Elizabeth Clark

Sebastian Gehrmann, Abhik Bhattacharjee, Abinaya Mahendiran et al. · amazon-science, cmu

Evaluation in machine learning is usually informed by past choices, for example which datasets or metrics to use. This standardization enables the comparison on equal footing using leaderboards, but the evaluation choices become sub-optimal as better alternatives arise. This problem is especially pertinent in natural language generation which requires ever-improving suites of datasets, metrics, and human evaluation to make definitive claims. To make following best model evaluation practices easier, we introduce GEMv2. The new version of the Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics Benchmark introduces a modular infrastructure for dataset, model, and metric developers to benefit from each others work. GEMv2 supports 40 documented datasets in 51 languages. Models for all datasets can be evaluated online and our interactive data card creation and rendering tools make it easier to add new datasets to the living benchmark.

Jiao Sun, Thibault Sellam, Elizabeth Clark et al. · deepmind, uw

Evaluation metrics that are not robust to dialect variation make it impossible to tell how well systems perform for many groups of users, and can even penalize systems for producing text in lower-resource dialects. However, currently, there exists no way to quantify how metrics respond to change in the dialect of a generated utterance. We thus formalize dialect robustness and dialect awareness as goals for NLG evaluation metrics. We introduce a suite of methods and corresponding statistical tests one can use to assess metrics in light of the two goals. Applying the suite to current state-of-the-art metrics, we demonstrate that they are not dialect-robust and that semantic perturbations frequently lead to smaller decreases in a metric than the introduction of dialect features. As a first step to overcome this limitation, we propose a training schema, NANO, which introduces regional and language information to the pretraining process of a metric. We demonstrate that NANO provides a size-efficient way for models to improve the dialect robustness while simultaneously improving their performance on the standard metric benchmark.

Lining Zhang, Simon Mille, Yufang Hou et al. · deepmind, uw

To prevent the costly and inefficient use of resources on low-quality annotations, we want a method for creating a pool of dependable annotators who can effectively complete difficult tasks, such as evaluating automatic summarization. Thus, we investigate the recruitment of high-quality Amazon Mechanical Turk workers via a two-step pipeline. We show that we can successfully filter out subpar workers before they carry out the evaluations and obtain high-agreement annotations with similar constraints on resources. Although our workers demonstrate a strong consensus among themselves and CloudResearch workers, their alignment with expert judgments on a subset of the data is not as expected and needs further training in correctness. This paper still serves as a best practice for the recruitment of qualified annotators in other challenging annotation tasks.

Roee Aharoni, Shashi Narayan, Joshua Maynez et al.

Abstractive summarization has enjoyed renewed interest in recent years, thanks to pre-trained language models and the availability of large-scale datasets. Despite promising results, current models still suffer from generating factually inconsistent summaries, reducing their utility for real-world application. Several recent efforts attempt to address this by devising models that automatically detect factual inconsistencies in machine generated summaries. However, they focus exclusively on English, a language with abundant resources. In this work, we leverage factual consistency evaluation models to improve multilingual summarization. We explore two intuitive approaches to mitigate hallucinations based on the signal provided by a multilingual NLI model, namely data filtering and controlled generation. Experimental results in the 45 languages from the XLSum dataset show gains over strong baselines in both automatic and human evaluation.

Sumit Asthana, Hannah Rashkin, Elizabeth Clark et al.

One useful application of NLP models is to support people in reading complex text from unfamiliar domains (e.g., scientific articles). Simplifying the entire text makes it understandable but sometimes removes important details. On the contrary, helping adult readers understand difficult concepts in context can enhance their vocabulary and knowledge. In a preliminary human study, we first identify that lack of context and unfamiliarity with difficult concepts is a major reason for adult readers' difficulty with domain-specific text. We then introduce "targeted concept simplification," a simplification task for rewriting text to help readers comprehend text containing unfamiliar concepts. We also introduce WikiDomains, a new dataset of 22k definitions from 13 academic domains paired with a difficult concept within each definition. We benchmark the performance of open-source and commercial LLMs and a simple dictionary baseline on this task across human judgments of ease of understanding and meaning preservation. Interestingly, our human judges preferred explanations about the difficult concept more than simplification of the concept phrase. Further, no single model achieved superior performance across all quality dimensions, and automated metrics also show low correlations with human evaluations of concept simplification ($\sim0.2$), opening up rich avenues for research on personalized human reading comprehension support.

