Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReproducing a Comparison of Hedged and Non-hedged NLG Texts
إعادة إنتاج مقارنة النصوص NLG التحوط وغير المتحركة
399
0 0
0.0
(
0
)
Created by
Shamra Editor
Ask ChatGPT about the research
تصف هذه الورقة محاولة لإعادة إنتاج تجربة سابقة، التي أجرتها سابقا من قبل المؤلف، والتي تقارن نصوص NLG التحوط وغير المتحركة كجزء من التحدي المشترك المتصنع.كان جهد الاستنساخ هذا قادرا فقط على تكرار النتائج جزئيا من الدراسة الأصلية.يقترح المحللون من جهد الاستنساخ هذا أنهما من الممكن تكرار الجوانب الإجرائية لدراسة سابقة، يمكن تكرار النتائج أن تكون أكثر تحديا لأن الاختلافات في نوع المشارك يمكن أن يكون لها تأثير محتمل.
This paper describes an attempt to reproduce an earlier experiment, previously conducted by the author, that compares hedged and non-hedged NLG texts as part of the ReproGen shared challenge. This reproduction effort was only able to partially replicate results from the original study. The analyisis from this reproduction effort suggests that whilst it is possible to replicate the procedural aspects of a previous study, replicating the results can prove more challenging as differences in participant type can have a potential impact.
References used
https://aclanthology.org/
rate research
Read More
Writers often repurpose material from existing texts when composing new documents. Because most documents have more than one source, we cannot trace these connections using only models of document-level similarity. Instead, this paper considers metho
ds for local text reuse detection (LTRD), detecting localized regions of lexically or semantically similar text embedded in otherwise unrelated material. In extensive experiments, we study the relative performance of four classes of neural and bag-of-words models on three LTRD tasks -- detecting plagiarism, modeling journalists' use of press releases, and identifying scientists' citation of earlier papers. We conduct evaluations on three existing datasets and a new, publicly-available citation localization dataset. Our findings shed light on a number of previously-unexplored questions in the study of LTRD, including the importance of incorporating document-level context for predictions, the applicability of of-the-shelf neural models pretrained on general'' semantic textual similarity tasks such as paraphrase detection, and the trade-offs between more efficient bag-of-words and feature-based neural models and slower pairwise neural models.
Many NLG tasks such as summarization, dialogue response, or open domain question answering, focus primarily on a source text in order to generate a target response. This standard approach falls short, however, when a user's intent or context of work
is not easily recoverable based solely on that source text-- a scenario that we argue is more of the rule than the exception. In this work, we argue that NLG systems in general should place a much higher level of emphasis on making use of additional context, and suggest that relevance (as used in Information Retrieval) be thought of as a crucial tool for designing user-oriented text-generating tasks. We further discuss possible harms and hazards around such personalization, and argue that value-sensitive design represents a crucial path forward through these challenges.
The NLP field has recently seen a substantial increase in work related to reproducibility of results, and more generally in recognition of the importance of having shared definitions and practices relating to evaluation. Much of the work on reproduci
bility has so far focused on metric scores, with reproducibility of human evaluation results receiving far less attention. As part of a research programme designed to develop theory and practice of reproducibility assessment in NLP, we organised the first shared task on reproducibility of human evaluations, ReproGen 2021. This paper describes the shared task in detail, summarises results from each of the reproduction studies submitted, and provides further comparative analysis of the results. Out of nine initial team registrations, we received submissions from four teams. Meta-analysis of the four reproduction studies revealed varying degrees of reproducibility, and allowed very tentative first conclusions about what types of evaluation tend to have better reproducibility.
We propose a novel framework to train models to classify acceptability of responses generated by natural language generation (NLG) models, improving upon existing sentence transformation and model-based approaches. An NLG response is considered accep
table if it is both semantically correct and grammatical. We don't make use of any human references making the classifiers suitable for runtime deployment. Training data for the classifiers is obtained using a 2-stage approach of first generating synthetic data using a combination of existing and new model-based approaches followed by a novel validation framework to filter and sort the synthetic data into acceptable and unacceptable classes. Our 2-stage approach adapts to a wide range of data representations and does not require additional data beyond what the NLG models are trained on. It is also independent of the underlying NLG model architecture, and is able to generate more realistic samples close to the distribution of the NLG model-generated responses. We present results on 5 datasets (WebNLG, Cleaned E2E, ViGGO, Alarm, and Weather) with varying data representations. We compare our framework with existing techniques that involve synthetic data generation using simple sentence transformations and/or model-based techniques, and show that building acceptability classifiers using data that resembles the generation model outputs followed by a validation framework outperforms the existing techniques, achieving state-of-the-art results. We also show that our techniques can be used in few-shot settings using self-training.
Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation is a multifaceted task requiring assessment of multiple desirable criteria, e.g., fluency, coherency, coverage, relevance, adequacy, overall quality, etc. Across existing datasets for 6 NLG tasks, we obser
ve that the human evaluation scores on these multiple criteria are often not correlated. For example, there is a very low correlation between human scores on fluency and data coverage for the task of structured data to text generation. This suggests that the current recipe of proposing new automatic evaluation metrics for NLG by showing that they correlate well with scores assigned by humans for a single criteria (overall quality) alone is inadequate. Indeed, our extensive study involving 25 automatic evaluation metrics across 6 different tasks and 18 different evaluation criteria shows that there is no single metric which correlates well with human scores on all desirable criteria, for most NLG tasks. Given this situation, we propose CheckLists for better design and evaluation of automatic metrics. We design templates which target a specific criteria (e.g., coverage) and perturb the output such that the quality gets affected only along this specific criteria (e.g., the coverage drops). We show that existing evaluation metrics are not robust against even such simple perturbations and disagree with scores assigned by humans to the perturbed output. The proposed templates thus allow for a fine-grained assessment of automatic evaluation metrics exposing their limitations and will facilitate better design, analysis and evaluation of such metrics. Our templates and code are available at https://iitmnlp.github.io/EvalEval/
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
