We introduce behavioral correctness assumptions, a complementary framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods. We define a taxonomy of correctness-preserving and correctness-altering assumptions and operationalize them through controlled response transformations that specify expected scoring behaviors. We evaluate diverse lexical, character-level, semantic, LLM-based, and hybrid evaluators and analyze their assumption-level behavior, stability, sensitivity, repeat-run variability, configuration sensitivity, and reproducibility. Our experiments reveal distinct behavioral trade-offs across evaluation paradigms: no evaluator satisfies all proposed correctness assumptions, and evaluators with similar aggregate performance can exhibit substantially different behavioral profiles. These findings demonstrate that behavioral correctness assumptions provide diagnostic information obscured by conventional aggregate meta-evaluation.