David Robinson, Animesh Gupta, Elizabeth Clark et al.

Standard clinical assessments of upper-extremity motor function after stroke either rely on ordinal scoring, which lacks sensitivity, or time-based task metrics, which do not capture movement quality. In this work, we present a computer vision-based framework for analysis of upper-extremity movement during the Box and Block Test (BBT) through world-aligned joint angles of fingers, arm, and trunk without depth sensors or calibration objects. We apply this framework to a dataset of 136 BBT recordings collected from 48 healthy individuals and 7 individuals post stroke. Using unsupervised dimensionality reduction of joint-angle features, we analyze movement patterns without relying on expert clinical labels. The resulting embeddings show separation between healthy movement patterns and stroke-related movement deviations. Importantly, some patients with the same BBT scores can be separated with different postural patterns. These results show that world-aligned joint angles can capture meaningful information of upper-extremity functions beyond standard time-based BBT scores, with no effort from the clinician other than monocular video recordings of the patient using a phone or camera. This work highlights the potential of a camera-based, calibration-free framework to measure movement quality in clinical assessments without changing the widely adopted clinical routine.

Hannah Rashkin, Elizabeth Clark, Fantine Huot et al.

Can LLMs provide support to creative writers by giving meaningful writing feedback? In this paper, we explore the challenges and limitations of model-generated writing feedback by defining a new task, dataset, and evaluation frameworks. To study model performance in a controlled manner, we present a novel test set of 1,300 stories that we corrupted to intentionally introduce writing issues. We study the performance of commonly used LLMs in this task with both automatic and human evaluation metrics. Our analysis shows that current models have strong out-of-the-box behavior in many respects -- providing specific and mostly accurate writing feedback. However, models often fail to identify the biggest writing issue in the story and to correctly decide when to offer critical vs. positive feedback.

Akhila Yerukola, Xuhui Zhou, Elizabeth Clark et al.

Most existing stylistic text rewriting methods and evaluation metrics operate on a sentence level, but ignoring the broader context of the text can lead to preferring generic, ambiguous, and incoherent rewrites. In this paper, we investigate integrating the preceding textual context into both the $\textit{rewriting}$ and $\textit{evaluation}$ stages of stylistic text rewriting, and introduce a new composite contextual evaluation metric $\texttt{CtxSimFit}$ that combines similarity to the original sentence with contextual cohesiveness. We comparatively evaluate non-contextual and contextual rewrites in formality, toxicity, and sentiment transfer tasks. Our experiments show that humans significantly prefer contextual rewrites as more fitting and natural over non-contextual ones, yet existing sentence-level automatic metrics (e.g., ROUGE, SBERT) correlate poorly with human preferences ($ρ$=0--0.3). In contrast, human preferences are much better reflected by both our novel $\texttt{CtxSimFit}$ ($ρ$=0.7--0.9) as well as proposed context-infused versions of common metrics ($ρ$=0.4--0.7). Overall, our findings highlight the importance of integrating context into the generation and especially the evaluation stages of stylistic text rewriting.

Elizabeth Clark, Shruti Rijhwani, Sebastian Gehrmann et al.

Reliable automatic evaluation of summarization systems is challenging due to the multifaceted and subjective nature of the task. This is especially the case for languages other than English, where human evaluations are scarce. In this work, we introduce SEAHORSE, a dataset for multilingual, multifaceted summarization evaluation. SEAHORSE consists of 96K summaries with human ratings along 6 dimensions of text quality: comprehensibility, repetition, grammar, attribution, main ideas, and conciseness, covering 6 languages, 9 systems and 4 datasets. As a result of its size and scope, SEAHORSE can serve both as a benchmark to evaluate learnt metrics, as well as a large-scale resource for training such metrics. We show that metrics trained with SEAHORSE achieve strong performance on the out-of-domain meta-evaluation benchmarks TRUE (Honovich et al., 2022) and mFACE (Aharoni et al., 2022). We make the SEAHORSE dataset and metrics publicly available for future research on multilingual and multifaceted summarization evaluation.

Anya Belz, Craig Thomson, Ehud Reiter et al.

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13\% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.

