Emiel van Miltenburg

Hien Huynh, Tomas O. Lentz, Emiel van Miltenburg

This case study investigates the extent to which a language model (GPT-2) is able to capture native speakers' intuitions about implicit causality in a sentence completion task. We first reproduce earlier results (showing lower surprisal values for pronouns that are congruent with either the subject or object, depending on which one corresponds to the implicit causality bias of the verb), and then examine the effects of gender and verb frequency on model performance. Our second study examines the reasoning ability of GPT-2: is the model able to produce more sensible motivations for why the subject VERBed the object if the verbs have stronger causality biases? We also developed a methodology to avoid human raters being biased by obscenities and disfluencies generated by the model.

Emiel van Miltenburg

This year the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG) will feature an award for the paper with the best evaluation. The purpose of this award is to provide an incentive for NLG researchers to pay more attention to the way they assess the output of their systems. This essay provides a short introduction to evaluation in NLG, explaining key terms and distinctions.

Anouck Braggaar, Christine Liebrecht, Emiel van Miltenburg et al.

This review gives an extensive overview of evaluation methods for task-oriented dialogue systems, paying special attention to practical applications of dialogue systems, for example for customer service. The review (1) provides an overview of the used constructs and metrics in previous work, (2) discusses challenges in the context of dialogue system evaluation and (3) develops a research agenda for the future of dialogue system evaluation. We conducted a systematic review of four databases (ACL, ACM, IEEE and Web of Science), which after screening resulted in 122 studies. Those studies were carefully analysed for the constructs and methods they proposed for evaluation. We found a wide variety in both constructs and methods. Especially the operationalisation is not always clearly reported. Newer developments concerning large language models are discussed in two contexts: to power dialogue systems and to use in the evaluation process. We hope that future work will take a more critical approach to the operationalisation and specification of the used constructs. To work towards this aim, this review ends with recommendations for evaluation and suggestions for outstanding questions.

Emiel van Miltenburg, Chenghua Lin

This article provides a brief overview of the field of Natural Language Generation. The term Natural Language Generation (NLG), in its broadest definition, refers to the study of systems that verbalize some form of information through natural language. That information could be stored in a large database or knowledge graph (in data-to-text applications), but NLG researchers may also study summarisation (text-to-text) or image captioning (image-to-text), for example. As a subfield of Natural Language Processing, NLG is closely related to other sub-disciplines such as Machine Translation (MT) and Dialog Systems. Some NLG researchers exclude MT from their definition of the field, since there is no content selection involved where the system has to determine what to say. Conversely, dialog systems do not typically fall under the header of Natural Language Generation since NLG is just one component of dialog systems (the others being Natural Language Understanding and Dialog Management). However, with the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), different subfields of Natural Language Processing have converged on similar methodologies for the production of natural language and the evaluation of automatically generated text.

Emiel van Miltenburg

This report documents the results of a recent survey in the SIGGEN community, focusing on Dual Use issues in Natural Language Generation (NLG). SIGGEN is the Special Interest Group (SIG) of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) for researchers working on NLG. The survey was prompted by the ACL executive board, which asked all SIGs to provide an overview of dual use issues within their respective subfields. The survey was sent out in October 2024 and the results were processed in January 2025. With 23 respondents, the survey is presumably not representative of all SIGGEN members, but at least this document offers a helpful resource for future discussions. This report is open to feedback from the SIGGEN community. Let me know if you have any questions or comments!

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.

Emiel van Miltenburg, Chris van der Lee, Emiel Krahmer

Preregistration refers to the practice of specifying what you are going to do, and what you expect to find in your study, before carrying out the study. This practice is increasingly common in medicine and psychology, but is rarely discussed in NLP. This paper discusses preregistration in more detail, explores how NLP researchers could preregister their work, and presents several preregistration questions for different kinds of studies. Finally, we argue in favour of registered reports, which could provide firmer grounds for slow science in NLP research. The goal of this paper is to elicit a discussion in the NLP community, which we hope to synthesise into a general NLP preregistration form in future research.

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.

