Saad Mahamood

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.

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.

Patrícia Schmidtová, Saad Mahamood, Simone Balloccu et al.

Automatic metrics are extensively used to evaluate natural language processing systems. However, there has been increasing focus on how they are used and reported by practitioners within the field. In this paper, we have conducted a survey on the use of automatic metrics, focusing particularly on natural language generation (NLG) tasks. We inspect which metrics are used as well as why they are chosen and how their use is reported. Our findings from this survey reveal significant shortcomings, including inappropriate metric usage, lack of implementation details and missing correlations with human judgements. We conclude with recommendations that we believe authors should follow to enable more rigour within the field.

Kaustubh D. Dhole, Varun Gangal, Sebastian Gehrmann et al.

Data augmentation is an important component in the robustness evaluation of models in natural language processing (NLP) and in enhancing the diversity of the data they are trained on. In this paper, we present NL-Augmenter, a new participatory Python-based natural language augmentation framework which supports the creation of both transformations (modifications to the data) and filters (data splits according to specific features). We describe the framework and an initial set of 117 transformations and 23 filters for a variety of natural language tasks. We demonstrate the efficacy of NL-Augmenter by using several of its transformations to analyze the robustness of popular natural language models. The infrastructure, datacards and robustness analysis results are available publicly on the NL-Augmenter repository (https://github.com/GEM-benchmark/NL-Augmenter).

Yayun Zhang, Guanyi Chen, Fahime Same et al.

Quantification is a fundamental component of everyday language use, yet little is known about how speakers decide whether and how to quantify in naturalistic production. We investigate quantification in Mandarin Chinese using a picture-based elicited description task in which speakers freely described scenes containing multiple objects, without explicit instructions to count or quantify. Across both spoken and written modalities, we examine three aspects of quantification: whether speakers choose to quantify at all, how precise their quantification is, and which quantificational strategies they adopt. Results show that object numerosity, animacy, and production modality systematically shape quantificational behaviour. In particular, increasing numerosity reduces both the likelihood and the precision of quantification, while animate referents and modality selectively modulate strategy choice. This study demonstrates how quantification can be examined under unconstrained production conditions and provides a naturalistic dataset for further analyses of quantity expression in language production.

Marcel Nawrath, Agnieszka Nowak, Tristan Ratz et al. · amazon-science

At the heart of the Pyramid evaluation method for text summarization lie human written summary content units (SCUs). These SCUs are concise sentences that decompose a summary into small facts. Such SCUs can be used to judge the quality of a candidate summary, possibly partially automated via natural language inference (NLI) systems. Interestingly, with the aim to fully automate the Pyramid evaluation, Zhang and Bansal (2021) show that SCUs can be approximated by automatically generated semantic role triplets (STUs). However, several questions currently lack answers, in particular: i) Are there other ways of approximating SCUs that can offer advantages? ii) Under which conditions are SCUs (or their approximations) offering the most value? In this work, we examine two novel strategies to approximate SCUs: generating SCU approximations from AMR meaning representations (SMUs) and from large language models (SGUs), respectively. We find that while STUs and SMUs are competitive, the best approximation quality is achieved by SGUs. We also show through a simple sentence-decomposition baseline (SSUs) that SCUs (and their approximations) offer the most value when ranking short summaries, but may not help as much when ranking systems or longer summaries.

Zdeněk Kasner, Vilém Zouhar, Patrícia Schmidtová et al.

Span annotation is the task of localizing and classifying text spans according to custom guidelines. Annotated spans can be used to analyze and evaluate high-quality texts for which single-score metrics fail to provide actionable feedback. Until recently, span annotation was limited to human annotators or fine-tuned models. In this study, we show that large language models (LLMs) can serve as flexible and cost-effective span annotation backbones. To demonstrate their utility, we compare LLMs to skilled human annotators on three diverse span annotation tasks: evaluating data-to-text generation, identifying translation errors, and detecting propaganda techniques. We demonstrate that LLMs achieve inter-annotator agreement (IAA) comparable to human annotators at a fraction of a cost per output annotation. We also manually analyze model outputs, finding that LLMs make errors at a similar rate to human annotators. We release the dataset of more than 40k model and human annotations for further research.

Patrícia Schmidtová, Ondřej Dušek, Saad Mahamood

We examine evaluation of faithfulness to input data in the context of hotel highlights: brief LLM-generated summaries that capture unique features of accommodations. Through human evaluation campaigns involving categorical error assessment and span-level annotation, we compare traditional metrics, trainable methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Our findings reveal that simpler metrics like word overlap correlate surprisingly well with human judgments (Spearman correlation rank of 0.63), often outperforming more complex methods when applied to out-of-domain data. We further demonstrate that while LLMs can generate high-quality highlights, they prove unreliable for evaluation as they tend to severely under- or over-annotate. Our analysis of real-world business impacts shows incorrect and non-checkable information pose the greatest risks. We also highlight challenges in crowdsourced evaluations.

Maciej Zembrzuski, Saad Mahamood

Current neural network-based methods to the problem of document summarisation struggle when applied to datasets containing large inputs. In this paper we propose a new approach to the challenge of content-selection when dealing with end-to-end summarisation of user reviews of accommodations. We show that by combining an extractive approach with externally pre-trained sentence level embeddings in an addition to an abstractive summarisation model we can outperform existing methods when this is applied to the task of summarising a large input dataset. We also prove that predicting sentence level embedding of a summary increases the quality of an end-to-end system for loosely aligned source to target corpora, than compared to commonly predicting probability distributions of sentence selection.

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.

Emiel van Miltenburg, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Ondřej Dušek et al.

We observe a severe under-reporting of the different kinds of errors that Natural Language Generation systems make. This is a problem, because mistakes are an important indicator of where systems should still be improved. If authors only report overall performance metrics, the research community is left in the dark about the specific weaknesses that are exhibited by `state-of-the-art' research. Next to quantifying the extent of error under-reporting, this position paper provides recommendations for error identification, analysis and reporting.

Simon Mille, Kaustubh D. Dhole, Saad Mahamood et al.

Machine learning approaches applied to NLP are often evaluated by summarizing their performance in a single number, for example accuracy. Since most test sets are constructed as an i.i.d. sample from the overall data, this approach overly simplifies the complexity of language and encourages overfitting to the head of the data distribution. As such, rare language phenomena or text about underrepresented groups are not equally included in the evaluation. To encourage more in-depth model analyses, researchers have proposed the use of multiple test sets, also called challenge sets, that assess specific capabilities of a model. In this paper, we develop a framework based on this idea which is able to generate controlled perturbations and identify subsets in text-to-scalar, text-to-text, or data-to-text settings. By applying this framework to the GEM generation benchmark, we propose an evaluation suite made of 80 challenge sets, demonstrate the kinds of analyses that it enables and shed light onto the limits of current generation models.

Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal et al.

We introduce GEM, a living benchmark for natural language Generation (NLG), its Evaluation, and Metrics. Measuring progress in NLG relies on a constantly evolving ecosystem of automated metrics, datasets, and human evaluation standards. Due to this moving target, new models often still evaluate on divergent anglo-centric corpora with well-established, but flawed, metrics. This disconnect makes it challenging to identify the limitations of current models and opportunities for progress. Addressing this limitation, GEM provides an environment in which models can easily be applied to a wide set of tasks and in which evaluation strategies can be tested. Regular updates to the benchmark will help NLG research become more multilingual and evolve the challenge alongside models. This paper serves as the description of the data for which we are organizing a shared task at our ACL 2021 Workshop and to which we invite the entire NLG community to participate.