BARTScore evaluates the quality of generated text by treating evaluation as a conditional text generation task. It measures the likelihood of a hypothesis given a source text, or a reference given a hypothesis, using pre-trained sequence-to-sequence models. This approach enables unsupervised, multi-perspective assessment of fluency, factuality, and informativeness without relying on human annotations or simple n-gram overlap. Use when the user has predictions and gold and needs to compute Spe...
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill bartscore --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Bartscore?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-bartscore)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: bartscore
description: BARTScore evaluates the quality of generated text by treating evaluation as a conditional text generation task. It measures the likelihood of a hypothesis given a source text, or a reference given a hypothesis, using pre-trained sequence-to-sequence models. This approach enables unsupervised, multi-perspective assessment of fluency, factuality, and informativeness without relying on human annotations or simple n-gram overlap. Use when the user has predictions and gold and needs to compute Spearman Correlation.
metadata:
skill_kind: metric
source_arxiv: 2106.11520
bibtex_key: yuan2021bartscore
confidence: high
---
# bartscore
> BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation — Yuan et al. (2021) (arXiv:2106.11520, 2021)
## What this evaluates
BARTScore evaluates the quality of generated text by treating evaluation as a conditional text generation task. It measures the likelihood of a hypothesis given a source text, or a reference given a hypothesis, using pre-trained sequence-to-sequence models. This approach enables unsupervised, multi-perspective assessment of fluency, factuality, and informativeness without relying on human annotations or simple n-gram overlap.
## Datasets
- **WMT19** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **REALSumm** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SummEval** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **NeR18** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Rank19** — total 373; splits: test (373)
- **QAGS** — total 474; splits: test (474)
- **BAGEL** — total 202; splits: test (202)
- **SFHOT** — total 398; splits: test (398)
- **SFRES** — total 581; splits: test (581)
## Metrics
- `Spearman Correlation` **(primary)** — range: [-1, 1]
- Measures the monotonic relationship between two ranked variables. Computed as the Pearson correlation between the rank of automated metric scores and the rank of human judgment scores.
- `Kendall's Tau` — range: [-1, 1]
- Measures the ordinal association between two measured quantities by counting concordant and discordant pairs.
- `Pearson Correlation` — range: [-1, 1]
- Measures the linear correlation between two sets of data.
- `Accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- Measures the percentage of correct ranking between factual texts and non-factual texts.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Source text (s), hypothesis/generation (h), and optionally reference text (r). For prompting variants, seed phrases are prepended to the decoder input.
**Output**: A continuous scalar score representing the log-likelihood or averaged generation probability of the hypothesis/reference pair.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_bartscore(source, hypothesis, reference, model, prompts):
scores = []
for prompt in prompts:
# Choose direction based on task perspective: s->h or h->r
input_text = f"{prompt} {source}"
target_text = hypothesis
log_prob = model.log_prob(target_text, input_text)
scores.append(log_prob)
return np.mean(scores)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Using the same prompt strategy across all tasks ignores task-specific optimal prompts (e.g., 'Such as' for MT vs. ensembling for SUM/D2T).
- Fine-tuning on paraphrase data (ParaBank2) improves general quality metrics but degrades factuality performance, as summaries and documents are not strict paraphrases.
- Selecting the wrong BARTScore usage mode (s→h vs h→r) for a given evaluation perspective leads to suboptimal correlation with human judgments.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Spearman Correlation [73] assesses the monotonic relationships between two variables. Kendall's Tau [27] measures the ordinal association between two measured quantities. Accuracy, in our experiments, measures the percentage of correct ranking between factual texts and non-factual texts. We follow previous works in the choices of measures for different datasets to make a fair comparison.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{yuan2021bartscore,
title={BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation},
author={Yuan et al. (2021)},
year={2021},
note={arXiv:2106.11520}
}
```
- arXiv: 2106.11520
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!