No Arabic abstract
With the recent advances of open-domain story generation, the lack of reliable automatic evaluation metrics becomes an increasingly imperative issue that hinders the fast development of story generation. According to conducted researches in this regard, learnable evaluation metrics have promised more accurate assessments by having higher correlations with human judgments. A critical bottleneck of obtaining a reliable learnable evaluation metric is the lack of high-quality training data for classifiers to efficiently distinguish plausible and implausible machine-generated stories. Previous works relied on textit{heuristically manipulated} plausible examples to mimic possible system drawbacks such as repetition, contradiction, or irrelevant content in the text level, which can be textit{unnatural} and textit{oversimplify} the characteristics of implausible machine-generated stories. We propose to tackle these issues by generating a more comprehensive set of implausible stories using {em plots}, which are structured representations of controllable factors used to generate stories. Since these plots are compact and structured, it is easier to manipulate them to generate text with targeted undesirable properties, while at the same time maintain the grammatical correctness and naturalness of the generated sentences. To improve the quality of generated implausible stories, we further apply the adversarial filtering procedure presented by citet{zellers2018swag} to select a more nuanced set of implausible texts. Experiments show that the evaluation metrics trained on our generated data result in more reliable automatic assessments that correlate remarkably better with human judgments compared to the baselines.
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.
Story composition is a challenging problem for machines and even for humans. We present a neural narrative generation system that interacts with humans to generate stories. Our system has different levels of human interaction, which enables us to understand at what stage of story-writing human collaboration is most productive, both to improving story quality and human engagement in the writing process. We compare different varieties of interaction in story-writing, story-planning, and diversity controls under time constraints, and show that increased types of human collaboration at both planning and writing stages results in a 10-50% improvement in story quality as compared to less interactive baselines. We also show an accompanying increase in user engagement and satisfaction with stories as compared to our own less interactive systems and to previous turn-taking approaches to interaction. Finally, we find that humans tasked with collaboratively improving a particular characteristic of a story are in fact able to do so, which has implications for future uses of human-in-the-loop systems.
Current storytelling systems focus more ongenerating stories with coherent plots regard-less of the narration style, which is impor-tant for controllable text generation. There-fore, we propose a new task, stylized story gen-eration, namely generating stories with speci-fied style given a leading context. To tacklethe problem, we propose a novel generationmodel that first plans the stylized keywordsand then generates the whole story with theguidance of the keywords. Besides, we pro-pose two automatic metrics to evaluate theconsistency between the generated story andthe specified style. Experiments demonstratesthat our model can controllably generateemo-tion-driven orevent-driven stories based onthe ROCStories dataset (Mostafazadeh et al.,2016). Our study presents insights for stylizedstory generation in further research.
Many real-world open-domain conversation applications have specific goals to achieve during open-ended chats, such as recommendation, psychotherapy, education, etc. We study the problem of imposing conversational goals on open-domain chat agents. In particular, we want a conversational system to chat naturally with human and proactively guide the conversation to a designated target subject. The problem is challenging as no public data is available for learning such a target-guided strategy. We propose a structured approach that introduces coarse-grained keywords to control the intended content of system responses. We then attain smooth conversation transition through turn-level supervised learning, and drive the conversation towards the target with discourse-level constraints. We further derive a keyword-augmented conversation dataset for the study. Quantitative and human evaluations show our system can produce meaningful and effective conversations, significantly improving over other approaches.