@inproceedings{post-2018-call,
    title = "A Call for Clarity in Reporting {BLEU} Scores",
    author = "Post, Matt",
    editor = "Bojar, Ond{\v{r}}ej  and
      Chatterjee, Rajen  and
      Federmann, Christian  and
      Fishel, Mark  and
      Graham, Yvette  and
      Haddow, Barry  and
      Huck, Matthias  and
      Yepes, Antonio Jimeno  and
      Koehn, Philipp  and
      Monz, Christof  and
      Negri, Matteo  and
      N{\'e}v{\'e}ol, Aur{\'e}lie  and
      Neves, Mariana  and
      Post, Matt  and
      Specia, Lucia  and
      Turchi, Marco  and
      Verspoor, Karin",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers",
    month = oct,
    year = "2018",
    address = "Brussels, Belgium",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/iwcs-25-ingestion/W18-6319/",
    doi = "10.18653/v1/W18-6319",
    pages = "186--191",
    abstract = "The field of machine translation faces an under-recognized problem because of inconsistency in the reporting of scores from its dominant metric. Although people refer to ``the'' BLEU score, BLEU is in fact a parameterized metric whose values can vary wildly with changes to these parameters. These parameters are often not reported or are hard to find, and consequently, BLEU scores between papers cannot be directly compared. I quantify this variation, finding differences as high as 1.8 between commonly used configurations. The main culprit is different tokenization and normalization schemes applied to the reference. Pointing to the success of the parsing community, I suggest machine translation researchers settle upon the BLEU scheme used by the annual Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), which does not allow for user-supplied reference processing, and provide a new tool, SACREBLEU, to facilitate this."
}