Takumi Ito

Takumi Ito, Kees van Deemter, Jun Suzuki

A number of automatic evaluation metrics have been proposed for natural language generation systems. The most common approach to automatic evaluation is the use of a reference-based metric that compares the model's output with gold-standard references written by humans. However, it is expensive to create such references, and for some tasks, such as response generation in dialogue, creating references is not a simple matter. Therefore, various reference-free metrics have been developed in recent years. In this survey, which intends to cover the full breadth of all NLG tasks, we investigate the most commonly used approaches, their application, and their other uses beyond evaluating models. The survey concludes by highlighting some promising directions for future research.

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.