Emiel van Miltenburg

Automatic image description systems are commonly trained and evaluated using crowdsourced, human-generated image descriptions. The best-performing system is then determined using some measure of similarity to the reference data (BLEU, Meteor, CIDER, etc). Thus, both the quality of the systems as well as the quality of the evaluation depends on the quality of the descriptions. As Section 2 will show, the quality of current image description datasets is insufficient. I argue that there is a need for more detailed guidelines that take into account the needs of visually impaired users, but also the feasibility of generating suitable descriptions. With high-quality data, evaluation of image description systems could use reference descriptions, but we should also look for alternatives.

Thiago Castro Ferreira, Chris van der Lee, Emiel van Miltenburg et al.

Traditionally, most data-to-text applications have been designed using a modular pipeline architecture, in which non-linguistic input data is converted into natural language through several intermediate transformations. In contrast, recent neural models for data-to-text generation have been proposed as end-to-end approaches, where the non-linguistic input is rendered in natural language with much less explicit intermediate representations in-between. This study introduces a systematic comparison between neural pipeline and end-to-end data-to-text approaches for the generation of text from RDF triples. Both architectures were implemented making use of state-of-the art deep learning methods as the encoder-decoder Gated-Recurrent Units (GRU) and Transformer. Automatic and human evaluations together with a qualitative analysis suggest that having explicit intermediate steps in the generation process results in better texts than the ones generated by end-to-end approaches. Moreover, the pipeline models generalize better to unseen inputs. Data and code are publicly available.

Emiel van Miltenburg, Desmond Elliott, Piek Vossen

Automatic image description systems are commonly trained and evaluated on large image description datasets. Recently, researchers have started to collect such datasets for languages other than English. An unexplored question is how different these datasets are from English and, if there are any differences, what causes them to differ. This paper provides a cross-linguistic comparison of Dutch, English, and German image descriptions. We find that these descriptions are similar in many respects, but the familiarity of crowd workers with the subjects of the images has a noticeable influence on description specificity.

Emiel van Miltenburg, Desmond Elliott

In recent years we have seen rapid and significant progress in automatic image description but what are the open problems in this area? Most work has been evaluated using text-based similarity metrics, which only indicate that there have been improvements, without explaining what has improved. In this paper, we present a detailed error analysis of the descriptions generated by a state-of-the-art attention-based model. Our analysis operates on two levels: first we check the descriptions for accuracy, and then we categorize the types of errors we observe in the inaccurate descriptions. We find only 20% of the descriptions are free from errors, and surprisingly that 26% are unrelated to the image. Finally, we manually correct the most frequently occurring error types (e.g. gender identification) to estimate the performance reward for addressing these errors, observing gains of 0.2--1 BLEU point per type.

Emiel van Miltenburg, Roser Morante, Desmond Elliott

We provide a qualitative analysis of the descriptions containing negations (no, not, n't, nobody, etc) in the Flickr30K corpus, and a categorization of negation uses. Based on this analysis, we provide a set of requirements that an image description system should have in order to generate negation sentences. As a pilot experiment, we used our categorization to manually annotate sentences containing negations in the Flickr30K corpus, with an agreement score of K=0.67. With this paper, we hope to open up a broader discussion of subjective language in image descriptions.

Emiel van Miltenburg

An untested assumption behind the crowdsourced descriptions of the images in the Flickr30K dataset (Young et al., 2014) is that they "focus only on the information that can be obtained from the image alone" (Hodosh et al., 2013, p. 859). This paper presents some evidence against this assumption, and provides a list of biases and unwarranted inferences that can be found in the Flickr30K dataset. Finally, it considers methods to find examples of these, and discusses how we should deal with stereotype-driven descriptions in future applications.

Emiel van Miltenburg

This paper presents a pattern-based method that can be used to infer adjectival scales, such as <lukewarm, warm, hot>, from a corpus. Specifically, the proposed method uses lexical patterns to automatically identify and order pairs of scalemates, followed by a filtering phase in which unrelated pairs are discarded. For the filtering phase, several different similarity measures are implemented and compared. The model presented in this paper is evaluated using the current standard, along with a novel evaluation set, and shown to be at least as good as the current state-of-the-art.