Toward Human-Like Evaluation for Natural Language Generation with Error Analysis (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have been used to evaluate language generation tasks . pretrained error analysis can be used to refine the generated sentence toward higher confidence . |
| Approach: | They propose to combine pretrained language model based metrics with human-like error analysis to improve sentence confidence. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms top-scoring metrics in 19/25 settings. |
Similar Papers
Not All Errors are Equal: Learning Text Generation Metrics using Stratified Error Synthesis (2022.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing learning metrics are limited to tasks where large human ratings are available. |
| Approach: | They propose a model-based natural language generation (NLG) evaluation metric that is highly correlated with human judgements without requiring human annotation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed metric outperforms all prior unsupervised metrics on multiple NLG tasks including translation, image captioning, and WebNLG text generation. |
SESCORE2: Learning Text Generation Evaluation via Synthesizing Realistic Mistakes (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing learned metrics perform unsatisfactory across text generation tasks or require human annotations for training on specific tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a self-supervised approach to train a model-based metric for text generation evaluation using sentences retrieved from a corpus. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms all prior unsupervised metrics on four text generation evaluation benchmarks, with an average Kendall improvement of 0.158. |
Semantic Accuracy in Natural Language Generation: A Thesis Proposal (2023.acl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using large pre-trained language models, it is essential to research their reliability . if a human does not know the answer to a question, the socially acceptable behavior is to say 'I do not know' failing to fulfill this expectation can lead to distrust, or spread of misinformation. |
| Approach: | They propose a method for evaluating semantic accuracy and a benchmark for NLG metrics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method evaluates semantic accuracy and provides a benchmark for NLG metrics. |
Unifying Human and Statistical Evaluation for Natural Language Generation (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Human evaluation captures quality but fails to capture diversity . statistical evaluation fails to catch models that plagiarize from training set . |
| Approach: | They propose a framework which evaluates both diversity and quality based on the optimal error rate of predicting whether a sentence is human-generated. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates diversity and quality on summarization and chit-chat dialogue. |
A Tutorial on Evaluation Metrics used in Natural Language Generation (2021.naacl-tutorials)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | This tutorial presents the evolution of automatic evaluation metrics to their current state along with emerging trends in this field. |
| Approach: | This tutorial presents the evolution of automatic evaluation metrics to their current state . it aims to assess the extent of scientific progress made and identify areas/components that need improvement . |
| Outcome: | This tutorial presents the evolution of automatic evaluation metrics to their current state along with emerging trends in this field. |
LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation tasks favor text generated by different LMs . human evaluation by experts is the most reliable approach, but it is costly and time-consuming . |
| Approach: | They examine whether language model-driven evaluation metrics exhibit bias toward underlying language models in the context of summarization tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation metrics tend to assign inflated scores to outputs generated by the very model they are based on. |
Curious Case of Language Generation Evaluation Metrics: A Cautionary Tale (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a few popular metrics are still used to evaluate language generation systems despite their known limitations. |
| Approach: | They propose to use automatic metrics to evaluate language generation systems . they show that they prefer system outputs to human-authored texts . |
| Outcome: | The proposed metrics are insensitive to correct translations of rare words and can yield high scores when given a single sentence as system output for the entire test set. |
Revisiting Grammatical Error Correction Evaluation and Beyond (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Pretraining-based (PT) evaluation metrics are not effective for training grammatical error correction systems. |
| Approach: | They propose a pretraining-based GEC evaluation metric which only uses PT-based metrics to score the corrected parts of the system. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation metric outperforms existing methods on a CoNLL14 evaluation task. |
On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text Generation (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for text generation evaluation metrics are lacking in robustness analysis. |
| Approach: | They propose to use stress tests to test for errors in text generation evaluation metrics . they find that BERTScore is confused by truncation errors in summarization . |
| Outcome: | The proposed stress tests show that they are insensitive to errors in open-ended generation, translation, and summarization. |
A Human Evaluation of AMR-to-English Generation Systems (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent human evaluation of AMR generation systems is compared to automated metrics. |
| Approach: | They propose a human evaluation which collects fluency and adequacy scores and categorization of error types for AMR generation systems. |
| Outcome: | The results show that human evaluations are more nuanced than automated metrics. |