aiqbench analysis
This survey addresses a critical bottleneck in semantic communication by proposing a unified framework to evaluate meaning preservation rather than just symbol reconstruction across text and image modalities. It systematically categorizes existing performance indicators based on communication goals, reference availability, and channel constraints to highlight gaps in standardization and universal success criteria. For researchers developing next-generation transmission systems, this work provides an essential roadmap for integrating machine learning metrics with rigorous communication theory to ensure reliable semantic exchange.
Rethinking Communication Metrics: How Should We Measure Meaning?
arXiv:2608.21626v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Semantic communication shifts the objective of communication systems from accurate symbol reconstruction toward meaning preservation, task accomplishment, and efficient information exchange. However, its evaluation remains fragmented across telecommunications, natural language processing, computer vision, and machine learning, and no single metric can characterize semantic quality across modalities, tasks, and channel conditions. This article surveys key performance indicators (KPIs) for text- and image-based semantic communication systems from a unified, evaluation-centered perspective. Unlike prior surveys primarily organized around architectures, applications, or transmission strategies, this work focuses on how semantic success should be defined and measured. Existing KPIs are classified according to communication goal, source modality, receiver output, reference availability, evaluation level, and channel or resource constraints. The survey reviews reconstruction-based, task-oriented, reference-free, representation-level, perceptual, and channel-aware metrics, and presents a cross-modality comparison of their roles, strengths, and limitations. It further analyzes how unresolved semantic-KPI challenges affect monitoring, quality assurance, resource optimization, fault diagnosis, and standardization. Key open problems include the absence of universal semantic success criteria and standardized semantic ground truth, semantic drift, limited reference-free evaluation, weak integration of machine-learning metrics with communication constraints, and the lack of relation-level and multimodal KPIs. Finally, future research directions are outlined toward standardized, interpretable, adaptive, task-aware, and communication-aware evaluation frameworks.
Title:Rethinking Communication Metrics: How Should We Measure Meaning?
Abstract:Semantic communication shifts the objective of communication systems from accurate symbol reconstruction toward meaning preservation, task accomplishment, and efficient information exchange. However, its evaluation remains fragmented across telecommunications, natural language processing, computer vision, and machine learning, and no single metric can characterize semantic quality across modalities, tasks, and channel conditions. This article surveys key performance indicators (KPIs) for text- and image-based semantic communication systems from a unified, evaluation-centered perspective. Unlike prior surveys primarily organized around architectures, applications, or transmission strategies, this work focuses on how semantic success should be defined and measured. Existing KPIs are classified according to communication goal, source modality, receiver output, reference availability, evaluation level, and channel or resource constraints. The survey reviews reconstruction-based, task-oriented, reference-free, representation-level, perceptual, and channel-aware metrics, and presents a cross-modality comparison of their roles, strengths, and limitations. It further analyzes how unresolved semantic-KPI challenges affect monitoring, quality assurance, resource optimization, fault diagnosis, and standardization. Key open problems include the absence of universal semantic success criteria and standardized semantic ground truth, semantic drift, limited reference-free evaluation, weak integration of machine-learning metrics with communication constraints, and the lack of relation-level and multimodal KPIs. Finally, future research directions are outlined toward standardized, interpretable, adaptive, task-aware, and communication-aware evaluation frameworks.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.21626 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.21626v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21626 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 306 words
Related coverage

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026

Podcast: The Future of AI: from Enterprise Adoption to Open Source Sovereignty
InfoQ · Sep 25, 2026

Presentation: Prompt to Prod: Engineering an Autonomous SDLC at Scale
InfoQ · Aug 24, 2026
Untrusted advice for AI control: Short, strong advice significantly uplifts weak LLMs
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026