You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm currently evaluating models on the RoboVQA benchmark and noticed that in your code (e.g., judge_robovqa), you implemented a customized BLEU evaluation scheme that:
Computes BLEU-1 to BLEU-4 separately using sentence_bleu.
Meanwhile, the official RoboVQA evaluation protocol (e.g., robovqa_aggregate_results) seems to use the standard sacrebleu.sentence_bleu(pred, [ref]) without these additional steps.
I’m curious about the motivation behind adopting this alternative evaluation strategy. Do you consider the official metric too strict or less suitable for certain types of answers? Or do you find that your version better captures the intended model behavior?
I'd really appreciate any clarification on this, as I’m trying to ensure my evaluation results are consistent and fairly comparable. Thank you again for your contributions!
Hi! Thanks for your detailed question and careful reading of the code.
Actually, there wasn’t any special motivation behind that evaluation choice — we simply followed the version used internally at that time, so it was more of a practical decision than a methodological one :)
You can safely use the official RoboVQA evaluation protocol for consistent comparison; our customized script was mainly a legacy setup rather than an intentional deviation.
Activity
Yuheng2000 commentedon Oct 15, 2025
Hi! Thanks for your detailed question and careful reading of the code.
Actually, there wasn’t any special motivation behind that evaluation choice — we simply followed the version used internally at that time, so it was more of a practical decision than a methodological one :)
You can safely use the official RoboVQA evaluation protocol for consistent comparison; our customized script was mainly a legacy setup rather than an intentional deviation.