اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدThe statistical advantage of automatic NLG metrics at the system level
62
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Estimating the expected output quality of generation systems is central to NLG. This paper qualifies the notion that automatic metrics are not as good as humans in estimating system-level quality. Statistically, humans are unbiased, high variance estimators, while metrics are biased, low variance estimators. We compare these estimators by their error in pairwise prediction (which generation system is better?) using the bootstrap. Measuring this error is complicated: predictions are evaluated against noisy, human predicted labels instead of the ground truth, and metric predictions fluctuate based on the test sets they were calculated on. By applying a bias-variance-noise decomposition, we adjust this error to a noise-free, infinite test set setting. Our analysis compares the adjusted error of metrics to humans and a derived, perfect segment-level annotator, both of which are unbiased estimators dependent on the number of judgments collected. In MT, we identify two settings where metrics outperform humans due to a statistical advantage in variance: when the number of human judgments used is small, and when the quality difference between compared systems is small. The data and code to reproduce our analyses are available at https://github.com/johntzwei/metric-statistical-advantage .
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
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.
Though generative dialogue modeling is widely seen as a language modeling task, the task demands an agent to have a complex natural language understanding of its input text to carry a meaningful interaction with an user. The automatic metrics used ev
aluate the quality of the generated text as a proxy to the holistic interaction of the agent. Such metrics were earlier shown to not correlate with the human judgement. In this work, we observe that human evaluation of dialogue agents can be inconclusive due to the lack of sufficient information for appropriate evaluation. The automatic metrics are deterministic yet shallow and human evaluation can be relevant yet inconclusive. To bridge this gap in evaluation, we propose designing a set of probing tasks to evaluate dialogue models. The hand-crafted tasks are aimed at quantitatively evaluating a generative dialogue models understanding beyond the token-level evaluation on the generated text. The probing tasks are deterministic like automatic metrics and requires human judgement in their designing; benefiting from the best of both worlds. With experiments on probe tasks we observe that, unlike RNN based architectures, transformer model may not be learning to comprehend the input text despite its generated text having higher overlap with the target text.
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 users 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.
Standard automatic metrics (such as BLEU) are problematic for document-level MT evaluation. They can neither distinguish document-level improvements in translation quality from sentence-level ones nor can they identify the specific discourse phenomen
a that caused the translation errors. To address these problems, we propose an automatic metric BlonD for document-level machine translation evaluation. BlonD takes discourse coherence into consideration by calculating the recall and distance of check-pointing phrases and tags, and further provides comprehensive evaluation scores by combining with n-gram. Extensive comparisons between BlonD and existing evaluation metrics are conducted to illustrate their critical distinctions. Experimental results show that BlonD has a much higher document-level sensitivity with respect to previous metrics. The human evaluation also reveals high Pearson R correlation values between BlonD scores and manual quality judgments.
Automatic metrics are commonly used as the exclusive tool for declaring the superiority of one machine translation systems quality over another. The community choice of automatic metric guides research directions and industrial developments by decidi
ng which models are deemed better. Evaluating metrics correlations with sets of human judgements has been limited by the size of these sets. In this paper, we corroborate how reliable metrics are in contrast to human judgements on -- to the best of our knowledge -- the largest collection of judgements reported in the literature. Arguably, pairwise rankings of two systems are the most common evaluation tasks in research or deployment scenarios. Taking human judgement as a gold standard, we investigate which metrics have the highest accuracy in predicting translation quality rankings for such system pairs. Furthermore, we evaluate the performance of various metrics across different language pairs and domains. Lastly, we show that the sole use of BLEU impeded the development of improved models leading to bad deployment decisions. We release the collection of 2.3M sentence-level human judgements for 4380 systems for further analysis and replication of our work.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
