No Arabic abstract
Beam search is an effective and widely used decoding algorithm in many sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) text generation tasks. However, in open-ended text generation, beam search is often found to produce repetitive and generic texts, sampling-based decoding algorithms like top-k sampling and nucleus sampling are more preferred. Standard seq2seq models suffer from label bias due to its locally normalized probability formulation. This paper provides a series of empirical evidence that label bias is a major reason for such degenerate behaviors of beam search. By combining locally normalized maximum likelihood estimation and globally normalized sequence-level training, label bias can be reduced with almost no sacrifice in perplexity. To quantitatively measure label bias, we test the models ability to discriminate the groundtruth text and a set of context-agnostic distractors. We conduct experiments on large-scale response generation datasets. Results show that beam search can produce more diverse and meaningful texts with our approach, in terms of both automatic and human evaluation metrics. Our analysis also suggests several future working directions towards the grand challenge of open-ended text generation.
Automatic evaluation for open-ended natural language generation tasks remains a challenge. Existing metrics such as BLEU show a low correlation with human judgment. We propose a novel and powerful learning-based evaluation metric: Perception Score. The method measures the overall quality of the generation and scores holistically instead of only focusing on one evaluation criteria, such as word overlapping. Moreover, it also shows the amount of uncertainty about its evaluation result. By connecting the uncertainty, Perception Score gives a more accurate evaluation for the generation system. Perception Score provides state-of-the-art results on two conditional generation tasks and two unconditional generation tasks.
Automatic metrics are essential for developing natural language generation (NLG) models, particularly for open-ended language generation tasks such as story generation. However, existing automatic metrics are observed to correlate poorly with human evaluation. The lack of standardized benchmark datasets makes it difficult to fully evaluate the capabilities of a metric and fairly compare different metrics. Therefore, we propose OpenMEVA, a benchmark for evaluating open-ended story generation metrics. OpenMEVA provides a comprehensive test suite to assess the capabilities of metrics, including (a) the correlation with human judgments, (b) the generalization to different model outputs and datasets, (c) the ability to judge story coherence, and (d) the robustness to perturbations. To this end, OpenMEVA includes both manually annotated stories and auto-constructed test examples. We evaluate existing metrics on OpenMEVA and observe that they have poor correlation with human judgments, fail to recognize discourse-level incoherence, and lack inferential knowledge (e.g., causal order between events), the generalization ability and robustness. Our study presents insights for developing NLG models and metrics in further research.
Despite the success of existing referenced metrics (e.g., BLEU and MoverScore), they correlate poorly with human judgments for open-ended text generation including story or dialog generation because of the notorious one-to-many issue: there are many plausible outputs for the same input, which may differ substantially in literal or semantics from the limited number of given references. To alleviate this issue, we propose UNION, a learnable unreferenced metric for evaluating open-ended story generation, which measures the quality of a generated story without any reference. Built on top of BERT, UNION is trained to distinguish human-written stories from negative samples and recover the perturbation in negative stories. We propose an approach of constructing negative samples by mimicking the errors commonly observed in existing NLG models, including repeated plots, conflicting logic, and long-range incoherence. Experiments on two story datasets demonstrate that UNION is a reliable measure for evaluating the quality of generated stories, which correlates better with human judgments and is more generalizable than existing state-of-the-art metrics.
Graph-to-text generation aims to generate fluent texts from graph-based data. In this paper, we investigate two recently proposed pretrained language models (PLMs) and analyze the impact of different task-adaptive pretraining strategies for PLMs in graph-to-text generation. We present a study across three graph domains: meaning representations, Wikipedia knowledge graphs (KGs) and scientific KGs. We show that the PLMs BART and T5 achieve new state-of-the-art results and that task-adaptive pretraining strategies improve their performance even further. In particular, we report new state-of-the-art BLEU scores of 49.72 on LDC2017T10, 59.70 on WebNLG, and 25.66 on AGENDA datasets - a relative improvement of 31.8%, 4.5%, and 42.4%, respectively. In an extensive analysis, we identify possible reasons for the PLMs success on graph-to-text tasks. We find evidence that their knowledge about true facts helps them perform well even when the input graph representation is reduced to a simple bag of node and edge labels.
We investigate the less-explored task of generating open-ended questions that are typically answered by multiple sentences. We first define a new question type ontology which differentiates the nuanced nature of questions better than widely used question words. A new dataset with 4,959 questions is labeled based on the new ontology. We then propose a novel question type-aware question generation framework, augmented by a semantic graph representation, to jointly predict question focuses and produce the question. Based on this framework, we further use both exemplars and automatically generated templates to improve controllability and diversity. Experiments on two newly collected large-scale datasets show that our model improves question quality over competitive comparisons based on automatic metrics. Human judges also rate our model outputs highly in answerability, coverage of scope, and overall quality. Finally, our model variants with templates can produce questions with enhanced controllability and diversity.