Sebastian Gehrmann, Elizabeth Clark, Thibault Sellam

Evaluation practices in natural language generation (NLG) have many known flaws, but improved evaluation approaches are rarely widely adopted. This issue has become more urgent, since neural NLG models have improved to the point where they can often no longer be distinguished based on the surface-level features that older metrics rely on. This paper surveys the issues with human and automatic model evaluations and with commonly used datasets in NLG that have been pointed out over the past 20 years. We summarize, categorize, and discuss how researchers have been addressing these issues and what their findings mean for the current state of model evaluations. Building on those insights, we lay out a long-term vision for NLG evaluation and propose concrete steps for researchers to improve their evaluation processes. Finally, we analyze 66 NLG papers from recent NLP conferences in how well they already follow these suggestions and identify which areas require more drastic changes to the status quo.

Elizabeth Clark, Tal August, Sofia Serrano et al.

Human evaluations are typically considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but as models' fluency improves, how well can evaluators detect and judge machine-generated text? We run a study assessing non-experts' ability to distinguish between human- and machine-authored text (GPT2 and GPT3) in three domains (stories, news articles, and recipes). We find that, without training, evaluators distinguished between GPT3- and human-authored text at random chance level. We explore three approaches for quickly training evaluators to better identify GPT3-authored text (detailed instructions, annotated examples, and paired examples) and find that while evaluators' accuracy improved up to 55%, it did not significantly improve across the three domains. Given the inconsistent results across text domains and the often contradictory reasons evaluators gave for their judgments, we examine the role untrained human evaluations play in NLG evaluation and provide recommendations to NLG researchers for improving human evaluations of text generated from state-of-the-art models.

Asli Celikyilmaz, Elizabeth Clark, Jianfeng Gao

The paper surveys evaluation methods of natural language generation (NLG) systems that have been developed in the last few years. We group NLG evaluation methods into three categories: (1) human-centric evaluation metrics, (2) automatic metrics that require no training, and (3) machine-learned metrics. For each category, we discuss the progress that has been made and the challenges still being faced, with a focus on the evaluation of recently proposed NLG tasks and neural NLG models. We then present two examples for task-specific NLG evaluations for automatic text summarization and long text generation, and conclude the paper by proposing future research directions.

Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Elizabeth Clark et al.

We propose TuringAdvice, a new challenge task and dataset for language understanding models. Given a written situation that a real person is currently facing, a model must generate helpful advice in natural language. Our evaluation framework tests a fundamental aspect of human language understanding: our ability to use language to resolve open-ended situations by communicating with each other. Empirical results show that today's models struggle at TuringAdvice, even multibillion parameter models finetuned on 600k in-domain training examples. The best model, a finetuned T5, writes advice that is at least as helpful as human-written advice in only 14% of cases; a much larger non-finetunable GPT3 model does even worse at 4%. This low performance reveals language understanding errors that are hard to spot outside of a generative setting, showing much room for progress.

Lianhui Qin, Antoine Bosselut, Ari Holtzman et al.

Counterfactual reasoning requires predicting how alternative events, contrary to what actually happened, might have resulted in different outcomes. Despite being considered a necessary component of AI-complete systems, few resources have been developed for evaluating counterfactual reasoning in narratives. In this paper, we propose Counterfactual Story Rewriting: given an original story and an intervening counterfactual event, the task is to minimally revise the story to make it compatible with the given counterfactual event. Solving this task will require deep understanding of causal narrative chains and counterfactual invariance, and integration of such story reasoning capabilities into conditional language generation models. We present TimeTravel, a new dataset of 29,849 counterfactual rewritings, each with the original story, a counterfactual event, and human-generated revision of the original story compatible with the counterfactual event. Additionally, we include 80,115 counterfactual "branches" without a rewritten storyline to support future work on semi- or un-supervised approaches to counterfactual story rewriting. Finally, we evaluate the counterfactual rewriting capacities of several competitive baselines based on pretrained language models, and assess whether common overlap and model-based automatic metrics for text generation correlate well with human scores for counterfactual rewriting.

Hao Fang, Hao Cheng, Maarten Sap et al.

We present Sounding Board, a social chatbot that won the 2017 Amazon Alexa Prize. The system architecture consists of several components including spoken language processing, dialogue management, language generation, and content management, with emphasis on user-centric and content-driven design. We also share insights gained from large-scale online logs based on 160,000 conversations with real-world users.